Footer Pages

A Review of ‘The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’ by E. Michael Jones








The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit
and its Impact on World History
By E. Michael Jones


Reviewed by Richard Edmondson

Recently while visiting the blog Wake Up From Your Slumber I came across the interview with E. Michael Jones that you can hear in the four videos embedded below. I had actually read Jones’ book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, a year or two back and had for a long time now been intending to post something on it. Problem is where do you begin? The book is 1200 pages long and covers some 2000 years of history. How do you condense all that down to a single blog post? But after listening to the interview below, I finally decided to give it a whirl.

Of course it always helps to know where people are coming from, so I’ll mention right off the bat that Jones is a Roman Catholic, and one of the focuses of his book, perhaps the main one, is the gradual erosion, over a number of centuries, of the Church’s power and authority in Europe, a process in which Jews, as the author shows, played very key and very active roles every step of the way (along with the help of willing Christians), and the eventual displacement of that authority by the rising tide of Jewish power. This is an extremely important area of study because for many, many centuries it was the Catholic Church that kept Jewish power in check. Today the Church no longer plays that role, leaving a void that Islam, fortunately, has stepped in to fill, and while Islam has not been able, at least thus far, to thoroughly check Jewish power as successfully as Christianity once did, it nonetheless stands as one of the only major remaining obstacles to total global domination by Jewish Zionists, which is why Christians and Muslims, now more than ever, need to unite (but I’m getting a bit off topic here).

Initially upon picking up Jones’ book, it was hard for me to wrap my mind around the word “revolutionary” insofar as his use of the term. Having grown up in the sixties, I was accustomed to thinking of revolutionaries as the good guys (think Che Guevara, etc.), and the word has always had, for me, a positive, rather than negative, connotation. But what Jones refers to is that process I described in the previous paragraph, i.e. of overthrowing the power of the Catholic Church and replacing it with Jewish power. Or, to look at it another way (since Jones is a Catholic), the overthrow of God. That’s of course one that secular-minded Westerners would probably choke on their food laughing over, but consider the term Moharebeh. A concept found in Islamic law, the word means “waging war against God.” The fact that no comparable word exists in the English language (or even a comparable idea of such) is probably testimony to the extent of the collapse of the church’s moral authority and the widespread feelings of alienation and powerlessness that permeate Western society today. No such collapse has occurred in the Muslim world, though of course the Zionists are doing their damnedest to engineer it—in Libya, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere.

So in a sense—from Jones’ standpoint, and certainly this is true in the West—the “revolution” has already occurred, and at this point what we are waging—that is to say those of us who oppose Israel and seek to restrain the power of Jewish lobbies in our respective countries—is a counterrevolution. It’s good to understand this, and to make this distinction, when considering the areas into which Jones ventures in this book.

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit has a total of 32 chapters, but in this review, I’ll focus mainly on three—the third chapter, entitled “Rome Discovers the Talmud”; Chapter number 7, “Reuchlin vs. Pfefferkorn”; and the 24th chapter, “The Second Vatican Council Begins.” Chapter 24, along with a subsequent related chapter, covers the Church’s passage of Nostra Aetate, the 1965 document that resulted in a capitulation to Jewish power and ushered in the modern era of “interfaith dialogue”—efforts that have led to little other than Christians being spat upon in Israel and their faith ridiculed in American media.


Rome Discovers the Talmud


Believe it or not, the Church first became acquainted with the contents of the Talmud way back in the year 1236. Before this, the collection of rabbinical writings was virtually unknown among Christians. Its discovery came about when a Jew named Nicholas Donin converted to Christianity and went public with what it contained. As you may imagine, Church leaders were not too thrilled. The church at this time had long operated under Sicut Judaeis non, a policy that had been articulated by Pope Gregory the Great, under which Jews were not to be harmed—but at the same time were to be given no positions of influence. The pope in power at the time Donin made his disclosures was Gregory IX. According to Jones:

He was shocked by what he discovered, but he did not abrogate Sicut Judaeis non and its prohibition against harming the Jew. What changed was his understanding of what the Jews believed and how they acted on those beliefs.

On June 9, 1239, Pope Gregory responded to Donin’s 35 petitions by dispatching him with a letter to William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris. His letter substantiates the changed perception of Jews after discovery of the Talmud. The Jews, Gregory wrote, “so we have heard, are not content with the Old Law which God gave to Moses in writing: they even ignore it completely and affirm that God gave another Law which is called ‘Talmud,’ that is ‘Teaching,’ handed down to Moses orally…In this is contained matter so abusive and so unspeakable that it arouses shame in those who mention it and horror in those who hear it.” The offenses are so great that Gregory uses the word “crime” to describe them. He also claims the Talmud is “the chief cause that holds the Jews obstinate in their perfidy.” He ordered “on the first Saturday of Lent to come, in the morning which the Jews are gathered in the synagogues, you shall, by our order seize all the books of the Jews who live in your districts and have those books carefully guarded in the possession of the Dominican and Franciscan friars.” If the friars found the books offensive, they were to burn them.

Eventually a commission was convened to study the books, its members ultimately finding them “full of innumerable errors, abuses, blasphemies and wickedness.” The panel concluded that the books “cannot be tolerated in the name of God without injury to the Christian faith.” Blasphemies against Christ in the Talmud, along with its injunctions about defrauding unsuspecting goyim, threatened “the conditions under which Jews were tolerated,” as Jones notes, and also “called for rethinking the whole social compact.” The debate raged for several years until finally, in June of 1240, a public forum, under royal auspices, was held, featuring Donin in a debate with a Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

One Jewish commentator claims “the entire event epitomized the declining status of Jews in that century and their transformation in Christian minds into little more than embodiments of blasphemous doctrine.” The rabbi was dumbfounded that he had to defend Jewish esoteric writings in a hostile environment. Nothing like this had ever happened before. Rabbi Yehiel, lacking precedent for conducting a disputation of this sort, didn’t know how to respond. When asked whether it were true that the Talmud claimed “Jesus was condemned to an eternity in hell, immersed in ‘boiling excrement’” and Mary, his mother, was a whore, the Rabbi could only respond, yes, those passages were in the Talmud but they did not refer to “that” Jesus or “that” Mary. “Not every Louis born in France is the king of France,” Yehiel maintained, giving new meaning to the term “chutzpah.” “Has it not happened,” he continued, “that two men were born in the same city, had the same name, and died in the same manner? There are many such cases.” One Jewish historian referred to Rabbi Yehiel’s denial as the birth of Jewish humor. A Christian account of the debate, however, failed to see the humor in his statement, “Concerning this Jesus, he confessed that he was born out of adultery and that he is punished in hell in boiling excrement and that he lived at the time of Titus.” But Rabbi Yehiel said, “this Jesus is different from our Jesus. However, he is unable to say who he was, whence it is clear that he lied.”

Having exploded his own credibility, Yehiel could do little to refute Donin’s claim that the Talmud sanctioned criminal behavior, including “murder, theft, and religious intolerance.” The Talmud also “included strictures against trusting Gentiles, honoring them or even returning a lost piece of property to them.”

The result of the debate was a public burning of the Talmud in Paris, and as Jones remarks, “The Jewish religion was now clearly seen not as biblical Judaism, but rather as a heretical deviation from the Old Testament.” This is an extremely important point, because by 1962 and the convening of the Second Vatican Council, the contents of the Talmud would substantially disappear down the memory hole and Jews once again would be seen as merely carrying on the tradition of biblical Judaism.

Following the discovery of the Talmud, the Church made Jewish conversions a top priority, yet at the same time, Jews came under closer scrutiny by the Inquisition. In terms of public opinion, “they became revolutionaries, outlaws, and subversives, and by the end of the 13th century, they were universally recognized as such,” says Jones. “The expulsions that followed were the official recognition of status that had its roots in the discovery of the Talmud.” Yet in spite of this, “the Church never changed its position that no one had the right to harm the Jew,” and when Jews came under attack by angry mobs, “the popes were their first defenders.” In fact, the protection they enjoyed from the popes was often viewed critically by kings and princes, who regarded the Jews as subversives. And while there was a “crescendo of conversions,” a number of expulsions also took place. Jews were expelled from Cologne in 1424, from Speyer in 1435, from Mainz in 1438, and finally, in 1492, came the granddaddy of them all—the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella.


Reuchlin vs. Pfefferkorn


Some 270 years after Nicholas Donin, history basically repeated itself when yet another Jew, Josef Pfefferkorn, converted to Christianity and—once again—made public disclosures about the Talmud. By this time, however, as Jones relates, “times had changed” in Europe. The Reformation was in its early years, the Hussite Rebellion had occurred in Bohemia, and cracks had begun to appear in the edifice of Church authority. Furthermore, a process of “Judaizing” of the Christian faith was underway in some areas. As described by the author, “The temptation to look for heaven on earth was known as Judaizing, which took messianic inspiration from a distorted interpretation of the Old Testament.” And Christian “reformers” working to undermine Church authority—often aided and abetted by Jews (as was the case in the Hussite revolt)—saw themselves as modern embodiments of the Jews of the Old Testament. As may be expected, millennialism played a major role in their thinking (not unlike Christian Zionists of today). Heinrich Graetz, a Jewish historian quoted by Jones, puts it this way: “Whenever a party in Christendom opposes itself to the ruling church, it assumes a tinge of the Old Testament, not to say Jewish spirit.” The result being, of course, a de-emphasis on the teachings of Christ in favor of the violence and bloodshed of the Old Testament—certainly the case in the matter of the Hussite Rebellion of the early 15th century, as Jones explains:

Inspired by Israelite genocide in the Old Testament, the Hussite warriors of God earned a reputation for cruelty…Newman claims the Hussites had “personal associations with individual Jews and Jewish communities in their country.” He also claims “Jewish groups participated[ed] actively and publicly in the rise and spread of the [Hussite] movement. According to Newman, Jewish support of heretical movements, especially when they threatened to spill over into political revolutions, “run like dark threads through the history of nearly every movement of reform in European Christendom.”

This pattern, i.e. of Jews lending their support to the Christian Judaizers, was to continue over the next few centuries, and as Jones notes, “before long the trajectory was predictable”—the Judaizers would discard the teachings of Jesus in favor of the Old Testament, rising up against the established Church and urging “reform,” taking up the sword in an effort to “bring about heaven on earth.” And every step of the way the Jews were essentially playing them like a violin. Does any of this sound familiar?

Living much of his life in Cologne, Pfefferkorn (1469-1523) was a prolific writer who produced a number of books and pamphlets on Judaism, or what we might today call “Jewish identity.” Like Donin, he “knew Judaism from the inside out,” Jones tells us. In one pamphlet, Ich bin ain Buchlinn der Juden veindt ist mein namen, or The Enemy of the Jews (1509) he discussed the blasphemies against Jesus, Mary and the apostles, as well as the curses against Christians that Jews would incorporate into their daily prayers:

The Jews, said Pfefferkorn, utter “various insults and shameless words…every day against God, Mary, his most worthy mother, and the whole heavenly host.” The Jews call Jesus “mamser ben hanido,” which is to say, “one born from an unclean union.” Although Pfefferkorn doesn’t say so, “mamser” is traditionally translated “bastard.” The Jews are similarly vehement in denouncing Christ’s mother, callher her a “sono,” which Pfefferkorn translates as “a notorious sinner.” Again Pfefferkorn is discrete; the word means “whore.” Pfefferkorn says the Jews call Christian churches “mosschoff” or “beskisse,” that is [latrines or] shithouses.” Additionally, the Jews “hate the sign of the holy cross and find it quite unbearable. If they see pieces of wood or straw on the ground that are by chance arranged roughly in the shape of a cross, they push it apart with their feet that they may no longer have to look at it.” If a Jew “knowingly crosses a churchyard or listens to an organ,” he “believes that his prayers will not be heard by God for 30 days.”

Pfefferkorn converted to Christianity in 1504, along with his wife and child (whereupon he changed his first name from Josef to Johannes), and in one of his earliest writings, Der Juden Spiegel, or Mirror of the Jews, he attacked usury, confessing that prior to his conversion he had earned money from the practice. “I was born in the Jewish faith and am now, by the grace of God, a Christian,” he wrote. “If I continued to associate with Jews and continued to take usury, what would you say other than that I was in serious sin and that I never really became a Christian, and everyone would condemn me by saying that the blood and suffering of Christ had been lost on me.”

