Tag: anti-Semitism

Historical Truth – III

Historical Truth – III posted in Eleison Comments on September 30, 2017

The dreadful punishment of persistence in lying is that one loses all sense of reality. This punishment is closing in on our Western “civilisation.” People can no longer distinguish between truth and falsehood, between fantasy and reality. Alas, fantasy may be sweeter, but reality always re-asserts itself in the end, and the more obstinately one has clung to fantasy, the more violently reality is liable to return. The two World Wars of the last century were violent returns of reality. We are heading straight for a third, because the preference of fantasy is being raised to an ideology. The following clear example of the turning of lies into an ideology comes from a website striving to uphold truth:—

In 2009 a Polish-born American, Herman Rosenblat, wrote a touching Holocaust memoir for which, even before it could be published as a book, the film rights were sold for $25,000. Angel at the fence tells how Rosenblat, imprisoned during World War II in Buchenwald concentration camp, met through the camp’s outer fence a nine-year old girl who tossed to him apples and bread over the fence. By war’s end they had lost touch with one another, and he emigrated to the United States. Years later in New York he resorted to a matrimonial agency to find a bride, and who should turn up on the blind date but the same girl? She was now an adult, but he recognised her immediately and proposed to her, was accepted, and they have lived happily ever after.

The story is most touching. Rosenblat gave everyone to understand that it had all happened in reality, and it seems that everybody believed him. However, researchers into the story proved from wartime facts, for instance from the impossibility for Buchenwald inmates to approach the camp’s outer fence, that the story was a pure figment of Rosenblat’s imagination. It was one more “fake Holocaust story.” But a regular visitor to the website mentioned above, Seymour Zak, protested vehemently that there is no such thing as a “fake Holocaust story.” What is frightening is his reasoning –

 . . . . What anti-Semites keep insisting are “fake Holocaust stories” need to be seen in a more positive light as “the truth of imagination,” to quote the famous phrase of the poet John Keats. If something is perceived as true by the mind, though strictly speaking it may not have happened, and if that event is subsequently seen as a living truth in the minds of millions of other good people who have been exposed to that same heightened version of reality, then it must on no account be dismissed as a “lie” ( . . . ) All such stories are true in a higher metaphysical sense, and to deny them is a sacrilege ( . . . ) We have a sacred obligation to the six million who died under the tyranny of the evil Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler to remember the dead and dismiss with contempt all attempts to deny the Holocaust by referring to “fake Holocaust stories.” I repeat: there is no such thing as a fake Holocaust story. Every Holocaust story is true, 100 per cent true, whether it happened or not. ( . . . ) In the sublime words of Elie Wiesel: “In literature, certain things are true though they didn’t happen, while others are not true, even if they did happen.”

On Seymour Zak’s reasoning, it is of no importance whether the six million mentioned here really died “under the tyranny, etc.” or not. What matters is whether the Six Million constitute a “heightened version of reality . . . . seen as a living truth in the minds of millions of good people, etc.” and if they do, then to state that they died when in reality they did not die is no longer a lie, but a higher truth! Reality is no longer the measure of truth, especially if that higher truth is quasi-religious, namely a “sacred obligation” which it is “sacrilege” to deny, namely Holocaustianity. In other words, there is historical reality and non-historical reality, and only the second deserves the name of “reality”!

This is utter madness, but it is in society all around us, more and more so, and we human beings are social animals, necessarily influenced by the society around us. Catholics – and non-Catholics – if you want to keep your head above the rising flood of madness, pray 15 Mysteries a day of the Holy Rosary. Our Lady can protect your sanity. These “Comments” have no other remedy to suggest.

Kyrie eleison.

“Anti-Semitism” Trickery

“Anti-Semitism” Trickery posted in Eleison Comments on June 18, 2016

There are treacherous words which seem to mean one thing and are used to mean quite another. One of the most treacherous words of all is “anti-semitism.” The word seems to mean opposition to all Jews purely and simply because they are Jews, and in this sense it rightly condemns something bad, because some Jews are wicked, but certainly not all. On the other hand it is often used to condemn absolutely any opposition to anything that any Jews do, and then the word is wrongly condemning something good, because whenever Jews do anything bad then opposition to them is good. But do Jews do things bad? Obviously. They created Islam for Arabs, Freemasonry for Gentiles and Communism for the modern world, all three primarily to fight Jesus Christ and Christianity, and so send souls to Hell.

