Thursday, May 4, 2017

Donald Trump's first 100 days: in cartoons

Donald Trump's first 100 days: in cartoons
Copyright Associated Press

Eastern European Jews and the Case of the Marginalized Elite | By: PAUL GOTTFRIED

Eastern European Jews and the Case of the Marginalized Elite
Professor Paul Gottfried
Professor Paul Gottfried
The story of Eastern European Jews who immigrated to America in the beginning of the twentieth century is a story of “self-marginalization.” The more dramatically Eastern European Jews progress socio-economically, the more strenuously they identify with “marginalized groups” and seek to undermine the white Christian majority population. And though he takes care to guard against charges of being Politically Incorrect, David R. Verbeeten’s ThePolitics of Non-Assimilation: Three Generations of Eastern European Jews in the United States in the Twentieth Century (De Kalb: NIU Press, 2017) is a goldmine of sociological evidence revealing this critically important phenomenon which so many scholars are happy to ignore.
The Dissident Right may find Verbeeten controversial as well. Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. [In Search of Anti-Semitismby Paul Gottfried, Takimag, April 6, 2009] Other Jewish immigrants in other times and places have behaved very differently, including backing causes which today would be called reactionary or even “racist.”
Most Sephardic and German Jews who came to this country disappeared quickly into the gentile gene pool. As late as 1920, a plurality of American Jews, mainly those of German and Sephardic descent, voted for the Republican presidential candidate, Warren Harding. (Presumably the 38% who voted for the socialist Eugene Debs came from the newly enfranchised Eastern European Jews) [U.S. Presidential Elections: Jewish Voting Record, Jewish Virtual Library, Accessed April 20, 2017]. One of the earliest religious congregations to declare for Southern secession was the Temple in Charleston, Beth Elohim, the congregation of Confederate secretary of state Judah Benjamin. Thousands of Jews, of German or Sephardic origin, fought for the Confederacy [Jewish Confederatesby Hunter Wallace, Occidental Dissent, June 5, 2013].
Verbeeten gamely attempts to explain the change in American Jewish political attitudes but sometimes avoids the obvious. There is no demonstrable correlation, he tells us not very convincingly, between the fear of anti-Semitism and the compulsive affinity of Eastern European Jews for “left-wing activism.” Although Eastern European Jews went into the Democratic Party en masse, we’re told the party they chose may have “harbored” more anti-Semites than did the Republican Party. He also claims that “rather than antisemitism, the Jewish Left is far more decisively correlated with secularization.” The proof we are given is that Orthodox Jews, even of Eastern European provenance, remained “conservative.”
The author, a Cambridge PhD with whom I’ve corresponded for years, is far too intelligent to take such assertions seriously. It seems unlikely those Jews who eagerly assimilated feared and/or loathed the goyim whose company they were seeking. It’s equally unlikely Jewish leftist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, which constantly claim rampant anti-Semitism among white Christian heterosexuals, are free of any fear of antisemitism.
Besides, the attraction of Eastern European Jews to the Democratic Party was not the chief measure of their radicalism. There was a disproportionately large Jewish membership in the Communist Party. Verbeeten analyzes this inconvenient truth in his discussion of Eastern European radical Alexander Bittelman, one of the architects of the American Communist Party. He also notes the heavy Jewish vote cast in 1948 for the Soviet-appeaser Henry Wallace and the very noticeable Jewish presence in almost every culturally Leftist pressure group in the US for the last century. This radicalism tells us more about American Jewish political attitudes than the fact Jews voted for FDR.
Verbeeten’s insistence that Jewish radicalism and Jewish self-marginalization correlates not with fear of antisemitism but secularization raises an obvious question. Why were earlier Jewish immigrants to America far less likely than the Eastern European latecomers to become permanently radicalized once they stopped attending synagogue or performing Jewish rituals?
Lots of German and Sephardic Jews broke away from their ancestral ritual community, without going on to support Stalin’s Five Year Program or demanding transgendered rest rooms. Admittedly Orthodox Jews are more likely than other Jews to vote Republican now, perhaps because of the GOP’s fervent support for Israel. But Orthodox congregations have also had their fill of Jewish leftists (like Abe Foxman). And though Orthodox Rabbis have not very often marched for gay rights, it’s doubtful “secularization” is the chief reason Eastern European Jews remain on the political and social left.
More importantly, a leftist mindset is by no means peculiar to Eastern European Jews. This group has behaved like other ethnically cohesive minorities in America drawing friend/enemy distinctions. That such groups would support the Left is entirely predictable. Their members view themselves as a minority struggling against an Establishment from which they think (or would like to think) they’re being excluded. Pointing to the majority “enemy” that allegedly threatens one’s minority existence makes perfectly good sense from an in-group perspective. Having an enemy, even an imaginary one, at the gate prevents loss of collective solidarity—and benefits those whose job it is to exaggerate the danger of hostile outsiders.
The German Jewish patricians whom Verbeeten discusses as the managers of Jewish philanthropies were not particularly interested in maintaining Jewish solidarity. They admired the Protestant upper-class whom they tried to imitate. German Jewish philanthropists were far more indulgent than Eastern European Jews in dealing with the social elite who snubbed them, according to Verbeeten. The prejudice they encountered in seeking membership to private clubs and opulent WASP neighborhoods was viewed as a temporary inconvenience. It was not something they cared to denounce since they hoped to become the friends of those who were snubbing them. Such conduct was not unusual for a group seeking admittance into a higher social stratum.
However, once Eastern European Jews took over these philanthropies, and formed the American Jewish Congress in 1918, they attacked white Christian discrimination in any and every form. Of course, these vaunted Jewish warriors against discrimination were far from equally critical of those who attacked them from the Left. Indeed they’ve often bent backward to excuse the hateful antisemitism of blacks and other designated victim groups. Such hypocrisy is deemed an acceptable cost to maintain the Jewish alliance with the socially marginal.