As may be expected, Pfefferkorn came under heavy attack from the Jews of his day. He was accused of criminal activity, and especially noteworthy were the charges found in a document that has been traced to a group of Jews in Regensburg: “Among its milder statements was the claim he (Pfefferkorn)was an illiterate butcher,” remarks Jones. “He was neither illiterate nor was he a butcher, an occupation morally less reprehensible than that of moneylender.”

But it wasn’t only the Jews of Pfefferkorn’s own day. Jones quotes a number of Jewish historians whose works have provided accounts of the time, among these the aforementioned Graetz—a 19th century Jew who became one of the first scholars of the modern era to write a compendious history of the Jewish people:

In his groundbreaking History of the Jews, Heinrich Graetz recites the slanders (against Pfefferkorn) faithfully and uncritically and adds a few of his own, calling Pfefferkorn “an ignorant, thoroughly vile creature,” as well as “the scum of the Jewish people,” and a “noisome insect” who was a tool of the “ignorant and fanatical Dominicans” of Cologne, a city known to be “an owls’ nest of light-shunning swaggerers, who endeavored to obscure the dawn of a bright day with the dark clouds of superstition hostile to knowledge.”

The last point is particularly important to keep in mind, for in those years of the early 16th century, “a new day of enlightened tolerance was about to dawn,” and Pfefferkorn’s Jewish contemporaries were quick to take advantage of it in their organized attacks upon him. The Hermetic texts, lost to Western culture during the Middle Ages, had been re-discovered, translated, and published—significant events, for with their appeals to alchemy and magic, the impact this corpus of writings had upon Renaissance thought and culture was considerable. Europe was about to veer in a new direction and the Church was considered an obstacle.

In part two of his Juden veindt, Pfefferkorn included a section entitled “How the Jews Ruin Land and People,” in which he described the process of usury—how it works and how it is used to impoverish the poor. “Thus the poor Christian, when he has nothing further to pawn, must run away and live out his life in poverty, which happens often and many times.” From there Pfefferkorn went on, in part three, to talk about Jews using their wealth to bribe officials as well as to “cause Christians to commit great sins”—sins in the course of which many Christians, both learned and unlearned, are “led astray” and come “to doubt their faith, as I have shown in other books of mine.”

All of this finally won the ear of the Emperor Maxmillian I, who in 1509 authorized this “anti-Semitic” troublemaker (as Pfefferkorn would no doubt be referred today) to travel throughout “the German empire” for purpose of examining Jewish writings and to “destroy all whose contents were hostile to the Bible and the Christian faith.” Subsequently, however, the emperor, bowing to Jewish pressure and bribery, reversed himself, and instead of having the books destroyed, appointed a commission to study them. Pfefferkorn won a seat on the commission, but luckily for the Jews, the panel was to also to hear testimony from Johannes Reuchlin, a man who, though ironically a Gentile, was to become their valiant ally and Pfefferkorn’s chief detractor.

Though Reuchlin is described by Jones as a “Judaizer,” he also was a highly educated man who had written a number of books, and like many of his time he was quite enamored of magic. Esteemed as a one of the great intellects of Europe, Reuchlin was a particularly avid proponent of the Jewish Caballah, and in 1506 he published De Rudiments Hebraicis, the first Hebrew grammar ever written by a non-Jew. Little wonder, then, the Jews celebrated his involvement with the commission.

Reuchlin claimed the Caballah demonstrated the validity of the Christian faith and also corresponded to the esoteric wisdom of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Zoroaster. By locating the magical power of his system in the Hebrew language, Reuchlin hoped to evade the dichotomy the Church, following the classical tradition, had established. According to that dichotomy, a man either asked for power over nature, in which case his action was known as prayer and dependent on the permissive will of the deity; or he forced the issue by invoking evil spirits. Caballah seemed to indicate another possibility. The possibility of a middle ground between science and prayer based on the magical effects of angelic names in Hebrew seemed theologically unlikely, but that is the course Reuchlin pursued, hoping to evade the censure of those who claimed he was involved in black magic.

After skimming through the Jewish books that had been seized (it appears he never actually read all of them), Reuchlin recommended only two for destruction—Nizzachon and Toledoth Jeschu—meaning he did not find the Talmud objectionable. Pronouncing the latter “a work which is difficult to understand,” he acknowledged there were many strange ideas found therein, but held that this did not justify suppressing it. “If the Talmud were deserving of such condemnation, our ancestors of many hundred years ago, whose zeal for Christianity was much greater than ours, would have burnt it,” he assured. As for the two works which did merit extirpation in his view, Reuchlin insisted they had no standing in the Jewish community and that “even the Jews themselves regard them as apocryphal.”

But what of Jewish attitudes toward non-Jews? Reuchlin expressed the view that “whether they are inimically disposed toward us in their hearts, only God can say.” As gracious and cordial as that sounded, for the Caballah, of course, Reuchlin had nothing but highest praise, calling it “the most secret speech and words of God,” and asserting that “Jewish commentaries should not and cannot be abandoned by the Christian church, for they keep the special characteristics of the Hebrew language before our eyes.” Furthermore, he asserted that “the Bible cannot be interpreted without them.”

Thus having given the Jews a substantially clean bill of health, Reuchlin then turned his attention on their chief nemesis, insisting that Pfefferkorn’s attacks upon the Talmud were most likely motivated “for private reasons.”

In his report, Reuchlin denounced Pfefferkorn’s writings as the work of an ignorant hatemonger, thus establishing the debate’s parameters: the refined man of letters vs. the ignorant “tauf jud,” a racist slur picked up by Reuchlin’s supporters, including Erasmus of Rotterdam. Pfefferkorn called Reuchlin a Judaizer, a term then in the process of losing its opprobrium among educated humanists.

Says Jones, the debate in fact came down to a “Humanist vs. Scholastic mode,” with Pfefferkorn being staunchly defended by the Dominicans and the theology faculties at the Universities of Cologne and Louvain. In fact, every scholar appointed to the Commission, with the exception of Reuchlin himself, supported Pfefferkorn. But it was all to no avail. In the end, the Emperor decided matters in favor of the Jews.

As a result of Reuchlin’s recommendation, the emperor did not renew the mandate to confiscate the Jewish books. Reuchlin had killed the project, and Pfefferkorn was furious. Pfefferkorn correctly claimed “the Jews bribed Christians in high places…and they filled the ears of the good Emperor with false advice, so that His imperial Majesty gave orders to restore the books to the Jews”…

Having one of the most distinguished Christian scholars in Europe defend the Talmud left Jews rubbing their eyes in amazement. The Jews rushed out to buy Reuchlin’s book, and using their commercial connections, made it an instant bestseller, perhaps the first in history.

The incident paved the way for further changes in Europe, some of them huge, for as Jones notes, Reuchlin had gathered support from “virtually the entire Humanist community”—a group that included Martin Luther and Ulrich von Hutten.

The loser, of course, was the authority of the Catholic Church.


The Second Vatican Council

 In June of 1960, a French Jew by the name of Jules Isaac journeyed to Rome where he managed to win an audience with Pope John XXIII. Isaac was an historian, had served as inspector general of France’s public schools, and had written two books on Catholic attitudes toward Jews, Jesus et Israel and Genese de l’Antisemitisme, in which he argued that 1) the Catholic Church had preached an anti-Semitism for 2000 years which, 2) found its ultimate expression in the mass murder of Jews in World War II. “Father Paul De Mann from Paris and Father Gregory Baum, a Jewish convert from Canada, spread his thesis in Catholic circles,” Jones writes. “Baum called Jesus et Israel ‘a moving account of the love which Jesus had for his people, the Jews, and of the contempt which the Christians, later, harbored for them.’”

Pope John’s predecessor, Pope Pius XII, had led the church through the war years, having been nuncio to Germany during the rise of National Socialism, elevated finally to the papacy in 1939. As Jones puts it, Pius “knew the rise of Hitler in Bavaria in 1923 was predicated on the excesses of Jewish Bolshevism there and not on readings of the sermons of St. John Chrysostom or the Gospel of St. John.” But with the death of Pius in 1958, Isaac sensed a “new spirit” blowing through the Vatican and a “window of opportunity for his ideas.” Indeed there was, and attacks upon Pius, not surprisingly, ended up becoming one of the chief strategies employed by Jews in pushing their resolution through the Council.

The story of Vatican II is a complex one, but Jones tells it skillfully and in detail. Initially, at any rate, the Council’s principle aim was not addressing the issue of anti-Semitism. Rather, the key word was aggiornamento, meaning to bring the church “up to date” in its relationship with the modern world. The preliminary documents in fact were already being drawn prior to Isaac’s audience with the pope, and for the most part their objective was not so much to “baptize the Enlightenment,” as Jones puts it, but to “make Catholics aware of a threat to faith and morals coming from the West, in particular, the United States, more particularly, Hollywood.” For some in the Church, represented particularly perhaps by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, American films were “a vehicle for American mores,” which in turn were “undermining the traditional way of life” in predominantly Catholic countries. “Modern life, without doubt, multiplies invitations to evil by such distractions as beauty contests, spectacles, billboards, songs, illustrated magazines, beaches, places of vacation, promiscuity, and certain forms of sport,” one of the early documents asserted. Condemning “the cult of movie stars, naturalism, the so-called sexual education, pansexualism, and certain injurious aspects of psychoanalysis,” the document warned that if the Church lost its hold on sexual morals, it would lose control of “the ordinary way of sanctification for the majority of the human race.” Jones comments:

It didn’t take a genius to know who in America was prominent in supporting “the cult of movie stars, pansexualism and psychoanalysis.” It was the Jews.

Yet at the same time, Isaac found himself amiably received by Pope John. Their meeting took place June 13, 1960, with the pope taking the initiative by “discoursing on his devotion to the Old Testament,” and Isaac responding that such sentiments “kindled great hopes in the people of the Old Testament.” Isaac further told the pope the time had come to fulfill these hopes and expectations, a fulfillment that could only be met with the Church issuing a strong condemnation of anti-Semitism. John had been “thinking along those lines,” and the pope referred the matter to a German Jesuit by the name of Augustin Bea, who had been made a cardinal the previous year. The idea was that Bea would draft a text about Jewish-Christian relations that the Council would consider for adoption. However, as Jones relates:

The pope’s desire soon was transformed into something radically different when it made contact with the realities of 20th century Jewish interest groups and publicity organs. Before long “the people of the Old Testament” were represented by international Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Rather than formulating the Catholic position on the Jews in light of Catholic tradition, Cardinal Bea became a go-between between the Jewish organizations and the Council Fathers, who initially were also under the impression they were dealing with the “people of the Old Testament.” Because the Council Fathers were favorably impressed by Jules Isaac’s petition (as opposed to his books, which they had not read), Isaac was allowed to determine the terms of the debate, becoming the principle theorist for the Vatican’s statement on the Jews.

Though Isaac seems to have made a favorable impression overall with Church authorities, he did have his critics. Viscount Leon de Poncins was a journalist and Catholic essay writer who rose to the occasion by mounting a vigorous campaign against the resolution. Also, perhaps by virtue of being a fellow Frenchman, he seems to have had Isaac pegged to a tee. Poncins called Isaac the main promoter of a “campaign being waged against the traditional teachings of the Church,” and predicted (accurately as it turned out) that Nostra Aetate would become “a weapon designed to overthrow traditional Catholicism, which they consider the chief enemy.” Certainly his words, even then, must have had a ring of truth, but unfortunately not all heeded them. The Second Vatican Council “became a battleground over whose interpretation of the Jews was going to be normative,” as Jones puts it, or, in other words, competing visions over what actually the Jews were and are—“people of the Old Testament,” as Isaac portrayed them, or “the avant-garde of modernity and the promoters of sexual deviance as a covert form of control, as Ottaviani implicitly portrayed them”? Of course, for a good many in the Church, the “goal of condemning anti-Semitism seemed noble enough,” and regrettably “the spirit of the times precluded close theological examination of the terms of the discussion.”