A book which all Catholics should read who wish to defend the Church against Islam, Freemasonry and Communism, now Globalism, is The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay. The book was written just before Vatican II to be put into the hands of all Council Fathers, to warn them of the great danger in which the Church would find herself at the Council. Sure enough. The Council Fathers ended up praising Islam (Unitatis Redintegratio), adopting Freemasonic principles (Dignitatis Humanae) and never mentioning, still less condemning, the evil system of Communism. Here is how in his Chapter on “Antisemitism and Christianity” Maurice Pinay analyses the treachery of the word “antisemitism”:—

Down the ages the Jews have always used vague words with a variety of meanings, writes Pinay, to snare Gentile minds and so prevent them from defending themselves against the Jewish drive towards world domination in that 2,000-year war on Christianity which he carefully documents throughout his book. So in a first stage, by three arguments they seek to prevail upon Gentile leaders to condemn “antisemitism” in its first sense, given above, of opposition to everything and everybody Jewish: firstly, Christ, by establishing the equality of all men before God, condemned any such degrading of a whole race; secondly, Christ told all men to “love one another”; thirdly, Christ and his Mother were both Jewish.

But in a second stage the Jews, having once obtained the Gentiles’ condemnation of a vague “antisemitism,” then proceed to give the word a quite different meaning, the second sense above, of any and all opposition to anything whatsoever that Jews do. Thus “antisemites” become: all patriots exerting their right of self-defence against Jewish subversion of their country; all defenders of the family against the errors and vices of all sorts fomented by the Jews to dissolve it (e.g. abortion, pornography); all Catholics defending their holy religion against every form of corruption being openly or secretly promoted by the Jews to undermine it; all truth-tellers unmasking Jews as the originators of Freemasonry and Communism (now of Globalism and feminism, etc.); and all people in general opposing Jewish subversion of the Church and of Christian civilisation. And by their control of politics, finance, films and above all by their media, the Jews have succeeded in giving such an electric charge to this one little word “anti-semite,” that it is enough to electrocute anyone that it touches.

But who is foolish enough to have allowed them to control politics and finance? Who has allowed them to virtually monopolise the film industry and the media? Who thinks it is so smart to have done away with all censorship and is now co-operating with them to enable them to censor the Internet? Gentile liberals in every case, who are therefore being enslaved, by the minute, in their New World Order. Doctor, cure thyself! For who that reads their newpapers or watches their television programmes has anybody to blame but himself for letting them take over his mind, and his civilisation?

Catholics, read The Plot against the Church. If anybody is accusing you of being an “antisemite,” it is quite possible you have reason to be proud.

Kyrie eleison.

Israelites, Israelis?

Israelites, Israelis? posted in Eleison Comments on August 9, 2014

Let us then grant (EC 368) that the orders of Almighty God to exterminate certain peoples in the Old Testament (e.g. I Sam. XV) were an act of justice and mercy towards the pagans themselves, and an act also designed to help the Israelites forward towards cradling the Incarnate God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, when he would come many centuries later. This cradle the Israelites did provide, especially through the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the entire human race owes a boundless debt of gratitude. If any of us does get to Heaven, it will be only through her intercession.

Then what connection can there be between those Jews through whom salvation comes (Jn. IV, 22) and the mass of Jews today, who are either massacring Palestine or supporting the massacre, morally or financially? The majority of today’s Jews being Ashkenazy Jews, they may well be no blood-descendants of Abraham, but be that as it may, they have certainly absorbed through the Talmud, the holy book of post-Christian Judaism, what Our Lord called “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Mt. XVI, 11), meaning the spirit of his bitter enemies who crucified him and have fought his Church ever since. How can his Chosen People have turned into some of his consistently worst enemies? (If the mere question seems “anti-semitic,” let it be recalled that truth is good while “anti-semitism” is bad, so nothing true can be “anti-semitic” and nothing “anti-semitic” can be true. What follows is the truth, and has nothing whatsoever to do with so-called “anti-semitism”).