What is equally remarkable about this Jewish “self-marginalization” that Verbeeten discusses is its intergenerational character. It has not faded over time but resulted in jumping from one Leftist commitment to the next, from Alexander Bittelman’s Stalinism through support for the Civil Rights revolution in all its phases down to feminism, gay marriage and crusades for illegal immigrants.
We are clearly dealing with a group that embraces all kinds of Leftist causes, most of which have a destabilizing effect on what remains of a traditional Christian society.
Let me repeat: I don’t find anything about this behavior that has characterized all Jews at all times (unlike MacDonald). Non-Eastern European Jews often rushed to assimilate when given the opportunity; some of the major conservative figures of the nineteenth century were Jewish converts to Christianity, like the English Jew Benjamin Disraeli and the German Jew Friedrich Stahl. And Jews from the former Soviet Union, who are also “Eastern European,” have been generally strongly Zionistic but do not demonstrate the persistent, peculiar social behavior that Verbeeten associates with his study group. [The Election And The Jewish Voteby Jay Lefkowitz, Commentary, February 1, 2005]
Neither David Verbeeten nor I would overgeneralize about these tendencies. The radicalizing influence of Eastern European Jewry on American Jewish politics refers to a general trend. It should not be taken to mean that every descendant of every Eastern European Jew who came in America is necessarily on the anti-Christian Left (I have met many who are not). Nor does it mean that German and Sephardic Jews have not contributed individually to this trend.
For example, Verbeeten presents Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as a prime example of the Jewish Leftist politics that he’s investigating. But Frankfurter, who was an avid New Dealer and a champion of using the Supreme Court to end racial segregation, was a Viennese, not an Eastern European Jew. Two leading writers on the Holocaust, who emphatically blame the white Christian West for Nazi atrocities, Deborah Lipstadt and Daniel Goldhagen, are of German Jewish descent. The payroller of Leftist causes worldwide George Soros was, like my ultraconservative father, born in Budapest.
Verbeeten is examining the general cultural and social influence of a particular ethnic subgroup, not the atypical behavior of individuals who form limiting cases. One might also expect, all things being equal, that Jewish refugees from the Nazis would exhibit sympathy for the Left as the presumed enemy of the enemy from whom they fled.
Yet the general trend is there.
To end with a personal story: My eldest aunt, who lived into her late nineties, attended synagogue regularly in her later years. In the 1960s, she and her husband had been conservative Republicans, but in 1996, shortly before her death, she told me that her Rabbi had warned his congregation against voting for Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole.
What was the reason for this sudden reversal? This utterly bland moderate Republican, my aunt was told, was a hardened anti-Semite. Arguably, increasing one’s contact with Jewish communal activities may also increase the likelihood of becoming a Leftist. My aunt, in fact, did go on to vote for Bill Clinton.
Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of MarxismHis most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.
(Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Why Can't Jews Handle The Openly Shown Facts About Jews ? This is not that hard.

Why Can't Jews Handle The Openly Shown Facts About Jews ?



How blind are you ? Do you just refuse to hear ? Wake Up this is not that hard.

DAVID SHEEN A JEW HIMSELF, TELLS HOW NASTY JEWS ARE TO PALESTINIANS


TopJewish Religions: Christianity: Penetration of The Christian Organizations
How The Jews Have Corrupted Christianity
CHRISTIANS, AWAKE!!
“We have long past taken care to discredit the clergy of the Goyim, and thereby to ruin their mission
on earth which in these days might still be a great hinderance to us. Day by day their influence on
the peoples of the world is falling lower. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so
that now only years divide us from the moment of the COMPLETE WRECKING of that Christian
religion! As to other religions, we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them.
“In the meantime, we shall not overtly lay a finger on existing churches, but we shall fight against
them by criticism. Our contemporary press will continue be every means to lower their prestige in
the manner which can only be practised by the genius of our gifted tribe.” – Protocol 17
The Jews, have become the most ANTI-God people on the face of the earth because they rejected
God and rejected His Son! They’ve gone the opposite way, to where they now fight Jesus more than
any other people. More than any other religion, Jews and Judaism actively FIGHT Christ. They’re
not just neutral, they’re not indifferent, they are actively ANTI-CHRIST! Most of the hate and evil
that can be found in Judiasm, is not from the Bible, it’s from the TALMUD, the writings of their
rabbis and elders supposedly about the Bible; the traditions of men of which Jesus told them, “You
have made the Word of God of none effect through your traditions!” (Mark 7:13) The Jew’s view of
their Talmudic teachings is expressed in “The Jewish Encyclopedia”:
“The Talmud is regarded almost as the supreme authority by the majority of Jews. Even the
Bible is relegated to a secondary place.”
The Talmud itself says:
“The words of the elders are more important than the words of the Prophets.” (Treatise
Berachoth, i.4.)
Regarding Jesus Christ, “The Jewish Encyclopedia” tells us:
“It is the tendency of Jewish legends in the Talmud, the Midrash” (the sermons in the
synagogues) “and in the Life of Jesus Christ (Toledoth Jeshua) that originated in the Middle Ages,
to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death.
He is generally alluded to as ‘that anonymous one’, ‘liar’, ‘impostor’, or ‘bastard’.”
These “sacred” writings of the Jews also refer to Jesus as a “fool”, “sorcerer”, “profane person”,
“idolater”, “dog”, “child of lust”, and much worse. The Jews’ wish to conceal from the outer world
that which they teach led to the censoring of the above- referred-to passages of the Talmud during
the 17th century. Knowledge of the Talmud had become fairly widespread then and the
embarrassment thus caused to the rabbis and elders led to the following edict (translated from the
original Hebrew by P.L.B. Drach, who was brought up in a Talmudic school and later became
converted to Christianity): top of page
“This is why we enjoin you, under pain of excommunication major, to print nothing in future
editions, whether of the Mishna or of the Gemara, which relates whether for good or evil to the acts
of Jesus the Nazarene, and to substitute instead a circle like this: ‘O’, which will warn the rabbis and
schoolmasters to teach the young these passages only ‘viva voce’ (by word of mouth). By means of
this precaution the followers of the Nazarene will have no further pretext to attack us on this
subject.” (Decree of the Judaist Synod which met in Poland in 1631.)