The Second Vatican Council convened in October of 1962, and it came to be seen as a contest between Church liberals and conservatives, or at least that’s how it was portrayed in the media, particularly by Time Magazine and one of its reporters, Robert Blair Kaiser, whose reporting seems to have been anything but objective. The Church was out of sync with the modern world in its attitude toward the Jews, and in an effort to remedy that, the pope had “asked Cardinal Bea to prepare a schema for the Council that would revise the old Catholic story about the Jews killing Christ, and thus bringing eternal damnation on them and their children too,” Kaiser reported at one point, asserting that the New Testament’s crucifixion narrative was “a myth that had nurtured anti-Semitism for centuries.” In general, the portrayal of the Council in the media was as a struggle between “the forces of darkness and reaction”—as symbolized by Ottaviani—and “the forces of light and progress.” Among the “forces of light” were those apparently willing to throw out fundamental aspects of Church doctrine and Catholic teaching in an effort to appease the Jews—and ironically, the more they tried to appease, the more outrageous Jewish demands seem to have become.

B’nai B’rith wanted the Church to delete any language it deemed anti-Semitic from the Catholic liturgy. This was a tall order because the liturgy was based on Scripture that was, if not anti-Semitic, then certainly anti-Jewish. Virtually the entire Gospel of St. John and the Acts of the Apostles revolved around the conflict between the Jews who accepted Christ as their savior and the Jews who rejected him. Since those texts were central to any Catholic liturgy and full of invidious comparisons between the New Israel, the Catholic Church, and the Old, repudiated by Christ for its blindness and obstinacy, it was hard to see how dialogue could succeed. Unless, of course, the purpose of dialogue was something other than what it claimed to be.

Opponents of the declaration “claimed that ulterior motives had been driving the discussion from the beginning”—one ulterior motive, of course, being to deal the Catholic Church a crippling blow, a church which at the time, as Jones notes, enjoyed almost “universal esteem.” But as in previous eras of history, the Jews had no trouble finding Christians willing to join their cause. As the discussions progressed, Bea seemed to gravitate increasingly into the Jewish camp, being picked up by limousine at one point for a meeting with Jews at the Park Plaza Hotel in New York, while meanwhile in Rome, Time’s reporter, Kaiser, turned his spacious apartment into “a gathering place for conciliar progressives…those who were pushing hardest for updating everything and doing so with high hilarity.” A series of “soirees” were held in Rome, with Hollywood director Otto Preminger in attendance at one, but as Jones notes:

By this point the Jewish lobbying was beginning to cause a reaction. Pamphlets on the Jews began to appear at the Council. The Jews and the Council in the Light of Holy Scripture by Bernardus offered the most rational presentation from the official Church standpoint. Its message: Scripture states clearly that the Jews were voluntary deicides; the Fathers of the Church supported this doctrine. St. Thomas of Aquinas wrote that the attitude of the Roman Pontiffs can only be interpreted as an affirmation that the Jews partake of a world-wide plot to destroy the Church. Hence, all should be wary of the Jew and not destroy a foundational dogma of the Church.

The Council’s third session began in the fall of 1964, resulting, by November, in passage of “a document on the Jews so heavily influenced by Jewish lobbying that many thought it repudiated traditional Catholic teaching.” As Jones notes, “the Jews rejoiced, but their rejoicing was short-lived” when the schema was rejected by Pope Paul VI. The latter had become pope upon the death of John the previous year, and now he found himself faced with the “unenviable prospect” of having to mediate between warring factions within the Church. And at this point it was the conservatives, that is to say those opposing the declaration, who were gaining the upper hand. In October of 1965, Poncins showed up at the Council carrying thousands of copies of a pamphlet he had written entitled Le Problème Juif face au Concile, or “The Jewish Problem vis-à-vis the Council,” in which he committed the unpardonable, “anti-Semitic” sin of quoting directly from Jewish texts. Among those quoted were Isaac himself, who had previously attacked the Church in writing, calling its teachings:

a tradition which, moreover, is infinitely noxious and murderous, and which, as I have said and shall repeat, leads to Auschwitz—Auschwitz and other places. Some six million Jews were liquidated solely because they were Jews and thus brought shame not only upon the German people but upon the whole of Christianity, because without centuries of Christian teaching, preaching and vituperation, Hitler’s teaching, propaganda and vituperation would have been impossible.

Isaac had also labeled the Gospel of Matthew “obviously tendentious,” and accused the Church fathers of being “persecutors filled with anti-Jewish hatred.” Comments Jones:

Poncins maintained in his tract that the Schema of November of 1964 passed because the bishops were ignorant of Isaac’s true feelings toward Christianity, but, more broadly, they were ignorant of the difference between the Torah and the Talmud. The former is the Word of God; the latter is its antithesis. The Talmud, Poncins pointed out, was a post-Christian confection designed to keep Jews from converting to Christianity. After the destruction of the Temple, “The Talmud replaced the Torah as the foundation of all wisdom and the guide in every detail of daily life.” The point of the Talmud was “to consummate the definite break from triumphant Christianity.” So “The imposition of the ideals of the Talmud on the new branch of Judaism has been the calamity of the Jewish people even to this day.”…

The schema was dangerous because “it put the Church in the position of the accused, guilty of the permanent, unjustifiable and unatonable crime of anti-Semitism for two thousand years.” Beyond that, it questioned “the good faith and truthfulness of the Evangelists, of St. John and St. Matthew in particular, it discredited the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and of the great doctrinarians of the papacy by depicting them in distasteful colors; in short, it threatened to demolish the very bastions of Catholic doctrine.”

Poncins also argued against viewing modern-day Jews as “the people of the Old Testament,” demonstrating that their desire was not a Messiah, but “a terrestrial reign in which they will control the social, economic and political life of the nations…Judaism seeks to impose itself as the sole standard and to reduce the world to Jewish values.” Keep in mind, this was written in 1965. Clearly a man in many respects ahead of his time, Poncins concluded that the Jewish schema was an attack on the Church “under the banner of ecumenism,” and that in allowing Jews unprecedented access in the formulation of the document, the Church had provided them with a means of carrying a “war…into the very interior of the Church itself.”

As may be expected, given Pope Paul’s “unenviable prospects” in trying to negotiate an end to the strife, what ended up passing was a document that seemingly offered concessions to both sides.

The schema on the Jews was incorporated into a “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” known as Nostra Aetate, promulgated by the Council on October 28, 1965…On the whole, the conservatives were jubilant, and the Jews were disappointed, but the results in light of the actual document were mixed. Jews were disappointed that the charge of deicide was not rebuked. But conservatives were disappointed the text did not implicate all the Jews in deicide. In one of the cleverest lines in the document, the Council Fathers wrote, “Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. John 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion.” According to the principles of logic, that statement could be taken to assert that some Jews were responsible for Christ’s death. If we exclude from that group the Blessed Mother, the Beloved Disciple, and all of the other Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah, we come up with a statement that is largely faithful to the gospels texts.

But it didn’t end there. The Church was left divided, while “an indignant press campaign” ensued, provoking even more controversy, and Jones believes that in essence both sides ended up losing. Those who supported the document were accused of having sold out to international Jewry, while opponents were held practically “co-responsible” for the rise of Hitler. Furthermore, the disjunction between the Jews of Christ’s time, and those of today, raised a double standard on the issue of “collective responsibility”:

Jews could hold the German people accountable for Hitler’s crimes, forcing generations of German taxpayers to pay billions in reparations to Jewish organizations and the state of Israel. But Jews vehemently denied collective responsibility for the death of Christ. The Council’s schema tried to have it both ways, repudiating the claim the Romans alone were responsible for Christ’s death, but limiting Jewish guilt to Jewish leaders and their followers. As Poncins points out, in the case of Germany in the 20th century, “The whole people is considered responsible and subsequently punished for faults officials committed by its leaders, even when [those faults] are unknown to a great part of the people.” On the other hand, the Gospel accounts make clear that many Jewish people in Jerusalem were aware of what their leaders were doing and supported them in their efforts.

In addition to the above, one other factor figured prominently—most likely unanticipated saving perhaps by Poncins and a few others—namely the power of the Jewish media, for the Church ultimately lost control over the document’s interpretation. While Nostra Aetate had its share of “clever” lines, there were also passages that aided the “hijacking” of the resolution’s meaning, with Jones pointing to the following as one of the most glaring examples: “The Church…deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” Thus the document condemns anti-Semitism, but, and this became the crucial point, without defining the meaning of the term. It was “an omission of truly catastrophic proportions,” says Jones, and here we might again consider the words of Poncins:

In Jewish eyes, every measure of defense and protection against the penetration of Jewish ideas and conceptions, against anti-Christian Jewish heresies, against Jewish control of the national economy, and in general every measure of defense of national Christian traditions is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, many Jews consider that the very fact of the recognition of the existence of a Jewish question constitutes a declaration of anti-Semitism…

Jules Isaac accuses all the Fathers of the Church of anti-Semitism…He accuses them of having unleashed the savagery of the beast and of being the real people responsible for German anti-Semitism and the gas chambers at Auschwitz. He finds them even worse that Hitler and Streicher and others for their system resulted in the Jews being tortured slowly and being left to live and suffer interminably…Does the Church admit Jules Isaac’s thesis and plead guilty?

For the next four-plus decades, Nostra Aetate would be used exactly as Poncins had predicted, i.e. as “a weapon designed to overthrow traditional Catholicism,” or as another writer described it, it was “the cornerstone of the abusive relationship that has hamstrung the Catholics.” By way of example, we might point to the passion play performed at the Bavarian village of Oberammergau. The play is a huge production and has a long tradition dating back to the year 1634, but one year after the passage of Nostra Aetate, the American Jewish Congress demanded that directors of the play make changes in the script or face a boycott. In support of its efforts, the AJC marched out a bevy of celebrities including Arthur Miller, Lionel Trilling, Stanley Kunitz, Leonard Bernstein, Leslie Fiedler, Theodore Bikel, Irving Howe, and Alfred Kazin, and even several German writers, including George Steiner, Guenter Grass (yes, that Guenter Grass), Heinrich Boell, and Paul Celan. Also in support of the effort was Elie Wiesel, whose account of his Auschwitz experience in recent years has been highly challenged, but in November of 1966, Wiesel, surrounded by the other celebrities, held a news conference in New York where he asserted:

The artist cannot be silent when the arts are used to exalt hatred. If the people of Oberammergau feel that they cannot faithfully represent their vision except through an explicitly anti-Semitic text, then others have no choice but to denounce that vision and urge that all who share our view join with us in condemning the performance.

Jews even enlisted Catholic theologians in their efforts, but the greatest weapon in their arsenal was Nostra Aetate, or as one Jewish writer put it, “Oberammergau was caught between the anvil of Vatical II and the hammering criticism of Jewish groups.” Caught not so much because of what the document said, but, as Jones argues, “because the Church could never make its interpretation of its own document prevail over the interpretation which the Jews wanted to impose on it.” Not surprisingly, the Bavarians made concessions. But of course, the more ground they gave, the more the Jews demanded of them. Changes to the play were adopted in 1970, in 1980, and again in 1984. The lesson to be drawn is that “interfaith dialogue” is always a one-way street—with Jews making demands, and Christians giving in. So it has been in the past, and so it remains to this day.


 The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is a remarkable look back at the past, but it is even more than that. By understanding history, we understand the world we live in today, and Jones provides an invaluable service in helping us to understand the “revolutionary spirit” of Jewish power—how it operates, how it evolved, and how it maintains itself. Besides the three chapters I have covered here, you’ll find others, focusing on various periods of history, particularly of the last 500 years, offering insights into what at times seems like a living, breathing animus…as well as the volatile reactions that sometimes occur when that animus (the “revolutionary spirit,” as it were) comes into contact with unsuspecting Gentiles. I’m talking about events such as England’s consolidation as a Protestant, and philosemitic, power under the reigns of Cromwell and Queen Elizabeth I; the rise of Freemasonry; and the Russian revolution—all events in which, as most of us are well aware, key roles were played by Jews.