Firstly, if the Chosen People turned against their God, the problem may seem chronological but it is not. Throughout the Old Testament there were Israelites who turned against God, for instance the worshippers of the Golden Calf or the Jews exiled to Babylon. God frequently had to punish his own “stiff-necked” and rebellious people. Likewise from the beginning of the New Testament down to our own day there have always been outstanding Jewish converts, like St Paul, who was as Jewish as could be (cf. Rom. IX, 1–5; II Cor. XI, 21–22; Phil. III, 4–6). The difference between Israelites and Israelis is the same difference as there has always been between those of any race who love God and those who rebel against him. The true “Judeo-Christian” line stretches from Abel through, for instance, Abraham, Moses, David and the Mother of God to the Catholic Church. The false “Judeo-Christian” but true “Judeo-Masonic” line stretches from the accursed Cain through, for instance, the killers of God’s prophets to Anas and Caiphas to modern Freemasonry, which was created by Jews and is still controlled by them for purposes of fighting the Catholic Church, even if many Masons are ignorant of the fact.

Well and good, but is not the contrast between Israelites and Israelis especially sharp? Yes, because as the old saying goes, “The higher they are, the harder they fall.” Once the Chosen People refused to be the special servants of God, as they have largely done from the Incarnation onwards, they were bound to become the special servants of the Devil. For them there could be nothing in between. And what was behind that refusal? In one word, pride. Instead of using God’s special gifts to them for his glory, they bent them to their own glory. Before their Messiah came, they misconceived him as their material instead of spiritual saviour, so that when he came they refused to recognize him, and from then on they fought him for having replaced their racially exclusive Mosaic religion with the racially all-inclusive Catholic religion, open to all races.

And what can Catholics do to resist the overwhelming material dominance of the once Chosen Ones all around us? Materially, next to nothing, but a single soul praying spiritually and sincerely for God’s kingdom to come and for his will to be done can prevail on God to move material mountains, child’s play for God. He only allows that dominance in order to drive us back to him.

Kyrie Eleison.

GREC – II

GREC – II posted in Eleison Comments on March 9, 2013

Before we continue with the story of GREC, namely the Parisian group of laity and clergy meeting from the late 1990’s onwards in pursuit of reconciliation between Vatican II and Catholic Tradition, we must consider the basic attitude of GREC participants. The Church’s future depends on those Catholics who will understand GREC’s error, i.e. how modern minds lose their grip on truth. To illustrate that attitude let us take at random four quotes, typical of dozens and dozens in the book For the Necessary Reconciliationby the Newchurch priest, Fr Michel Lelong, one of the founders of GREC. In a letter he wrote to the Pope in July of 2008 are to be found the first two quotes:—

“We also wish that the excommunications(of the four SSPX bishops in 1988) be lifted and that the SSPX recover its place within the Church to which it has so much to give. That is why we ask the authorities of the SSPX to put an end to the polemical statements and articles criticizing the Holy See.”Comment: (Has that not happened over the last 10 years?) But if polemics are so bad, why were a number of Church Fathers – and Archbishop Lefebvre – so polemical? Polemics are only that bad if unity is that good. But unity is only as good as that around which it unites.

“In our society so tempted by materialism, indifferentism and sectarisms, we think that in response to your request, Holy Father, all Catholics must strive together to be faithful to Christ’s recommendation, ‘Be united so that the whole world may believe’.”Comment: “United” around what? Around Catholic truth, or around the lie that Catholic truth is reconcilable with Vatican II? Then the primary and crucial question for Catholic unity is where Catholic truth is to be found. But GREC leaves questions of truth to the “theologians.” So non-theologians can be saved by lies!?

This letter of Fr Lelong was so well received by Benedict XVI that GREC leaders and sympathisers wrote again a few months later. Here are two more quotes from the second letter to the Pope:—

“For sure we were saddened that the Holy See’s recent proposals were not accepted by the SSPX authorities, but we know that to heal wounds amongst Catholics always requires generosity and patience to restore confidence on both sides and to make reconciliation possible.”Comment: Are wounds only ever to be healed, and never inflicted? Did Our Lord not twice use a lash across the backs of the money-lenders in the Temple? There is a God, his honour is to be defended above all things, and men can be wicked enough to understand nothing but the lash, be it physical or verbal.