Although the Jews today are as anti-Christ as they’ve ever been, they’ve been so clever in their
propaganda, they have even sold the Christians on the idea that they are God’s special “chosen
people”! The preferred Bible that most fundamental American Christians use today is the “Scofield”
version, which is just full a false doctrines and interpretations trying to prove that the Jews are God’s
people. It’s shocking to realise that actual Christians are now so deceived by the Jews that they’ve
allowed them to kick the Bible and God and prayer out of the publik schools! They don’t even see
what is going on!
Just think! – Millions of Christians are now supporting the people of the Antichrist! In fact, some of
them are the staunchest friends of “ISRAEL”! The cruel, anti-Christ leaders of “Israel” who have
STOLEN an entire country from its rightful owners, are now saying that the Fundamentalist
CHRISTIANS of America are their greatest friends and staunchest supporters! A 1985 “Washington
Post” article cites a good example showing how duped and deceived many of these Christians are:
“Rev. Falwell (popular American preacher and leader of the so-called “Moral Majority”) told the
conservative Rabbinical Assembly at their March 13 Miami session, ‘Twenty-five years ago many of
us were saying this is a Christian republic.’ He added, ‘NOW we say “JUDEO-Christian” republic.
There is a spirit of pluralism that did not exist then. We have had our excesses’, Mr. Falwell said,
‘and we can only say we’re sorry and we’ll try and ‘do better’. He promised to ‘mobilise 70 million
conservative Christians for Israel and against “anti-Semitism”. Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the
American Jewish Committee commented after the Miami session, in which he participated, ‘It was
thrilling to watch Jerry Falwell become a born-again American.'” top of page
Another “Washington Post” article said,
“Embracing Abraham’s Covenant as fervently as the most impassioned Zionists, the burgeoning
Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is fast becoming one of Israel’s most potent
allies in its conflict with the Arab world. An aide to Mr. Menachem Begin said that the Evangelicals
“are a pillar that Israel has in the United States. They number ten times the Jews in America, and
they are outspoken. Naturally, we look KINDLY on what they are doing.”
Imagine, Menachem BEGIN and his ilk “looking kindly” on the CHRISTIANS of America! Begin,
Yitzak Shamir, Ariel Sharon and the other Jewish TERRORISTS who now rule “Israel” are as
ruthless and anti-Christ as anyone could possibly be! Begin is the former leader of the terrorist
organisation, IRGUN, and he personally claimed responsibility for blowing up the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem, killing over ninety innocent civilians. It was Begin, who in April 1948, ordered
and led the Irgun attack on the unarmed Arab village of Deir Yasin in Palestine, murdering 254
helpless men, women, and children! The incident received scant news coverage in the West,
although “Time” magazine did report:
“Jewish terrorists of the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi stormed the village of Deir Yasin
and butchered everyone in sight. The corpses of 250 Arabs, mostly women and small children,
were later found tossed in wells.”
This atrocity so shocked and terrified the surrounding Arab communities, that as news of it spread,
they immediately abandoned their homes, farms and villages, and fled into the desert, warned by the
Israelis that the same fate would befall them. Today 40 YEARS LATER, literally MILLIONS of
homeless Christian and Muslim Palestinians are suffering in squalor, poverty, and deprivation in
“refugee camps” in the Arab nations bordering Israel. Boasting in Tel Aviv during an election
campaign in 1950, Begin claimed credit for the foundation of the Zionist State through his great
“military victory” at DEIR YASIN:
“Irgun’s contribution to Israel was DEIR YASIN, which caused the Arabs to leave the country and
make room for the newcomers. Without Deir Yasin and the subsequent Arab rout, the present
government could not absorb one-tenth of the immigrants.”
It’s hard to believe that CHRISTIANS could actually support and rally around someone like
Menachem Begin! – How easily the Jews have been able to deceive them! They’ve been duped worse
than anybody! Jesus told the Jewish leaders of His day that they were “whited sepulchres full of dead
men’s bones! – Clean on the OUTSIDE of the platter, but WITHIN were full of FILTH and ROT
and ALL uncleanliness!” (Mat 23:25-27) They are IMPOSTORS, Scribes, Pharisees,
HYPOCRITES! Pretending to be so just and righteous, they’ve used their international political and
economic clout to steal an entire COUNTRY away from the poor Palestinians who’d lived there for
almost 2,000 years!
The whole thing is a LIE of the Devil! He’s DECEIVED ALMOST THE WHOLE WORLD into
believing that they’re the “chosen people” returning to their “promised land”. But they are
IMPOSTORS! Jewish source after Jewish source document this. Consider the JEWISH Historian
Nathan M. Pollock who by 1966 had devoted 40 of his 64 years trying to prove at least 6 out of 10
ISRAELIS and 9 out of 10 Jews in the Western Hemisphere HAVE NO SEMITE BLOOD! He and
a host of others have gathered an INCREDIBLE amount of documentation on this FACT! Consider
this when you see the media or someone who is too ignorant to know better labeling someone for
criticizing the Jews as “anti-Semite”. In FACT, the Jews are the most ANTI-SEMITIC PEOPLE the
world has ever known. They are relentless in their persecution, torture, and murder of the Arabs,
TRUE SEMITIC people who are the direct descendants of Abraham. top of page
Also consider what the Jewish historian/writer Arthur Koestler has to say on page 17 of his awesome
and enlightening book, “The Thirteenth Tribe”:
“The large majority of Jews after World War II in the world, were of Eastern origin-and thus
perhaps mainly of Khazar origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the
Jordan, but from the Volga; not from the Canaan but from the Caucausus, once believed to be the
cradle of the Aryan race. Genetically, they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar
tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Should this turn out to be the case, then the
term anti-Semitic would be VOID OF MEANING, based on a MISAPPREHENSION shared by
both killers and victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins
to look like the most cruel HOAX which history has ever perpetrated.” [Indeed, Mr. Koestler went
on to provide intense proof of ALL of this and much more!]