But other historical offshoots—episodes lesser-known, perhaps, but in which Jews nonetheless played equally significant roles behind the scenes—are also covered here. Jones includes a chapter on the Jewish criminal Leo Frank, who in 1913 murdered a 14-year-old girl employed as a child laborer in his factory in Atlanta. We also get the American Civil War, the civil rights movement, as well historical portraits of figures like Frederick Douglas, Marcus Garvey, and Lorraine Hansberry—with the book culminating finally in chapters on the Jewish takeover of American culture and the rise of the neoconservatives. Jones packs it with information every step of the way, and basically what he gives us is “the other side of the story,” the parts of history that somehow got left out of school textbooks (textbooks which, if we looked closely enough, we’d probably find were published by Jewish-owned publishing houses). No doubt, were it to become a bestseller, such a book would pose a public relations nightmare to Jews.

This is not to say I don’t have some criticisms. I do. Like many Christians of both the past and present, Jones takes a dim view of the ancient Gnostics, and in an early chapter of the book he discusses Irenaeus, a bishop in the early church, who in the second century condemned Gnosticism in his tract, Adversus Haereses, or “Against Heresies.” Writes Jones:

Irenaeus’ work, as its title implies, was written to combat heresy, specifically Gnosticism, but in entering that fray he had to deal with the Jews, acknowledging “from the very beginning of the Gnostic attack on Christianity,” that Gnosticism was associated with judaizing.

Far from attacking Christianity, many, if not most, Gnostics were Christians themselves. Moreover, such views would seem to overlook Gnostic groups such as the Sethians and the Marcionites, who were very much opposed to worshipping the God of the Old Testament, and who, at least in the case of the Marcionites, sought to eliminate the Old Testament entirely from the Christian canon of sacred literature. Had that happened, the course of history, needless to say, would have been quite different. The Judaizers—neither they of Pfefferkorn’s time, nor those of today—would have had a leg to stand on.

Another quibble I have with the book is the omission of a bibliography. The book is extremely well documented, with roughly 5,000 source notes, but Jones habitually refers to the numerous authors he quotes by last name only, which leaves you with the task of going back through hundreds of footnotes searching for the initial author citation and the title of the work quoted. The inclusion of a bibliography would have eliminated this problem.

All in all, however, this is an extremely important work and one that should be read any and all concerned about Jewish supremacism and the extent of Jewish power in the world today.

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is published by Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana. The book is available for order here.


 A couple of other things I’ll mention quickly before cutting to the videos. Firstly, a brief elucidation regarding a “red thread” that gets mentioned during the interview but that unfortunately is never elaborated upon—on page 19, in the book’s introduction, Jones talks about a tradition recorded in the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 31b), of Jewish priests in the second-temple era supposedly determining how successful temple sacrifices had been—i.e. “successful” in terms of expiating the sins of the Jews—through observance of a scarlet thread. If the thread turned white, the sacrifice had been accepted by God and the sins expiated. “According to Schoeman, the Talmud itself ‘unwittingly confirms’ that the Temple sacrifices failed 40 years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d. (i.e. at the time Christ died and the veil covering the Holy of Holies was rent in two) when it “recounts that from that time on…the scarlet thread never again turned white,” writes Jones.

And finally, a new interview with Jones has just been posted at The Ugly Truth. Though quite interesting, the interview deals primarily with current events in the Middle East rather than with the book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.





, ,

157 Responses to A Review of ‘The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’ by E. Michael Jones

  1. who_me June 9, 2012 at 2:49 am #

    another pc defense of catholicism.

    the main targets of catholic repression by “the spanish inqusition” were muslims.

    the main targets of catholic repression in the 13th century were “pagans”.

    there are no catholic “good guys”, nothing good came of catholicism. it’s been shite all along. in every sphere.

    while recent catholic crap has been closely aligned with jewish zionists, catholicism has always promoted a similar fascist idealism. fascism is catholicism, reborn.

    blaming jews for catholicism’s inate fascist faults is disingenuous. like blaming the usa for the crap israel does, it takes the spotlight off one guilty party to make another a patsy.

    • searching June 9, 2012 at 4:12 am #

      who_me ,
      your views are view’s of satanist, so in a way they are very biased. You represent the “demonic” side, which is about lies, manipulations, deception, deceive, hate etc, especially if it concern the catholic religion.
      Any person in a right mind see through it.
      I do feel sorry for you and your poor soul,
      though. It ain’t lookin’ good.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 4:35 am #

        In front of the Pearly Gates there is avery long queue winding around the clouds. At the Gate, St Peter is examining the list of sins of the first in line and then says something to him. The man turns beaming and says something to the one behind him. Pretty soon the new spreads and a huge roar of hurrays erupts from the crowd. The last in line asks the one in front of him: “What? What did St Peter say?” “He said posting on the internet doesn’t count.”

        • searching June 9, 2012 at 4:41 am #

          it is not Saint Peter who decides 🙂
          he is just a key holder.
          who_me secretly hopes that somehow he can sneak in , while Saint Peter is busy surfing internet.

          • who_me June 9, 2012 at 4:51 am #


            is it the bath salts? or the shekels?


    • who_me June 9, 2012 at 5:03 am #

      “fascism is catholicism, reborn.”

      let me rephrase that. fascism is capitalism with a very catholic bent. all openly fascist regimes were/are catholic. even the nazis got their start in the catholic dominated regions of germany and austria. look at the acceptance of fascism among catholic latin america.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

        “look at the acceptance of fascism among catholic latin america.”

        I think you willfully ignore much about Latin America if say that.

        • searching June 9, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

          do you mean nationalism??
          becasue politically corrected MSMedia tries to equal partiotism/nationalism with fascism.
          Obviously partiotism/nationalism is IN A WAY of building one world, global gavernment (NWO),so let’s brand it as a “fascism” ,
          so all the sheeple of the world buy it, and be afraid to talk talk about nationalism/partiotism.
          Who_me of course falls for the deceiving rhetoric sold by p.c. MSMedia.
          There is actually a beautiful documental movie, done by Polish director, Dominik Tarczynski ,about Columbia and all the amazing changes that happened recently in this country.
          Film is titled :” Columbia- testimony for the world” ,( or hope for the world).
          I have not seen it yet, but I’ve read great revies by independent media.
          I hope to see it.

          • searching June 9, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

            a trailer for this movie

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

            Columbia is a sad case of a country taken over by the CIA/US corporate interests. The military bases build by the US there serve as a base from where to stage coups to destabilize the south American countries that seek or have managed to attain independence form the US. Where is the “hope” in that?

  2. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 4:04 am #

    It is written by a Catholic so it has a Catholic pdv but I don’t see it as defense of Catholicism or an attempt to place blame on Jews for its faults.

    Judging from the review of the book as well as from the video the theme is the systematic subversion of christianity by talmudic jews.

    From personal experience I am familiar only with the case of Papa Pacelli. I lived in Italy at the time the jewish campaign started against him and looking back on it I have to say that it was a very carefully orchestrated campaign.
    Papa Pacelli was still revered in Italy as one of the “good” (in fact saintly) popes, and the generation that had been his contemporaries was still alive. Keeping this in mind the campaign started with an “andante ma non tropo” movement, not full out vilification. In fact newspapers reporting the incipiet grumbles were saying he had been a good pope who had protected many Jews but… he could have done more, oh, why hadn’t he done more. I recall comments people were making about it, mostly shrugging it off as ignorance of the tenor of the times.
    In time this grew and grew and –with Goldhagen’s assistance, not any proof–from a good pope who could have done more, Pacelli became … an accomplice of Hitler.

    • who_me June 9, 2012 at 4:46 am #

      Ariadna Theokopoulos

      while it is theoretically possible for a cathiolic to do an honest history of their genocidal role on the planet, i’m still waiting for one to do so.

      my bitch with the piece is not about the way catholicism has sucked up to recent jewish influence, it obviously has, but it’s less than honest portrayal of past catholicism as being nasty because it was under the influence of nasty jews. the medieval stuff about jewish influence of catholicism is just bunk. jews were a very minor player then.

      the catholic hierarchy has always been out for itself. the repressions it has done were to effect further catholic influence (this is behind their birth control bs, btw, less birth control-more braindead catholic clones).

      i ask you, what effect did jews have on germanus and his assigned role to shut down dissent? the history of this, and the times it took place in are still mostly lost. guess why.

      the article seeks to blame jews for the crap that catholicism gave the world. that’s why it stinks. it’s a cop out and it is shite history of the sort zionist jews now flood about israel, and the same sort of bs that americans are fed about american history.

      • searching June 9, 2012 at 5:10 am #

        your major ignorance on the subject
        combined with pure hate of catholicism is mind numbing.
        Who fed you all of it??
        What kind of dark power??

        • who_me June 9, 2012 at 5:21 am #

          what’s the current catholic equivilent of antisemitic canard.

          antisemitic canard

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

        “the article seeks to blame jews for the crap that catholicism gave the world. ”

        I did not see any of that in it. Perhaps we should both read the book but what comes through from the review and videos has nothing to do with justifying any of “the crap that catholicism gave the world. ” A book about that would be another book.
        This about the jewish influence gradually and persistently working to undermine the catholic faith to the degree where in recent years they demanded that even basic liturgy and scriptures be completely rehabbed or even rejected, while not even remotely comparable demands to examine the talmud teachings preached by jews be examined, let alone edited were made in response.

  3. searching June 9, 2012 at 5:03 am #

    The Vth column officially entered the CChurch during the Vatican Council 2 in 1962-3.
    They managed to change many of the traditional customs, prayers etc.
    Their main target was a Holy Mass which by removing many of the valid prayers, rites , forms became not a Sacrifice but a feast , a party. Many valid prayers were removed from the Holy Sacraments.
    The CCjurch was permeated by freemasons which started to occupy most of the higher seats.
    All of it took quite a few years to accomplish and, unfortunately, I do consider our pope John Paul 2 as one of the traitors.
    Many so called catholics would kick my behind for saying that but, hey the truth is the truth , no matter if somebody likes it or not. There is a tons of evidence proving it.
    After 2VC some of the bishops and cardinals did not agree with all the changes and seperated from the official Church.
    Two major groups are :Sedevacantists ( an empty seat in Latin, they are considered as schismatics by an official CChurch)), who don’t acknowledge any of the post -2VC popes as valid (starting with John 23, whom they regard as a traitor and a freemason), another group is the Society of St Pius X, who don’t acknowledge changes done during 2VC, but acknowledge the authority of the popes (they are now in the process of “dialouge” with Watican).
    Personally I suspect that Sedevacantists are right ,although I would like to be mistaken.
    But my gut feeling tells me so, and it is rarely wrong.
    It is interesting that a German nun, Catherine Emmerich had visions, apparitions of all of it in about 1819.
    Anyway, I think it is very important to watch what Vatican is doing becasue so far they are sending very dubious messages.
    I wonder what wil come out of this “dialogue” of Vatican with the Society of St Pius X.
    In my opinion they want to “pacify” them becasue they ,and their so called Traditional, Latin Mass is gainig more and more followers.
    Times in CChurch are interesting, although very disturbing and confusing as well.

  4. etominusipi June 9, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    thank you Richard, a thought-provoking and well-written review. good also to incude the media – sometimes one can learn a lot from hearing someone’s voice. Dr Jones’ well-modulated indignation endeared him to me.

    Ariadne wrote:

    the theme is the systematic subversion of christianity by talmudic jews

    one of our tasks must be to obtain a full and accurate description of the globalized zionist parasite, its goals, its modus operandi, its strengths and its weaknesses, even its potential ultimately to be salvaged and harnessed into purposes conducive to the welfare and harmonious development of humanity.

    this includes the historical dimension.

    any serious historical essay on such a theme deserves our interest, whatever might be the point of view and background of the writer. who_me is surely unhelpful in responding only with excremental epithets applied to the Catholic Church.

    our truth is determined by the direction and clarity of our gaze, not by the chemical composition of the mud we happen to be standing in. accept the mud – it is necessary, so you may as well love it. but don’t make it your goal!

    your opportunity here is to learn to shape your gaze in conformity with the Universal Logos – that is the magnificent Free Will seed potential of a human birth. and a life lived thus is not a forced march – it is a dance to the hidden music of the invisible world, the interior sphere of which this delightful reality is but the glistening surface.