“We think that lifting the excommunications would set in motion an irresistible process of drawing closer, with a view to an agreement between the Holy See and the SSPX, or at least an agreement with a large part of the SSPX priests and faithful.”Comment: indeed the friendly contacts between Rome and the SSPX were setting such a motion in process in January of 2009, and only an outburst from within the SSPX of the most horrible heresy of modern times – “anti-semitism” – stopped that process. But either Catholic reconciliation with Vatican II is no problem, or one has to say that that outburst was providential, because it also stopped, at least for a while, the false reconciliation.

In conclusion, GREC, like millions of modern Catholics, above all else seeks unity, non-polemics, reconciliation, agreement, etc. But where does the God of truth figure amongst all these sweet sentiments? Is he a sugar-daddy who blesses all men’s lies, just so long as they lie in unison?

Kyrie eleison.

Ancestral Pride

Ancestral Pride posted in Eleison Comments on October 15, 2011

In his second volume on the life of Jesus published several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide, i.e. the killing of God. Worse, on May 17 the executive director of the US Bishops’ Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs said that one cannot charge the Jewish people with deicide at any time in history without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. Against what many people today want to believe, it is time to recall, however briefly, what the true Church always used to teach on the judicial murder of Jesus.

Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide,” i.e. the killing of God, because Jesus was the one of the three divine Persons who in addition to his divine nature had taken a human nature. What was killed on the Cross? Only the human nature. But who was killed on the Cross in his human nature? None other than the second divine Person, i.e. God. So God was killed, deicide was committed.

Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).

Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life”?

But Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively, to recognize him. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the Talmud. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26–27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah. How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths?

Kyrie eleison.

Tenth Anniversary

Tenth Anniversary posted in Eleison Comments on October 1, 2011

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 came and went on September 11, three weeks ago. Apparently in the US media there was such a downpour of sentimentality for the occasion as to make the recent torrential rains on the eastern seaboard look like a light shower. However, before it becomes “anti-semitic” even to raise the question, let us with an American commentator of indisputable intelligence and integrity ask just what was the reality of that event.

The commentator is Dr Paul Craig Roberts who announced several months ago his retirement from writing. He was discouraged by the lack of readers interested in the truth. Fortunately his retirement did not last long. He is a truth-teller, and there are too few of them around. “In America Respect for Truth is Dead” is the title of his Sept. 12 article, published on infowars.com. As he suggests, the loss of truth is the real drama, both of 9/11 and of the ten years succeeding, not only in the USA, but in fact all over the world.

Dr Roberts has himself a scientific background, and as such he says he was wholly persuaded by the scientific evidence presented in a Sept. 8–11 meeting held in Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, on the 9/11 events. In the four days of hearings, distinguished scientists, scholars, architects and engineers presented the fruit of their research into the 9/11 events (their findings may still be accessible at http://​www.​ustream.​tv/​channel/​thetorontohearings). Dr Roberts writes that their researches “proved that the WTC7 building was a standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down the Twin Towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares the contrary has no scientific basis on which to stand. Those who believe in the official story believe in a miracle that defies the laws of physics.”

Dr Roberts quotes a few of the many scientific proofs presented in Canada, for instance the recent discovery of nano-thermite in the dust produced by the fall of the Towers, but he writes that “the revelation of malevolence is so powerful that most readers will find it a challenge to their emotional and mental strength.” Government propaganda and the “Presstitute media” have such a grip on minds that most people seriously believe that only “conspiracy kooks” challenge the government’s story. Facts, science and evidence no longer count for anything (somebody I know has run into that!). Dr Roberts quotes a Chicago and Harvard law professor even proposing that all fact-based doubters of government propaganda should be shut down!

G.K.Chesterton once famously said that when people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything. Gravest of all amongst the many millions of 9/11 truth-losers are the Catholics who cannot or do not want to see the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job, who cannot or do not want to see the truly religious dimensions of the worldwide triumph of such a mind-bending lie as 9/11 represents. Let such Catholics beware. It may seem a wild exaggeration to say that they risk losing the Faith, but do we not have the terrifying example of Vatican II just behind us in time? Did not in the 1960’s far too many Catholics take such a sympathetic view of the modern world as to think that their Church should be adapted to it? Was not Vatican II the result? What did it do to their Faith?

Kyrie eleison.