God doesn’t need us to promote Israel. Anyone who believes that the ZIONIST STATE of Israel set
up by this One World Conspiracy is the same as the NATION of ISRAEL referred to in Scriptures,
IS MISERABLY DECEIVED the way Christ warned us in Scriptures that “MANY would be”.
ANY Christian preacher who actively teaches this FALSE DOCTRINE is also either miserably
deceived or he is outright LYING, and may God have mercy on him. The Seed of Abraham IS NOT
THE SAME AS the so-called and self-styled “Jews” of today!! [See Rev 2:9; 3:9 – MANY other
Scripture verses confirm this also.]
Jesus Himself told them, “Ye are of your father the DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do!
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him!”
(Jn 8:44) They have tried to ruthlessly cast out the TRUE children of God in Palestine, the Christian
Palestinians, and to establish their own “Messianic Kingdom” in modern-day so-called “Israel”!
What a travesty of justice and mockery of the Truth!
The Jews have now got most of the Christians so deceived and so blinded and so deafened by their
propaganda, that they follow along, tag along, like they’re on a leash. “Gentile dogs” is exactly what
the Jews call the “Goyim”, and they’re certainly on the leash now, trotting along right behind,
assisting the anti-Semitic Jews promote the Godless STATE of Israel and her MURDERERS . . .
going everywhere the Jews go, “barking and yapping” exactly what they want them to say and doing
exactly as they want them to do!
The Christians of this world are going to wake up one of these days and find out what a big mistake
they made in giving the Mideast to the Jews! – And in giving their OWN countries to the Jews!
When the Jews finally get in FULL control and show their true colors, particularly under the
ANTICHRIST, then some of these Christians are going to wake up to the FACT that they made a
big mistake in backing the Jews who one day soon will openly show themselves to be the very forces
of the Antichrist himself! – But by then, for many, it will be too late! top of page
Christian Left Veers on Israel After Jews Helped in a Crisis
Rev. Campbell
National Council of Churches Sign Onto Campaign Against Jerusalem
It Wasn’t Our Money, Insists AJCommittee
By IRA STOLL
FORWARD STAFF
December 27, 1996
WASHINGTON – An advertisement placed by liberal Protestant groups calling for an end to Israel’s sovereignty over
Jerusalem is threatening to erode the interfaith cooperation that led to last summer’s fabled Jewish-Christian joint effort on the
rebuilding of burnt black churches.
The general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, who
signed the ad, appeared in June with Rabbi David Saperstein at a press conference in New York to announce that the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations would assist in reconstructing the arson-damaged churches. Her organization, a leading voice
for the Christian left, took out joint newspaper advertisements with the American Jewish Committee to draw attention to the
church burnings, and in August she traveled with the AJCommittee’s Rabbi A. James Rudin and other religious leaders to
rebuild a church in Tennessee with President Clinton.
Now those same rabbis are expressing disappointment at the Rev. Campbell, the National Council of Churches and the other
Christian groups that placed a full-page advertisement in the Dec. 21 number of The New York Times. Under the title
“Christians Call for a Shared Jerusalem,” the ad says, “Jerusalem at peace cannot belong exclusively to one people, one
country, or one religion.” Jewish leaders say they were not consulted in advance of the ad. They warned that the statement
might hurt the delicate Middle East peace process as well as relations between Christians and Jews in America.
“It is a major disappointment that erodes the level of confidence necessary to have really close, functioning, coalition
relationships,” Rabbi Saperstein said.
He said the peace process now is at a precarious stage over issues like Hebron and Palestinian Arab autonomy. The parties to
the process agreed to leave discussion of Jerusalem to the end of the talks, he said, and to inject the Holy City into the
discussion now would be counterproductive. “Whatever one thinks of the merits of the message, the choice to put this message
out right now is clearly ill-advised and likely to undermine the peace process,” Rabbi Saperstein said.
Rabbi Rudin also expressed dismay at the timing of the ad. “It’s aimed at the Netanyahu government, it’s aimed at an Israeli
government,” he said. “It’s really a one-sided statement….It’s just very negative.” Rabbi Rudin said the ad’s signers were not
calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem before 1967, when Israel captured the eastern part of the city from Jordan. He
emphasized that the
AJCommittee had donated no money to the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, and he said that, while
cooperating with liberal Protestant groups on domestic issues, AJCommittee often differs with those groups on international
matters. Likewise, the organization may cooperate with evangelical Christian groups on some international matters but differ on
domestic policy.
‘Naive and Ill-informed’
“It certainly does not represent the views of all Christians,” said the secretary-treasurer of the National Christian Leadership
Conference, the Rev. William Harter. The Rev. Harter, pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Falling Spring in Chambersburg,
Pa., called the views expressed in the ad “naive” and “ill-informed.”
The Rev. Harter said that in view of 1,900 years of Christian anti-Semitism and the effects of the Crusades against Jews,
Muslims and Eastern Christians, “It is especially unbecoming for Christian leaders to be dictating to Jews and Muslims what
solutions they should come up with.”
For his part, Rabbi Saperstein rejected the suggestion that UAHC donations to the council of churches’ restricted fund for
rebuilding burnt churches had in any way subsidized the ad.