    • Paul Eisen June 9, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

      I thought your comment, etominusipi, was interesting. I too find E. Michael Jones’ voice engaging and, because of Gilad and Sarah’s terrific contributions, this relationship between beauty and truth is very much on my mind.

      I also agree that blanket condemnations of Catholicism are, to put it mildly, far from helpful. It was good enough for St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Francis of Assisi,Sir Thomas More plus loads and loads of popes, bishops, priests – learned folk all – not to mention the generations of ordinary people who have found so much to love in ther church – are they all crazy? Was the truth really discovered in 1965?

      • who_me June 9, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

        “It was good enough for St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Francis of Assisi,Sir Thomas More plus loads and loads of popes, bishops, priests – learned folk all”

        what special greatness did these bring the world?

        “not to mention the generations of ordinary people who have found so much to love in ther church”

        it’s all most of them ever knew. those who in their past didn’t “love the church” were slaughtered. after a few generations, the vast bulk of people no longer knew they had a past before “the church”, what they knew, “the church” told them. “the church” indoctrinated them from birth to “love the church”. all the people who raised them “loved the church”. all the people they knew “loved the church”. for someone not to “love the church”, the conflicts would probably drive them insane, if “the church” didn’t kill them, or incite the community to kill them first.

        many of the behaviour manipulations used to keep jewish people tribal are also used to keep catholics (and most the other christians) tribal, as well.

        • who_me June 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

          incidentally, regarding: “learned folk all”

          “the church” actively prevented learning among the masses. one had to go through “the church” to get an education. education was open to only a very, very few people. those who taught independently had 2 basic choices, either teach “church” approved views or face a prosecution that often included torture, then murder.

          • who_me June 9, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

            furthermore, “the church” still fights against educating the masses. in latin america, “the church” worked to prevent or stop literacy campaigns. what was accomplished, was done in spite of “the church”.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

            Have you heard of liberation theology? They were Catholic priests too. Look them up.
            You make a good point about church hierarchy but if, as Paul says, millions of people find solace and a path to spirituality in faith, it is something that should give us pause, and perhaps eschew a broadside condemnation of faith as long as it is not behind armies like the Crusaders or the IDF.

          • searching June 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

            You are very ignorant in the matters of Churchand its history who-me. You are reading anti_church pieces from some propagana pamphlets and then you thorw your insults, lies and hate-filled accusations that are straight from satanic websites.
            You would not dare to throw similar accusations regarding Islam because you know that you could lose not only your hand, but possibly your head.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

            “You would not dare to throw similar accusations regarding Islam because you know that you could lose not only your hand, but possibly your head.”

            Hmm, could this current pope’s imprecations against Islam stem from envy, do yo suppose? A thousand excommunications are not worth a single fatwa nowadays.

          • who_me June 9, 2012 at 3:31 pm #


            “You would not dare to throw similar accusations regarding Islam because you know that you could lose not only your hand, but possibly your head.”

            so searching is an islamophobe after all. these hasbara role players usually slip up eventually. she managed to keep up longer than most, though. i’ll give her that. 🙂

          • searching June 9, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

            I am not an islamophobe. I actualy admire muslims in many regards because they would not put up with that kind of insults thrown at their religion ,and they would (rightly so) kick your behind well, given a chance.
            I do respect all religions and people, including muslims. I hope they feel the same as I do.
            I don’t feel a hate or contempt to any good person, regardless of his/her faith, race , ethnicity etc.
            But I do believe that The Truth lies in the catholic religion and I am happy to pursue it.
            Your outright animosity, contempt, insluts for the catholicism does makes me wonder if you are a freemason, satanist or just a plain ignoramus.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

            “if you are a freemason, satanist or just a plain ignoramus”
            It’s not clear if you addressed this to who_me or to me.
            How about “and/or” instead of just “or”?
            One could be more than one or all of the above, couldn’t one?

          • searching June 9, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

            it was addressed to who me of course.
            I would opt for ignoramus, bad willed one though.
            But ..I am not a mind reader so who-knows.?

        • Paul Eisen June 9, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

          Well, holy or profane, rich or poor, exalted or ignored – whatever they knew, they clearly didn’t know as much as you.

          • who_me June 9, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

            “Well, holy or profane, rich or poor, exalted or ignored – whatever they knew, they clearly didn’t know as much as you.”

            i’m not attacking you personally.

          • Paul Eisen June 9, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

            I understand that and i’m sorry for my sharp response.

            It’s just that lots of people have very strong feelings about the church which is often ‘their’ church.

    • searching June 9, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

      I liked you response.
      “who_me is surely unhelpful in responding only with excremental epithets applied to the Catholic Church”.
      That basically summs it up. 🙂

  5. Paul Eisen June 9, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    And here’s a short list from the top of my head of modern “Revolutionary Jews”:

    Sigmund Freud
    Karl Marx
    Woody Allen
    Philip Roth
    Bob Dylan
    Abbi Hoffman
    Sacha Baron Cohen
    David Ben Gurion

    Were they good or bad? Has their disruptive work advanced or inhibited the progress of humankind? How ‘Jewish’ are they?

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

      Funny thing, lists… Personal, of course. No “consensus” there.
      “Advanced or inhibited the progress of mankind”? Woody Allen? Maybe influential and well known in NYC and Florida and wherever the judeocentric intelligentia gathers for confabs. You would be amazed by the tens of millions of Americans who don’t know his name and whose lives have been arguably unaffected by his movies.
      Philip Roth? Largely regarded as a talented novelist who talked as a Jew to other Jews about Jewish anxieties.
      Marx? Yes. Freud? Yes, especially in the US. Ben Gurion? definitely.

      My list would have immediately started with the Rothschilds, the Goldman- Sachses, J P Morgans, Warburgs and their ancestors. Now THAT’s influencing the world!

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

        PS and are they Jewish? I think we can find consensus there…

        • Paul Eisen June 9, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

          It’s not just influencing the world, it’s more about disrupting the world. For example, Freud did it by telling us that what we thought we were, in fact we weren’t and that’s not even starting to look about his views on sexuality. Woody Allen does it by saying that everything we revered is just funny.

          Also, I think you may under-estimate their influence. Sure, loads of Americans have never heard his name but his particular style of disruption is, via the Jewish media, in the American bloodstream. Same goes for Roth, Dylan and all the rest.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

            “it’s more about disrupting the world”

            I don’t think Woody Allen can hold a candle to the ones I cited

          • Jay Knott June 10, 2012 at 10:32 am #

            Re. Ariadna’s list – so what about all the famous capitalists who AREN’T Jewish? Did they only bring harmony to the world?

            A list of famous Jews followed by a list of the negative things one thinks they have in common is hardly a fair method of evaluation.

            Paul accuses his list of ‘disrupting’ the world. I guess ‘Masters of War’ was disruptive. Jews who advocate war, you use against them. Jews opposing war… well they’re ‘disrupting’. You can’t have it both ways.

          • Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 12:11 pm #


            This is exactly what I find so interesting about these ‘disruptive’ Jews. It’s far from clear whether they are a good thing or a bad thing. Freud for example can be said to have enlightened us by giving us access to our unconscience. On the other hand he could be said to have given us an almighty headache and done much to cause our modern state of confusion.

            “Masters of War” is a harder example since it’s message seems to be universally ‘good’ (BTW, it’s very far from being my favourite Dylan song – I hate it) But what about other Dylan songs with lamposts with folding arms etc – What do they contribute other than to confuse us and make us discontented with reality? On the other hand, perhaps we need to be a bit confused. (BTW, E. Michael Jones has written beautifully about Dylan as a Revolutionary Jew but I can’t find the link.)

            This to me is the huge dilemma of this topic: In spite of his/her sometimes disruptive influence, do we in fact need the Revolutionary Jews?

            BTW, here’s a bit of a long shot: how would everyone feel about using real names on these coments? (no coercion, just a suggestion) but I much prefer it. I never really understand why people don’t. Can someone enlighten me?

          • Roy Bard June 10, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

            “Can someone enlighten me?”

            Its to do with the power of Google Paul. EG – when you apply for a job you don’t necessarily want your employer to know your political views in advance of the interview.

            Also for anyone planning on visiting the West Bank, they would want to avoid Israel being able to use their political views to exclude them.

          • Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

            Okay, but I get the feeling that beyond this consideration it’s become a bit of a fad and, to my mind, not a good fad. First of all it allows for all kinds of silly impersonation, secondly, I get confused with all the names and thirdly, I think it confounds my ability to address people as people and finally I think some of it is just plain childish (they seek him here, they seek him there….) .

            Would anyone now using a made-up name be wiling to start using their real name?

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

            “First of all it allows for all kinds of silly impersonation,”
            I can only speak for myself–when I do my impersonations (my more successful repertoire is limited to zionists although I am working on ‘stretching” my talent) I do not assume a different name so I it should not make any difference.

            ” secondly, I get confused with all the names”
            How would that be alleviated if who_me posted as John Smith, I as Helen, and so on? There would be the same number of names to remember.

            and thirdly, I think it confounds my ability to address people as people”

            You have not shown any difficulty in that respect so far. You less than anybody on this site.

          • Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

            “First of all it allows for all kinds of silly impersonation,”
            I can only speak for myself–when I do my impersonations (my more successful repertoire is limited to zionists although I am working on ‘stretching” my talent) I do not assume a different name so I it should not make any difference.

            ” secondly, I get confused with all the names”
            How would that be alleviated if who_me posted as John Smith, I as Helen, and so on? There would be the same number of names to remember.

            and thirdly, I think it confounds my ability to address people as people”

            You have not shown any difficulty in that respect so far. You less than anybody on this site.


          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

            I see what you mean. Yes, I agree about the usefulness of knowing a person’s gender and I agree with most of the rest: proper people names are better than common nouns, etc.
            Bear in mind though that some of these posters come here with the nicks they have been using for years on other sites (like Deadbeat for example whose posts I have been reading on ICH for years; fool me once is in the same category; for all I know who_me might be even if I don’t remember him).
            I, for one, find it useful to follow a poster with whose nick and therefore ‘identity’ as a poster I am familiar with.
            Roy Bard’s considerations are valid for many US posters. I personally know someone who posted under his/her real name, revealing in posts also city of residence, protests that person was planning to attend, etc, and in “due time”-that person’s tires would be slashes almost regularly as a minor consequence–could get much worse.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

            PS Yes, you may take it as a compliment; it is my ‘objective’ conclusion.

          • etominusipi June 10, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

            Paul: re names. i am sympathetic to your plea, but may i explain my reasons for the id i use here. etominusipi is my twitter id, and i used it here because my knowledge of deLiberation came from twitter interactions with Jonathon. my general policy is to allow my online presence (such as it is) to be as open as possible. my ‘real name’ (or perhaps ‘given name’) is visible on twitter, and from that you can find my facebook account & so on. there is no abrupt disappearance of my informatic paper trail. as bona fides, a very brief personal statement (mainly relevant to 911 issues) is included in my signature of the A&E911 petition: to access it go to
            and click on David Holden.

            this name etominusipi in fact well evidences my aspergers, since the thought behind using this monniker was to draw people’s attention to one of the most beautiful and far-reaching formulae of mathematics (sometimes known as “Euler’s identity”) – in point of fact very few have penetrated that mystery, or even wished to do so, and it only struck me quite recently (aspergers is very slow on the uptake about certain quite self-evident truths) that the word probably seems rather obscure and difficult to remember to most people – at this point my ‘ascetic’ tendency dictated that i should abide by the consequences of what was probably, from some points of view, a minor tactical error. you are most welcome to call me David.

            btw, fyi, according to our family folklore, one of my great-grandmothers was a Jewess (a reverse migrant from New York) – since she was my mother’s mother’s mother i may have some faint trace of a legalistic claim to tribal membership, though i am very much at ease in my own (goy fore-)skin.

            ‘blood’ may influence us – i have one eighth definitive Irish ancestry, and when i was briefly in Derry during the Troubles, several of my nationalist collocutors viewed this genetic connection as a plausible (to them) reason for my strong, nay passionate, dedication to their cause. likewise i was attracted to the Qabalah some decades ago, and for reasons related to that study, briefly toyed with the idea of ‘becoming’ a Jew. though i won’t bore you with the details, it was this which led to several eye-opening experiences showing me there was something ‘very dodgy’ (my argot) about Jewishness in the modern world, and its relation to a rogue state in the Middle East.

          • fool me once... June 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

            Woody Allen – Allan Stewart Konigsberg
            Bob Dylan – Robert Allen Zimmerman
            Abbi Hoffman – Abbot Howard Hoffman
            David Ben Gurion – David Grün
            Tony Curtis – Bernard Schwartz
            Sigmund Freud – Sigismund Fraud (see Nutters thread)
            Victor Borge – Børge Rosenbaum
            etc etc etc etc etc……
            What’s the big deal Paul? You appear quite happy to talk about those you listed above in your post, quite unconcerned about what they called themselves. Come on, don’t be coy now, what’s the real reason you want commentators to publicly identify themselves?
            Whilst you hedge your bets, sitting on the proverbial “gader hafradeh” you come across as a little slippery. Changing your opinion to gain the best vantage does not win trust.
            It would have been nice if you’d have followed up my questions about your own “specialness” rather than
            censoring then boycotting my reply to you, it showed bad form. (there does seem to be a lot of sulky men on this forum, which I must say surprises me)
            Anyway, now that we’re communicating again 😉 what about
            explaining what you mean by “PROPERLY-NAMED PEOPLE”.
            Do you mean officially, as in “court of law?”

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

            Thanks, Jay. You threw light upon Paul’s question for me, which I had misunderstood because I could not discern much commonality among the names on his list other than they were Jews who had created a buzz.
            Now I think I understand correctly that Paul meant by “revolutionary Jews” those who have disrupted the way of thinking of their time, made people unhappy with the thinking of their time and helped propell change. (Correct me, if I am wrong, Paul). In that sense Jay’s question makes perfect sense: what would be a comparable list of Gentiles?
            In the category of Jews who fulfill the above definition I would place people like Spinoza, Marx, Einstein and from among artists, Proust and Kafka, for example. The question of whether their influence was “good” or “bad” is really inapplicable here, even in the only case in which it usually arises, because a revolution in the perception of the world is never bad, only how it may applied later by others (sorry, Marxists haters). Marx’s merit was to have lifted from among all social relationships one set only and made it defining for social evolution: ownership of the means of production. Wrong? Maybe, but it was revolutionary change.
            There is in my view, however, a crucial difference between these ‘revolutionary jews’ and those the book addresses. These jews acted as men/citizens/thinkers of their time in a coherent and principled, universalist and humanist fashion, not as tribalists seeking to disrupt the gentile world to mold its mentality, laws and religion so as to make it more propitious for the Tribe, which far form ever disturbing or subverting they protect.
            Seen in this light, Marx was no different than Smith and Riccardo, Einstein is not different from Newton, Spinoza has a lot in common with Gallileo (although he latter was not a philosopher), Proust is a lot like Joyce and Kafka like Ionesco. They are Jews by biography and perhaps religion but not by manifesto and agenda.
            The ‘revolutionary Jews’ the book talks about are those who disrupt the Gentile world for being Gentile, for being Christian; they undermine not Religion but only the religion of the Other, especially the dominant religion and specifically organized Christian religion, by attacking it and seeking to weaken it (the Catholic Church) or by infiltrating it and making it its political instrument (born again “Christian zionists”).
            This crucial difference arises from the Jewish culture mentality described by a revolutionary jew –OK, revolutionary ex-jew– whom I would place in the same first category I described (I am not brown nosing here, I swear).

          • Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

            This seesm to bring us back to the question: What is a Jew? Or, more specifically in this case: Is part of being a Jew some kind of fear/contempt for Christians/Non-Jews/Host populations?

            If there is anything in that then a revolutionary Jew is very different from a Revolutionary.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

            The key to your question has been provided by Gilad in his writings (esp in The Wandering Jew): the difference resides in whether Jewishness is the central, paramount and guiding part of your identity or whether you are a citizen of your country (or no country for that matter), a person, an intellectual, an artist or a cobbler, or even a politician who HAPPENS, incidentally, and only as a matter of interest to him, his God (if any) and his family, to be a Jew.
            {I must watch myself citing Gilad: I am beginning to sound like a Chinese of yesteryear citing form Mao’s Red Book).
            From that perspective, as I tried to describe before, there are REVOLUTIONARIES who happen to be Jews, and there are JEWS who happen to be revolutionaries on a prescribed, Tribe-sparing, society subverting course.

          • Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

            I’ve never bought into Gilad’s categories as much as some have. I’ve met a load of Jews i my life and in my experience, if they let you know that they’re Jewish (and most of them seem to) then usually it’s pretty important to them.

            Of course they deny it like mad but that’s just part of Jewish power.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

            The element of deceit in the Tribalist agenda of the ‘revolutionary jews’ can be seen in the Trojan horse in which the proposed changes come:
            the invention of the oxymoronic, impossible concept of ‘judeo-christian values,”
            the documented push to subvert and obscure the teachings of the New Testament, even to rewrite the Old Testament (the Scofield Bible)
            the deceitful self-presentation as “people of the Book” (the minuscule minority of Torah Jews) instead of the people of the Talmud.
            The message has been and is: “We are your elder brothers, we both obey the same commandments (which you got from us, little brothers), except ease off on the transcendental stuff. You can have it all in the here and now! The means and methods do not count as long as it is legal, and if it isn’t we have a lobby and plenty of lawyers to make it so. Who says usury is bad? That’s a medieval superstition. Money makes the world go round. Wait until you hear what we thought up: fractional reserve banking. Let us worry about it, you know we are smarter and good with money.
            Sexual taboos? Don’t be such a square Goy. One of our boys, Freud explained in Totem and Taboo that “taboos” are primitive things. If you repress any desire your subconscious will explode. Incest is not bad in itself, only the guilt you bury deep in your subconscious is. Besides, you can make a lot of money from it.”
            I don’t see these ‘revolutionary jews’ exerting themselves for the sexual liberation of the hassidic jews, which only bring a tear of compassionate kinship to their eyes.
            Among these ‘revolutionary jews’ I would list, as I said before, the Rothschilds, JP Morgans, Warburgs, Goldman Sachses, the whole crew of the Federal Reserve System–and sorry, Jay, there are no Goyim of comparable stature, not even remotely. I would also list the likes of Untermeyer, Morgenthau, the whole lot of AIPAC, ADL, the owners of the media conglomerates, of Hollywood, the billionaires behind the scene like Adelman, Kochs, and practically all the jews in the US Congress except for the erring ones they kill if unrepentant (Paul Wellstone).

  6. Roy Bard June 9, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    I found this interview between E. Michael Jones and Brother Nathaneal, after reading the article.

    “Br. Nathanael: Is the dialogue between Jews and Catholics bearing any fruit?

    E. Michael Jones: Only for the Jews.

    For example, last January, Rabbi David Rosen, Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Department for Interreligious Affairs, told the Jerusalem Post that he would be “very surprised” if the Society of St. Pius X were readmitted to the Catholic Church due to Bp. Williamson’s ‘holocaust denial.’

    Earlier, Rosen told the Post, “The embrace of an open Holocaust denier and the Society he represents, is shameful, a serious blow for Jewish-Vatican relations.”

    Rabbi Rosen is now claiming veto power for the Jews in determining who is and who is not a good Catholic so as either to be admitted or shut out from the Church. In other words, dialogue has become the vehicle for Jewish control of the Catholic mind.”

    And from the link this video:

    I hadn’t come across the Bishop before.

    • searching June 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

      Bishop Richard Willamson commited the biggest chutzpah of all chutzpahs . He dared to question the biggest Jewish dogma of “6 millions and gas chambers”. That’s why Jewish owned MSmedia demand his instant crucyfication. How dare he is??
      Nobody does that. And partially Jew- Owned, after 2 Vatican Council, Vatican had to apologize very severely for that blunder.
      It stiffed “the dialogue” between Jews and catholic ,in which Jews get most of what they want and catholic are basically told to be quiet about this and that. It is painfil to watch the current road the Vatican is taking. And it does not seem to be a road to heaven. Some catholics see it , many don’t.
      I am very curious how this “dialogue” between the Society of Pius X and the Vatican hierarchy ends. There has been already a big rift between some of the priests and bishops among the Society of St Pius X concering this “dialogue”.
      I seriously belive that the whole attempt of attracting the Society back to Vatican is in order to pacyfiy it.
      Water and fire don’t work well together. You can not combine the 2VCouncil changes that basically destroyed the Traditional Church, with people ,who care about following and preserving evertyhing that was valid BEFORE 2VCouncil.
      But we’ll wait and see.

  7. Paul Eisen June 9, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    I met the Bishop a couple of years ago. He was under a lot of pressure because of that clip. I don’t want to even think what I’d like to do to that journalist.

    The whole Jewiss-Christian ‘dialogue has always for me been best summed up by Marc Ellis”Ecumenical Deal’

    “Christians will apoligise to Jews for the terrible things they have done. And when they’ve apologised, they’ll apologise again. And when they’ve done apologising again, they’ll apologide some more and so on and on until they’ve apologised sufficiently. Then the Jews will forgive them – provided the Jews can do what they want in Palestine.”

    I’d like to add to Marc’s description by adding the words “…and the world”

  8. searching June 9, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    here is how the current, Novus Ordo ,protestantsized Mass may look like after
    2V Council. In many caseses it became the flashy show, the happy circus.
    And here how it looked before it.
    The sedevacantists and The Society of Pius X perform the traditional/Tridentine/Latin Mass.
    A huge difference. This is pure a beauty, reverance, adoration.

    • fool me once... June 9, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

      “This is pure a beauty, reverance, adoration.”
      Too true searching, I think your winning the crowd over. For the life of me, I can’t think of a single good enough reason to boycott the catholic church, Deus te benedicat.

      • who_me June 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

        i never would have believed you were a follower of satan, fmo. are you coming to the black mass sunday?

  9. searching June 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm #
    Some would say “what is such a big deal”?
    Oh well , why then we say “our Father, who art in Heave…”, not ” our foo foo, who sit on the chair”.
    Prayers have a certain meaning and a power behind it (,which exists only if they are done in a proper way. With faith of course.
    I’ve listened to quite a few priests (of different nationalities),who are exorcists, and they agree that the exorcist’s rite that was aproved in 1980’s ( by JPII after 2VC) does not work.
    The other one ,that was approved few centuries ago ,does its job. One of the exorcists said ,”devil is laughing at me when I am using the new , post VC2 rite”.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

      Maybe I’m getting old, no, in fact I AM old, but I too find that more and more of things available today are nowhere near as good as they used to be.
      The American saying seems to apply here: “They don’t make’em like they used to.” People say that about today’s Mercedes cars as well and that does it for me. If you can’t even trust German engineering anymore what can you trust?
      I am sorry to hear that exorcisms fall into that category as well. They had some good ones that seem to work, way back, in Salem. Why can’t they bring them back?

      • searching June 10, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

        “Why can’t they bring them back?:
        They do have,luckily for those miserable souls, who are possessed , an old rite ,
        ( from 16/17th century), which seems to do its work.
        The new one (from 1982/3) doesn’t work because , again, well, the spirt of after 2VC was not exactly Christ’s spirit.
        It is actually interesting to see that it does not work. It is another proof that all those rites, rituals, customs, prayers etc matter. The FORM matters.
        It took many , many years to develop them, they were approved by CChurch over the course of centuries and then booom, boom, the 2 Vatican Council came ,and wiped a lot of them of their existence or twisted their meaning etc.
        The 2VC could be euquated to the bolshevic Revolution in Russia. The changes approved there slowly are destryong the teachings and tradition of CChurch.
        It is hard to tell if CChurch completely departed from being “THE CChurch” after 2VC ,
        ( sedevacantists claim that it did), or is there any Truth still left in post 2VC CChurch , ( The Society of St Pius X still belive in it, mainly in the authority of post 2VC popes).
        It is pretty confusing for many belivers ,who are actually pretty divided over those ,and many other issues. (ex. apparitions in Medjugore).
        But talking about Medjugorei brings us back to apparitions in Fatima.
        And Fatima is a VERY interesting subject to discuss. It looks like the message of Fatimsa has been twisted, manipulated , incomplete etc. There were many books written about it.
        Why the message of Fatima bothers so much post 2VC Church that they are afraid to reveal it?????