The ad includes a coupon to return to “Churches for Middle East Peace” and listed an address here for the organization in the
same building occupied by the Washington offices of the National Council of the Churches, the American Baptist Churches,
USA, Church of the Brethren, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Unitarian Universalist
Association, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church. Those groups signed the ad, as did the American
Friends Service Committee, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers and the Catholic Conference
of Major Superiors of Men’s Institutes. Another signer is James Akins, who is suing the Federal Election Commission with a
group of former American officials to force the FEC to take action against the pro-Israel lobby, Aipac.
The coupon says, “I believe the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee should raise and recommend the concept of a
shared Jerusalem during confirmation of the next U.S. Secretary of State.”
Rabbi Rudin described Churches for Middle East Peace as “uniformly unfriendly to Israel,” and he characterized the signers of
the ad as “a heavily liberal Protestant group” that had little representation of the Catholic or evangelical Christians. “It does not
represent the broad cross-section of all the Christian community,” he said.
The director of Churches for Middle East Peace, Corrine Whitlatch, said the ad was timed to coincide with Christmas, when
people would be interested in a Christian perspective on Jerusalem. She said the ad was not intended to hurt the peace process
or interfaith cooperation. “We hope that our Jewish colleagues can see this ad as a constructive step forward, one that does not
threaten Israel’s interests and claims on Jerusalem,” she said.
Ms. Whitlatch said that the Rev. Campbell had been “personally very supportive” of the ad. She said that while many Jews
might have preferred that her group remain silent on the issue of Jerusalem, such a posture was “just not feasible” because of
pressure from Christians in the Middle East.
The Rev. Campbell did not return a phone call seeking comment.
‘Confusion and Division’
Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which also participated in the effort to rebuild burnt
black churches, drafted a letter to all of the signers of the advertisement. “We are saddened that religious leaders who are
charged with bringing spiritual understanding and healing to their communities and the world are now spreading confusion and
division regarding this most sensitive issue,” wrote Mr. Foxman, who referred to the ad as an “unhelpful intrusion.”
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations huddled early Monday to craft a response to the ad.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference, called the ad “very disturbing,” noting that several member
organizations have worked with groups that signed the ad.
The Conference plans no ad to respond to the one placed by Churches for Middle East Peace, but it does plan to develop
talking points on the subject and to contact Senator Helms and the Rev. Campbell, said one president who participated in the
call. The response will probably emphasize the ill treatment suffered by Christians when Jerusalem was under Arab control.
HOW THEY STOLE THE CHURCH
by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (August 1991), Liberty Bell Magazine top of page
Christianity is still one of the cardinal factors in any reasonable estimate of our present
plight. It is certainly more important than economics, and it made possible the alien capture
and occupation of the United States.
The Christian churches fall into two categories. The Protestant sects necessarily depend for
their authority on a belief that the Bible was divinely inspired and is therefore literally
accurate. This basis of their religion was gradually eroded over the past century. With few
noteworthy exceptions, (1) the major Protestant churches have slyly but effectively replaced
their Bible with the “social gospel” of the Marxian Reformation, relying on the fecklessness
or gullibility of their congregations to overlook the spiritual swindle. They have thus
become religiously, as well as intellectually, fraudulent.
(1. The principle exceptions are the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans, which is now in the
hands of a bureaucracy that is bent on debasing it to the level of the “main-line” Lutheran
churches (cf. *Liberty Bell*, July 1990, pp. 16-25); the much smaller Wisconsin Synod, which
has troubles of its own; small groups of Presbyterians, headed by Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony,
and Anglicans, headed by the late Bishop Dees, who try to preserve the essentials of their
religion; and the Mormons, who have supplemental Scriptures of their own, but have serious
internal dissension (cf. *Liberty Bell*, July 1989, pp. 13-37) and are increasingly
vulnerable to attacks on their new gospels (cf. *Liberty Bell(, December 1989, pp. 10-28.)
The Roman Catholic Church was less vulnerable because less dependent on the Bible, which, for
many centuries, it forbade laymen to read. It claims to represent an apostolic succession
from the incarnate god of Christianity, and until quite recently, it, by far the largest of
Christian denominations, exhibited a monolithic solidarity that made it seem impregnable. (2)
Then, only a few years ago, it was suddenly shattered by an internal revolution, as sudden
and drastic as the Jews’ Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and far more suprising to observers
of world affairs.
(2. In *America’s Decline*, pp. 78-79, I described the Church as it appeared in 1955 to
observers who, having no religion, could consider the problem objectively and even had the
benefit of information that had been available only through military intelligence, including
secret communications between the Vatican and its branches in several parts of the world.)
It was a ‘palace revolution.’ What had been the Church’s great strength became its fatal
weakness. When the conspirators captured the Vatican, they became the masters of all their
subordinates in the regular Church and in the monastic orders, from archbishops to parish
priests to yet unordained postulants and students in seminaries. By the power of
excommunication they could deprive any dissident of his livelihood by preventing him from
practicing the only art he knew. It required great faith and great courage even to question
the dictates of the revolutionary r‚gime.
Archbishops, of course, were persons of some consequence, accustomed to luxury suited to
their exalted position, and if any of them was sufficiently interested in the Church’s
doctrine to resent the change, it is likely that he was kept in line by threats sweetened by
generous bribes. Malcontents and soft-spoken dissidents within the Roman Curia were tolerated
until they were eliminated or cowed by terrorism after the murder of John Paul I in 1989. (3)
Conscientious priests, unless able to escape notice, had no alternative but to leave the
Church and seek other means of earning a living. Many of them did, including two with whom I
was aquainted. I have seen an estimate that throughout the world 100,000 priests left the
apostate Church, but I hesitate to accept that figure.