        • searching June 10, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

          here is a video/docummentary about “the Third Secret of Fatima, the Impostor Sr. Lucia, and the End of the World”.
          Very interesting to watch.
          Pretty disturbing though.

      • etominusipi June 10, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

        the marching morons

        Ariadna, re “things ain’t wot they used to be”, you might like this story by Cyril Kornbluth (1951):,%20C%20M%20-%20The%20Marching%20Morons.html

        i read it many years ago when, for a brief spell, science fiction was the principal source of useful social comment and philosophical speculation.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 1:59 am #

          Quite remarkable. I liked it a lot. So… not even sci fi is what it used to be indeed. Thanks for posting it.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 9, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

      “One of the exorcists said ,”devil is laughing at me when I am using the new , post VC2 rite”.

      Is that an all bad thing though? What if instead of scaring the devil out of the possessed one could make the devil die of laughter. Humor has not been used to its potential in religions, I think.

      • searching June 9, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

        devil does not have to much of a sense of humor. He hates anything that has anything to to do with love, peace, laughter, joy etc.
        He grows on hate, anger, fear (sic), agression etc.
        THAT is his realm of action, his territory.
        He despises not only God, but God’s creation..a human. He wants to destroy it with all his might. But …he also believes, even more, he KNOWS that God exist, although he hates Hm, but he does acknowledges his existence. That what satanists do .
        The acknowledge the existence of God and evil. But they choose devil/evil for their master, for whatever reason.
        I guess we have a free will, we make our choices, and we ultimately will pay for them.

      • searching June 9, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

        Here is a video /interview with an exorcists, that may answer some of your questions or doubts.
        I have more links on the subject, but they are all in Polish (one is in Italian translated in Polish, very interesting one).
        here is a very powerful prayer to St Michael Archangel that before 2Vatican Council used to be said after each Mass.
        2VC removed this prayer as the obligatory after Mass. Hm?? Wonder why?
        Here it is as song. I like it.

  10. searching June 9, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    two, very good, short videos that talko about “diabolical changes within the Catholic Church”.

  11. Blake June 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    Not a Bible basher but Moses himself said that to the Judeans that in your final days God will rise up a Prophet and you must listen to Him and in Books of Moses all the way to Revelations reinforce this idea that there would be a new religion of Christ that would replace the temporary religion of Moses.

    • searching June 9, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

      we live in times of a great turbulence.
      Who knows what will happen.?
      It is good to have some kind of a compass that guides us through.
      I remember reading St John’s book of Revelations in the Bible as a child . It scared me a lot.
      I remember thinking, “oh this will happen for like a few thousand years”.
      Of course I didn’t understand any of it ,
      ( I still don’t :), but I remember the uneasiness it caused. Now I have a strange feeling that we actually are living in the times described by st Johns visions. Ready or not here it comes…

  12. Richard Edmondson June 10, 2012 at 2:38 am #

    “blaming jews for catholicism’s inate fascist faults is disingenuous. like blaming the usa for the crap israel does, it takes the spotlight off one guilty party to make another a patsy.”

    If by “fascist faults” you mean the crusades or the inquisition, neither my review, nor Michael Jones’ book, blame either upon the Jews. On the other hand, it does seem to me that Jews have heaped tons of blame upon the Church for misfortunes which they in reality brought upon themselves through their own behavior. This in fact is made very clear in Jones’ book, and maybe that at bottom is what disturbs you about it so.

    The Catholic Church, to be sure, had its faults. But my main reason for undertaking a review of this book was in anticipation of what the world may well look like once the Zionists have finished consolidating hegemony over the planet. My guess is that the days when the Catholic Church ruled Europe will seem benign by comparison.

    • searching June 10, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

      “what the world may well look like once the Zionists have finished consolidating hegemony over the planet”
      Illuminati aka freemasons aka zionists are also luciferians. They acknowledge Lucifer as their “guiding light”, ( Lucifer actually means “that who bears the light”).
      On the higher levels of freemasonery ,those who reach it MUST sacrfice their souls to him.
      They go through certain rituals and they surrender themselves to the devil in exchange for power, wealth etc. I suspect the more power they want , the more human sacrifice is needed.
      Again , It proofs that there is a visible and invisible world, and every one of us can make our choice to follow the Good or Evil.
      Evil is very atractive, promises many immediate, flashy goodies,right now, here on Earth,
      (He even tempted Jesus while he was spending 40 days in the desert, he promised Jesues all the goodies of the World, Jesus declined.)
      Many people are drawn to it because they love the idea of power and money. The movie “Lord of the rigns” describes it very well ,( the almost-hypnotic power of the ring).
      We are definately are living in a very intersting times.
      Is there Apocalypse unveiling in front of us??
      Are we actually living in the end times??

  13. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 4:20 am #

    “My guess is that the days when the Catholic Church ruled Europe will seem benign by comparison.”
    You are clearly not a betting man who likes risk–you make safe guesses.

    Imagine that you have school A and school B in which you teach kids diametrically opposed ethics:

    You teach class A: “Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek.” and you teach class B: “An eye for an eye” and “[our people] made this vow to the Lord: “If you will hand these people over to us, we will completely destroy all their towns” (including the inhabitants of the land).”

    A similar small percentage of kids in both classes will disbelieve their given teachings, while the majority in each class will believe them, even if not always capable to perform as expected according to the respective teachings.
    The real problem stars when the majority of class B and the minority of class A get in cahoots and their “values” rule.

    • etominusipi June 10, 2012 at 9:49 am #

      Ariadna wrote:

      The real problem starts when the majority of class B and the minority of class A get in cahoots and their “values” rule.

      reminiscent of von Hayek’s chapter “why the worst get on top” [Road to Serfdom]

      despite the inherent dangers of labelling, the time has come to take seriously Dr Andrzej Lobachewski’s idea that ‘evil’ in politics derives mainly from the activities of biodynamically determined psychopathologies. he estimated that in communist Poland these ‘essential psychopaths’ made up about 0.6% of the population.

      MAIN FEATURES [c.f.

      “Psychopaths are generally well satisfied with themselves and with their inner landscape, bleak as it may seem to outside observers. They see nothing wrong with themselves, experience little personal distress, and find their behavior rational, rewarding, and satisfying; they never look back with regret or forward with concern. They perceive themselves as superior beings in a hostile, dog-eat-dog world in which others are competitors for power and resources. Psychopaths feel it is legitimate to manipulate and deceive others in order to obtain their “rights,” and their social interactions are planned to outmaneuver the malevolence they see in others.” (Hare, 195)

      1) Talkativeness: The most noticeable feature of essential psychopathy is a talkative stream, easily blending truth and fiction. Not feeling any guilt, they will effortlessly deflect attention away from previous lies with more lies. They can talk for hours on end and appear extremely knowledgeable regarding any number of subjects. However, they tend to ignore what most consider as important issues, and will avoid speaking of abstract values and feelings unknown to them. When one does speak of such things, anomalies arise. At one moment a psychopath may speak of his profound love for his mother; the next, how a woman he once knew as a child was the woman he loved the most, even more so than his mother!

      “They know the words but not the music; they exhibit a facility with words that mean little to them, form without substance” (Hare, 128-129). Under careful analysis, these displays of emotion are shown to lack any actual understanding of the emotions in question. It is almost as if they believe that the weak impulse or base emotion they feel is representative of the true emotion felt by a normal human being. Similarly, their streams of thought are ostensibly logical, but again, careful analysis shows them to have suggestive paralogisms. For example, when confronted about his lack of empathy a psychopath may evade the issue and say, “What about empathy for me? Do you have any idea what I’ve had to put up with?”

      2) No sense of guilt: The life of the normal people they hurt is incomprehensible to them. Conscience, to a psychopath, is merely “intellectual awareness of the rules other people make up”, and nothing more (Hare, 132). For essential psychopaths, life is the pursuit of immediate attractions, moments of pleasure and temporary feelings of power. They often act on a whim and achieve their goals at the expense of others, with complete disregard for their victims.

      As an analogy, imagine having a slight urge for a snack. However, the door to the kitchen door is locked and hooked up to an alarm system. Seeing that the door is locked, you pick up an axe to knock down the door (you were going to replace it soon anyway). As you chop the door, the alarm annoyingly rings until you destroy it, too. After demolishing the door, you enter the kitchen and eat your snack. Now imagine you are a psychopath and the door was a human being, the annoying alarm its cries of pain and agony. After slaughtering the human, stifling its annoying and petty cries, you can sit down to enjoy your snack!

      3) Inability to love: Essential psychopaths view ‘love’ with a partner as a fairytale from the ‘other’ world of normal humans. Similarly, religious or moral concepts like ‘love for one’s neighbor’ are seen as childish naiveties. For them, love is merely an ephemeral phenomenon aimed at sexual adventure. While they may convincingly profess to love in the most romantic and meaningful of ways, these displays are soon replaced with selfishness, arrogance and hedonism.

      this has nothing to do with Judaism or Catholicism.

      the real danger is social contexts which selectively empower the psychopathic minority, and allowed them to dominate the techno-political agenda, to the detriment of the rest of the human race, the welfare of the planet, the habitats of other species.

      in the present conjuncture the state of Israel, whatever else it may, is a hot-bed for the nurturing of institutionalised psychopathy.

      Blair is a wonderful case study, as a politically successful ‘essential’ psychopath, who has found his natural community in zionism despite his goy background.

      as the folk song has it “when will they ever learn? WHEN will they E-V-E-R learn ???”

  14. Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    Dear Fool Me Once

    Again, I can’t directly reply to your post so I’m doing it here.

    I don’t fully understand your comment though you seem to be accusing me of some kind of deceit. Please be a bit more explicit so I can address your points.

    Previously you suggested that I create controversial diversions in order to distract people from something. If I remember rightly I admitted that I did indeed have a tendency to like causing outrage but I denied that my purpose was to divert attention. I then asked you to say what it was you thought I was trying to divert peoples’ attention from. You didn’t reply, so could you perhaps also answer that?

  15. Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Also, I can’t recall censoring or blocking you but if you’ll again be more explicit, I’ll attend to that too.

    Finally, I don’t remember you asking me directly about my own ‘specialness’. Again, do put those questions again and I’ll answer them as best as I can.

  16. Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Dear etominusipi

    Thank you for your delightful note. If you don’t mind, I may well address you as David.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

      You may continue to address me as Ariadna….. 🙂
      Not attempting to speak for either fool me once or for you BUT:
      It is true he has been asking you questions repeatedly.
      It is also true that if you visit the site less assiduously than some of us it is very hard to find posts addressed to you unless you set about re-reading the whole thread every time, since some newer posts pop up in the middle of the thread.

      • Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

        Well, if I’ve missed them, I apologise.

        Give the questions and I’ll answer them. Sorry.

        • fool me once... June 10, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

          “It is also true…of the thread.” What I’ve been finding useful is typing the days date, example; June 10, into the search function Ctrl+f, on the thread and finding the recent posts that way. But I take what your saying.
          “Give the questions and I’ll answer them.”
          Ok, but it’s gonna take a bit of time, as I’m slow on the grammar etc – back soonish.

          • fool me once... June 10, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

            Not wishing to hijack Richard’s article with this dirty laundry 😉 , I’ll see you over at
            your “you gotto love this guy” thread.

      • etominusipi June 11, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

        re posts, that is a good point Ariadne, though i don’t know if the blog software would permit better indexing.

        there are so many interesting discussions and informative comments in these threads, despite the diversions of occasional hasbara-troll baiting sessions.

        and as in this case, it is bad for communication that writers are not notified when someone makes a reply to one of their comments.

  17. who_me June 10, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    from Ariadna Theokopoulos

    “It is also true that if you visit the site less assiduously than some of us it is very hard to find posts addressed to you unless you set about re-reading the whole thread every time, since some newer posts pop up in the middle of the thread.”


    request time 🙂

    i’m always at a loss trying to see if there has been any new comments on a thread that has many. the order is so jumbled up usually. is there any way to put some kind of way so comment writers can keep track of their recent conversations? such have the article threads use a “visit the last post” type of thing? or maybe make the comments linear, with ones at the bottom or top the most recent?