(3. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Pope was murdered, although the motive for the
crime remains obscure. I have referred more than once to David Yallin’s sensational book, *In
God’s Name*, but I have only recently received a copy of a work by Piers Compton, *The Broken
Cross* (Bullsbrook, West Australia; Veritas, 1984). He appears not to have seen Yallin’s
book, but was able to consult letters from twenty-two prelates concerning the death of the
Pope, collected in a volume entitled *Lettres de Rome sur le singulier tr‚pas de Jean-Paul I*
by a Parisian journalist under the pseudonym Jean Jacques Thierry. The volume was suppressed
almost immediately after it was published. The Pope died during the night, his call for help
having been inexplicably ignored. In the morning, his corpse was found at 5:30 and by 9:30
embalmers had completed their work, having removed the vital organs that would be needed for
an autopsy and reportedly destroyed them! This fact was apparently unknown to the persons
who, during the following days, demanded an autopsy that had been made impossible. That
indecent precaution establishes the fact of murder.)
Religiously, the Church committed suicide. Every ‘revealed’ religion must profess to be based
on transcendental truth that is immutable and eternal, revealed, directly or indirectly, by
an eternal, immutable, and infallible god. The Roman Church claimed to have been founded by
an Apostle expressly delegated for that purpose by its incarnate god, and Pius XII, the last
Pontifex Maximus before the new r‚gime, was the two hundred and sixty-second in an apostolic
succession, representing, it was claimed, an unbroken tradition and a doctrine that had been
received from the divinely-appointed Apostle.
As every man capable of logical thought saw at once, the radical changes in doctrine made by
the new r‚gime necessarily implied that either (a) the Church’s god had ignorantly,
irrationally, or maliciously lied to his Vicars on earth for nineteen centuries, or (b) the
two hundred and sixty-two Vicars had misrepresented the wishes and commands of their
celestial principal.
The drastic changes did not make the Church simply explode, because faith commonly precludes
logical thought, and in the Roman Church, the mass of votaries had long been accustomed to
believe whatever they were told by their priest and unquestioningly to follow his directions.
When the Church was “modernized,” as though it were an old house or an obsolete railroad,
many ostentatious changes in practice may have been partly devised to conceal vital changes
in doctrine. Most churches, for example, were stripped of their ornaments and made as bare
and uninteresting as churches of the most Puritanical Protestant sects. The Latin mass, which
was impressive when well performed, was replaced with vernacular gabble that was tediously
flat and boring when it was not ludicrous. Priests were converted into Protestant ministers,
delivering commonplace sermons. Some venerated Saints were unceremoniously tossed out onto
the scrap heap. But all these changes were relatively superficial.
If one considered the new doctrine critically, one immediately saw what had been the cardinal
and most drastic change. The attitude toward the Jews that the Christian god had presumably
ordained for nineteen centuries was reversed. The change was neatly illustrated by the
Cardinal who is believed most likely to become the next Pope. He boasts that he is a faithful
and practicing Jew, and brazenly asserts that Christianity is merely a kind of auxiliary
church by which deserving *goyim* are admitted to some of the privileges God irrevocably
bestowed on his Chosen People. (4)
(4. See *Liberty Bell*, May 1987, pp. 6-14.)
It was obvious, therefore, that the Roman Catholic Church had been captured by the Jews and
would be operated in their interests. Strangely enough, this fact was generally ignored by
even the most vehement adversaries of the “modernization.” (5)
(5. Mr. Compton, in the work cited in Note 3 *supra*, attributes the capture of the Church to
a conspiracy that included Weishaupt’s Illuminati, Aleister Crowley’s Satanism, and other
secret societies, including, of course, Freemasonry, along the lines well known from the
writings of Nesta Webster, Christina Stoddard (“Inquire Within”), Lady Queensboro, and many
others. He carefully disregards the Jews, but a sheet reproduced from typewriting and of
uncertain provenance, enclosed with the copy of his book sent to me, identifies Wojtyia (John
Paul II) as a Jew, son of a Kikess named Wanda Katz.)
Since I am certain that Christianity is a fundamental fact that must be taken into account in
any worthwhile consideration of our present situation or attempt to foresee our probable
future, I have devoted many pages in *Liberty Bell* to that subject, with special attention
to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest and most influential of all Christian
denominations. Most recently, in “The Stolen Church,” December 1990, I recommended the *The
New Montinian Church*, an impressive English translation of an important work by the Reverend
D. Joaquin S enz y Arriaga, and in “The Vacant See,” April-May 1991, I reported what were
evidently the conclusions of a canon lawyer that the Papacy had been vacant since the death
of Pius XII in 1958.
I was pleased when my opinion about the cardinal importance of the Roman Church in our plight
today was corroborated from an unexpected source, Mr. Lawrence Patterson’s *Criminal
Politics* (P.O. Box 37812, Cincinnati, Ohio [45222]; monthly, $187.50 per annum).
*Criminal Politics* is devoted exclusively to finance and to consideration of the ways in
which Americans may conserve what they have saved and still own, in spite of the Federal
government. Since in countries like the United States and Soviet Russian economic laws have
been nullified by a tyrannical government, it is necessary to consider political forces, and
that includes Catholicism. The issue for April contains (pp. 12-17) an article entitled “The
New World Order: Catholicism and the Zionist War Against Our Cultural Standards.”
After noting that the Vatican was once a strenuous opponent of the Communists, and now is
virtually allied with them in promoting the “New World Order,” Mr. Patterson takes his
departure from an astonishingly candid article published in what was then one of the most
widely circulated periodicals, *Look*, (6) 25 January 1966. It was written by the magazine’s
senior editor, Joseph Roddy, and entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking.”
(6. The paid circulation of *Look* at that time was over 7,500,000 copies of each issue; the
magazine did not suffer from the indiscreet revelation–at least not immediately. In 1968,
its circulation had increased by 200,000, but financial difficulties made it cease
publication in October 1971, although its circulation had increased to almost 8,000,000 in
1970.)
Mr. Roddy, after noting that the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith put pressure on
the Vatican Council to alter Catholic doctrine in their favor, reported that the real author
of the Council’s surrender to Judaism was a French Jew named Jules Isaac, who co”perated with
a “Fifth Column” (7) of Marrano traitors in the Council, including the slimy Cardinal Bea,
but the success of the work of subversion was to be attributed to a “priest spy,” a Jesuit
who served on the staff of Bea and shuttled back and forth between the Vatican and the
American Jewish Committee in New York.
(7. I do not like to see ‘Fifth Column’ used in this sense, a perversion of its original
meaning. When the Spanish army was delivering Spain from Judaeo-Communist terror in 1936,
General Franco, on whom the command had devolved, remarked that four columns of his troops
were converging on Madrid, in which there was a ‘fifth column’ composed of the decent
Spaniards in that territory, who, while impotent against the power of the Communist
government, necessarily sympathized with the army that was fighting to free them and would
assist its efforts whenever they feasibly could. A ‘fifth column,’ therefore, is not composed
of traitors, but of patriots held in subjection by an alien power.)
According to Mr. Roddy, the decree of the Vatican Council drafted by Jules Isaac “would have
gone down early,” but for the “covert help” of the “priest-spy.”
That seems implausible. It is hard to see how the “priest-spy” could have had the pivotal
r”le attributed to him. When Roncalli, who, under the laws of the Church, was not even a
Catholic, slithered onto the See of Rome as John XXIII, his election must have been procured
by accomplices in the College of Cardinals, (8) and he almost certainly had *in petto* a
scheme for capturing and Judaizing the Church, probably including the Vatican Council that he
convened in 1962 and guided through its intermittent sessions to its consummation of the
revolutionary take-over in 1965. Mr. Patterson notes that after Roncalli was elected Pope in
1958, the larger newspapers in this country dropped their neutral or mildly hostile attitude
toward the Catholic Church and suddenly blossomed with bouquets for “good Pope John.” The
Jewish Lords of the American press must have received from their superiors advice that
“Roncalli is our boy.”
(8. When the Cardinals meet to elect a new pope and are immured, there is always a period of
frantic competition between various aspirants and their supporters, and political trading and
retrading of votes until a compromise is reached or, if there is an unresolvable deadlock, an
interim pontiff is elected to hold office while the factions regroup. A few wily intriguers,
especially if well supplied with cash, can often determine the outcome of an election.)
The capture of the Church had already been planned before the Council got under way, and I
cannot imagine how the “priest-spy” could have done more than arrange matters of detail or
transport cash when he served as liaison between his Jewish employers in New York and
important members of the Council. Only if millions or billions of dollars in real money were
needed to consolidate the position of Roncalli and his accomplices, and were supplied from
New York, could the messenger who delivered the bribes be said to have determined the
decisions of the Council, but Mr. Roddy says nothing about that.
Mr. Roddy did not name the “priest-spy,” who, he said, pretended to be a conservative
Catholic but was really “100%” in the Zionist interest and might himself be a Jew disguised
as a Jesuit. He provided, however, a series of more or less enigmatic clues to the man’s
identity.
Mr. Patterson reports that his research has identified the “priest-spy” as Malachi Martin,
alias (by his own admission) Michael Serafian, alias (by implication) F.F. Cartus, and
(therefore) alias Timothy Fitzharris-O’Boyle.
Martin’s career corresponds to the clues given by Roddy. He was a Jesuit, had been a
professor in the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome (reputed to be a scholar of Semitic
languages and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls), had migrated to New York, written for the
Jewish periodical, *Commentary*, under an alias, a book, *The Pilgrim*, under another alias,
and under his own name many articles as a “conservative Catholic” for Buckley’s *National
Review*, of which he was, for a time, the Religious Editor. Although neither Roddy nor Mr.
Patterson mentions the even more significant fact, Malachi Martin claims to have been an
intimate friend and advisor of Roncalli.
According to various reports, Martin, after he established himself in this country, left the
priesthood and married. He has certainly produced under his own name an amazing number of
presumably highly profitable books, all aimed at Catholics who have not abandoned the
traditional faith of the Church. Whether he continues to write under pseudonyms, I do not
know.
Now if Martin did indeed play an important r”le in betraying the Church into the hands of its
inveterate enemies, he certainly knew what he was doing. Piers Compton quotes him as having
predicted, at the time the Vatican Council completed its work of subversion in December 1965,
“Well before the year 2000, there will no longer be a religious institute recognizable as the
Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of today…. There will be no centralized control, no
uniformity in teaching, no universality in practice or worship, prayer, sacrifice, and
priesthood.”
He believed that his prophecy was being fulfilled. In his *The Jesuits, the Society of Jesus,
and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church* (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1987), he wrote:
‘The extent of the damage produced in the Church….after 1965 can be gauged a mere twenty
years later. Pope John Paul II now presides over a Church organization that is in shambles, a
rebellious and decadent clergy, an ignorant and recalcitrant body of bishops, and a confused
and divided assembly of believers. The Roman Catholic Church, which used to present itself as
the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, appears now as a pluralistic, permissive,
ecumenical, and evolutionary ecclesial group.’ (9)
(9. In this book, he, a former Jesuit, accuses the Jesuits of having become a gang of
conspiratorial Marxists engaged in promoting, under the guise of religion, a Communist
dictatorship. He even avers that the Jesuits in the United States drew up detailed plans for
the installation of “Maoist Marxism” in this country.)
In all writings published under his own name, so far as I know, Malachi Martin has
consistently taken the position of a Catholic faithful to the Church’s doctrine and
traditions, estimating that about 40% of the present College of Cardinals are Christians,
ridiculing American bishops who jabbered about “ending poverty” and “sharing the wealth” by
pointing out that the Roman Church is the wealthiest body in the world, with assets totaling
hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly amounting to two *trillion* dollars
($2,000,000,000,000), and insisting that “Christ never singled out the proletariat with a
preferential opinion in their favor.” The mission of the Church is exclusively spiritual and
it has no competence or authority to pronounce on matters of economics or politics. (10)
(10. For example, in an article in *National Review*, 5 January 1979, which I have consulted
in my files of that publication, he wrote: “Over the last fifteen years, the Roman Catholic
Church in the United States, under the leadership and authority of its bishops, has become
mainly two things. It is, first and most stridently, a jumbled shop-front jammed with a
motley array of political issues, civil squabbles, sociological experiments, and
psychological theories. _ Second, and more poignantly, it is a gristmill grinding down the
hope and enthusiasm of faithful followers who know that their bishops have neglected the
purity of their faith and the practice of religion in their Church, in favor of such issues
as environmental pollution, ethnic rights, land distribution, the Panama Canal, Rhodesian
chrome, and the evils of U.S. Capitalism.” In the remainder of the article, he does not
explicitly identify all these activities as serving Communist ends, but rather conspicuously
avoids considerations that would *lƒcher le mot*.)
I have not seen his latest book, *Keys of the Blood* (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1990),
which was reviewed by Paul A. Fisher in *Christian News*, 3 June 1991, and criticized by Mr.
Patterson in the article I have cited. In this book, Martin, somewhat at variance with his
earlier pronouncements, tells his readers that the world is now the prize which each of three
reciprocally hostile organizations are tying to gain for itself, viz.:
‘(a) A disintegrating Soviet Empire led by Mikhail Gorbachev; (b) transnationalists and
internationalists (a generic characterization for international bankers and businesses
affiliated with the Council on Foreign Affairs (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TLC), and
(c) a deteriorating Roman Catholic Church, the principal institution of Christendom, led by
Pope Paul II.’ (11)
(11. I quote from Mr. Fisher’s review. Note that there is no mention of Jews, which would not
have been tactful in a book published by Jews; but did the glaring omission have another
motive? I gather from Mr. Fisher that Martin expects a “direct intervention of God” during
the lifetime of the present Pope!)
That statement is the principal basis for Mr. Patterson’s denunciation of Martin as a “fake
conservative” and “double agent” of the Zionists, and he marshals abundant proofs that
Wojtyia (John Paul II) is co”perating so closely with both Soviets, the “Trilateralists” and
the Zionists in foisting the “New World Order” on the civilized nations to reduce them to
barbaric slavery that the Pope must be considered a servant or accomplice of all of the three
aspects of what must be a single force bent on our enslavement and eventual extinction. He
reasons that Martin’s book must be intended to confuse traditional Catholics and other
readers by deceiving them about our enemies and creating the deceptive illusion that three
tentacles of the octopus are fighting each other.
I am not here concerned with establishing Martin’s guilt or innocence, and I certainly shall
not waste time in collecting and analysing the many books and articles published under his
own name or in ascertaining whether or not the continues to publish divergent works under
pseudonyms, but I shall point out that, so far as I can tell from the reviews, he is guilty
of a certain duplicity in concealing in his latest book conclusions that he has stated
elsewhere.
In an address reported by the *Rocky Mountain News*, 8 October 1982 (reproduced
photographically in *Christian News* he stated explicitly that “The Christian church is
decaying, has nothing to say, and is on the way out.” He added that the other great religions
of the world, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, “are headed in the same direction as
Christianity and even faster.” He predicted the imposition of “a worldwide religion with one
structure and institutions,” managed by “one great bureaucracy. And out of it will emerge the
ultimate disaster.”
What is crucially significant in that speech is that he explicitly affirmed that the Jews’
religion (the basis of their racial unity) is not in the least subject to change or decay and
will always endure triumphantly. “It is irradicable, (12) indestructible,” he affirmed,
“there is no decay and *nothing can destroy the soul of Judaism.* (My italics.)
(12. He means *uneradicable*.)
There you have it. There, stated with blinding clarity for all who think while reading, is an
indication of who will own and enslave the world of tomorrow. No author, unwilling to bring
upon himself the terrorists of the Jews’ government in Washington, could have stated the fact
more explicitly.
According to Mr. Lawrence, Martin, in his new book, certainly concealing or reversing his
belief in an “ultimate disaster,” not only regards the New World Order as inevitable, but
lauds it a “Grand Design of God.” And he says, “As to the time factor involved, those of us
who are under 70 will see at least the basic structure of the new world government
installed…. Those of us who are under 40 will surely live under its legislative, executive,
and judicial authority and control.”
And he could have added that Americans who are now under five will surely grow up to be
imbecile creatures, so well trained that whenever they see or smell a Sheeny, they will
automatically drop to their knees and knock their foreheads three times on the pavement in
veneration of their living gods.
Jews Gave Jerry Falwell a Lear jet for his services on their behalf
In 1977 the Likud party under Menachem Begin came to power on an expansionist Zionist platform using biblical phraseology to justify the settlement of the West Bank. It was Begin for example who first renamed Israel and the Occupied Territories as Judaea and Samaria. In America the Jewish lobby realised the potential significance of wooing the political endorsement of the powerful 50-60 million Evangelical block vote through their fundamentalist leadership. With this in mind, in 1979, the Israeli government honoured Jerry Falwell with the Jabotinsky Award in appreciation of his support of Israel. They also provided him with a Lear jet to assist in his work on their behalf.

Archived for Educational Purposes only Under U.S.C. Title 17 Section 107
by Jew Watch Library at www.jewwatch.com

*COPYRIGHT NOTICE**
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in the Jew Watch Library is archived here under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in reviewing the included information for personal use, non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you have additions or suggestions

MUST WATCH!!! TRUMP AND THE GREATER ISRAEL (WARNING! DISTURBING CONTENT!)

MUST WATCH!!! Trump and the Greater Israel (WARNING! DISTURBING CONTENT!)

More:
When a people allow human rights violations to go unpunished, they are no better then the criminals themselves.
frabz-cowards-will-burn-in-hell-10aaa21