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

      “maybe make the comments linear, with ones at the bottom or top the most recent?”
      We can do that ourselves, i.e., post at the bottom, but then we must remember (1) to note to whom we are speaking and (2) give quotes of that which we are responding to (I usually do the latter) so people don;t hav eto scroll back to see what you’re talking about

  18. Jay Knott June 10, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Reply to Ariadna, June 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm:

    “Sorry, Jay, there are no Goyim of comparable stature, not even remotely” (compared to famous Jewish bankers)

    Bill Gates
    John Rockefeller
    Henry Ford
    Leland Stanford
    Eric Schmidt
    etc. etc.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

      [It helped that you quoted me, Jay, but the time reference does not help me. I did not mange to use fool me once’s formula: it only give me articles, not posts]

      I accept Rockefeller because the family’s huge oil monopoly took them into the jewish-run banking sphere.
      I don’t accept Gates and Ford because they built THINGS, they did not invent hedge funding or derivatives.
      Funny you should come up with Eric Schmidt–the Goyisch underling whom the Jewish OWNERS of google hired as an executive. Adding those two to the Jewish list cancels Schmidt and makes the Jewish list one heavier.

      • fool me once... June 10, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

        “it only give me articles, not posts”
        Apologies Ariadna, I meant: “FIND” function Ctrl+f (not search function) with the days date , on the thread that I’m reading, example; June 10

      • Jay Knott June 10, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

        Reply to Ariadna, June 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm:

        You can’t prove a case by piling up examples. Gates is a leading example of NOT building things. If you knew more about software, and Gates was a Jewish name, you’d add him to your list.

        • Deadbeat June 10, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

          @Jay Knott re: Gates…

          Gates was/is a shroud Capitalist who retained the license to MS/DOS from IBM after he originally obtained the system from a Seattle company for $50,000.00. Gates built Microsoft regardless of the fact that Microsoft co-opted public domain IP.

          We can criticize Gates from an anti-Capitalist standpoint but Gates did make his money from selling Windows and Office. Those products did add value to the operating system, computer hardware and software industries.

          If we take a look at the names of Jews listed in this discussion none are industrial capitalists. Yet Henry Ford, Gates, Schmidt who you named are industrial capitalists and in fact Henry Ford had some very enlightening things to say about international Jewry. Leland Stanford was the founder of Stanford University that gave us Sun Microsystems (finally absorb by Oracle).

          Contrasting the people you named, Jewish Capitalists tend to make their money in the parasitic FIRE-LEAP sectors.

          Just to be clear my response is not an endorsement of industrial capitalism. I argue that both capitalism and Zionism needs to be confronted but the aims of Zionism leaves NO ROOM for even industrial capitalism. Gates’s political power doesn’t even register compare to the ZPC otherwise there would have never been an anti-trust case leveled against Microsoft.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 12:44 am #

          “You can’t prove a case by piling up examples.”

          You said that before when we were talking about the preponderance of Jews in finances or the media. Odd that you think preponderance, indeed overwhelming preponderance, can be established other than by numbers.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

      “Leland Stanford”

      You had to dig down deep to come up with gentiles, eh, Jay? Got one born in 1824….

  19. Paul Eisen June 10, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Yes but they do it for greed, the Jews do it for hatred

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 10, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

      Paul: “Yes but they do it for greed, the Jews do it for hatred”

      Before I would have said you are wrong but in view of your sensitivity to trenchant statements I will “temper” my statement thus:
      In my opinion, and naturally I could be wrong, so it is not even an opinion, more like a value-neutral deliberation, I really am not sure at all that you are right. OK… now, why?
      In that stratosphere of money power,
      1. both the Jews and the Goyim who collaborate with them are equally greedy.
      2. while some of those jews may be motivated by an undercurrent of hatred, in fact even all of them were, that hatred would be very hard to distinguish from their Goyisch counterparts’ massive and callous contempt for the unwashed they squelch.

  20. who_me June 10, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    Ariadna Theokopoulos


    we:“maybe make the comments linear, with ones at the bottom or top the most recent?”

    at:”We can do that ourselves, i.e., post at the bottom, but then we must remember (1) to note to whom we are speaking and (2) give quotes of that which we are responding to (I usually do the latter) so people don;t hav eto scroll back to see what you’re talking about”

    good idea. i’ve been doing that some of the time. think i will do it all the time. at least it will make it a little easier to decypher the posts that addressed something i posted. 🙂

  21. who_me June 10, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    Paul Eisen

    “Yes but they do it for greed, the Jews do it for hatred”

    hatred of goys may be part of how jews deal with goys, but i don’t think the hatred bit has a lot to do with how jews deal with other jews. they can be pretty nasty to other jews, too. example:

    in by way of deception, ostrovsky describes how after they received training in the use of surveilance equipment and were allowed to “check-out” such equipment to familiarise themselves better with it, one enterprising student agent went down to an area in tel aviv that was a hooker hook-up place. he filmed johns picking up the prostitutes, noting their license plates. then he would look up the license numbers on the mossad computer network and find who the owner was and then blackmail the owner.

    did he do it out of hate? or greed? note there were no goys involved, just israeli jews.

    • who_me June 10, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

      “they can be pretty nasty to other jews, too”

      they can be pretty nasty to other jews, when there’s money to be made, too,

  22. who_me June 10, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

    Richard Edmondson

    my main bitch with the piece, book and review, is that it seemed to posit there was nice catholicism in the past, but now it’s less nice. as the only outside influence discussed, that i noticed, was jewish, my impression the gist of it was nice catholicism got warped into bad catholicism because of jewish influence.

    i’ll have to re-read the piece later and see if my initial assumptions were off. don’t have time now.

    on jews being persecuted by catholics, and your assumption i’m hostile towards catholicism because of the way it treated jews, you couldn’t be further from the truth. 🙂

    the jews got off lightly. they survived with their culture intact and in comparison to all the others, probably suffered the least of catholicism victims. in fact, the jews are almost the only ones who survived at all. all of western europe was genocided by catholicism. same for latin america. by genocide i mean the cultures were completly wiped out.

    there is no remnant of the cultures which florished in western europe before the rise of christianity. they were consciously destroyed by the catholic church. the final death blows came when the catholics shut out the lights in western europe in the 13th century. this was done through violent repression and by destroying materially the vestages of the earlier cultures (book destruction, religious works razed, etc.)

    the same goes for latin america. literally every native culture conquered by the spanish and portugese catholics there was wiped out. initially killed off in whole, such as haiti and cuba. regions of higher population survived physically, but their cultures were completely wiped out. there is hardly any trace left of pre-colombian culture left in latin america. it’s all been catholicised. what little survived did so by going deep under ground (such as in northern mexico) or managed to be far enough off the beaten path, the catholics had not yet reached them (amazon regions).

    compared to these people, the jews got a wrist slap.

  23. Jay Knott June 10, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

    To ‘who_me’, June 10, 2012 at 10:03 pm:

    Another thing worth pointing out is the imbalance in the way the media (in the US at least) treats Catholic persecution of others. It used to be well known that the Inquisition was notorious for its persecution of Protestants. Today, its Jewish victims are overrepresented in the popular media. The Catholic church was complicit in persecution and murder of numerous types of infidel, from Muslims to Caribs. Protestants were especially hated because they were apostates.

  24. Deadbeat June 10, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    my main bitch with the piece, book and review, is that it seemed to posit there was nice catholicism in the past, but now it’s less nice. as the only outside influence discussed, that i noticed, was jewish, my impression the gist of it was nice catholicism got warped into bad catholicism because of jewish influence.

    I did get that as my takeaway. What I got was that the Catholic Church got infiltrated and co-opted by Jews which seem reminiscent of the way that the USA is now co-opted by Zionism. I look at these two things as being quite similar.

    Early in the USA’s history the country tried to resist the Central banking system eventually losing that battle in 1913. The Catholic Church it appears lost its battle in 1962.

    While I won’t dispute oppression by the Church but the Church has one tenant that keeps the Jews in check — its position against usury. This is yet another reason why the Zionists are so hellbent in destroying Islam because Islamic tenants stand in its way of Jewry’s total dominance.

    International Jewry’s power is based in the furtherance of debt enslavement and peonage and I’m coming to the conclusion this is why the pseudo-Left takes the position it does against religion as it seeks ignorance of these tenants.

    • Deadbeat June 11, 2012 at 9:51 pm #

      I did get that as my takeaway.

      That should have read: I did NOT get that as my takeaway.

      My apologies.

  25. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 12:53 am #

    I find this perceptive and persuasive.
    The only thing I object to are the two typos:
    –Instead of “I did get that as my takeaway.” I think you meant “I did not get that as my takeaway”.
    –you keep misspelling TENET as tenant.
    Back to substance: I find your usury argument compelling.

    • fool me once... June 11, 2012 at 2:00 am #

      “Gates was/is a shroud Capitalist…”
      Well, there’s the catholic connection for ya and he certainly moved in powerful circles, look who he rendezvoused with 40 miles south of Turin 🙂

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 2:12 am #

        I am pretty sure Deadbeat, a very sharp analyst and far less than sharp speller, meant to say Gates is a SHREWD capitalist. Nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin.
        If you are keen on playing a duet with who_me on the Catholic angle you may note that Melinda is Catholic. Bill is a Congregationalist, whatever that means.
        But how about them apples:
        “Bill proposed marriage to Melinda in 1993 when he “secretly diverted a chartered plane they were taking home from Palm Springs one Sunday night to land in Omaha. Warren Buffett met them there, arranged to have a jewelry store open, and helped them pick a ring.”

        • fool me once... June 11, 2012 at 2:42 am #

          “Nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin.”
          Yeah, soz Deadbeat, it was a cheap joke. I was just passing time waiting for me comment to Paul to come up, there seems to be a “gremlin” in his post box. Took 2 and a half hours to write! so it’s off to bed, I’m all jewed out. Just the thought of raking through centuries of catholic terror and abuse…. 🙁
          Them there apples is interesting though…

  26. who_me June 11, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Richard Edmondson

    having taken another look at your article, i think my initial impression was correct. i’m not sure what are jone’s views, and those which are yours, so i assume you share jone’s views, and that which you wrote is more or less in line with those.

    not having read jone’s book, and going on the slim areas of it you discussed in your review, i’m going to go out on a limb here and assume he posits the view that the formation of protestantism was jewish inspired. he also appears attribute the fall of catholicism from power was due to jewish influence and the rise of jewish power.

    first the evil protestant heretics. 😉

    ever hear of pelagianism? does jone’s mention it in his book? and if so, does he think the ideas there were jewish influenced? here is a wiki link about it for those who have not heard of this heresy 😉

    it’s wiki, so likely written by zionist jews, zionist catholics and mormons (note the last section of it 😉 ) and full of bias and falsehoods. i post it to show that the christian church had conflicts over what was proper christian and what was naughty from it’s very beginning. the rise of protestantism in the 16th century was not in effect anything new. there had been many challenges over the centuries to church doctrine. some minor, some major. the formation of the catholic church was initially a roman adoption of a version of the christian religion which would further roman state power. some of the rebbelions since were due to the unacceptability of this usurption to their own versions of the religion, some were by those who didn’t want to continue as part of the roman empire. over time, others followed suit, to be labeled heresy in their time.

    now is this because of jews? one think that kept coming up in your review was the heresy speakers were using material from the old testament, and both you and jones seem to interpret this as jewish influence. perhaps it is. but the christian bible, as i understand it, consists of both books, old and new testament. does it not? that makes both books a part of christian religion. my understanding of christianity is that is based upon the jewish religion (ot) with new teachings (nt) added on top of this. my understandings of the differences between the various christian sects is their interpretation of these teaching, both ot and nt.

    going back to the loss of catholic power. i mentioned that there had been challenges to catholic power throughout its history. there was likely a lot more challenges than those which evidence for survived, catholics and their chronic book burnings and censorship of history, you know. your own quotes from jone’s book about the catholics wanting to burn those jewish books, attests to that. that was the catholic reaction to anything that opposed their views, burn it, and burn those who wrote it, promoted it and burn those who liked the viewpoint. this isn’t a defense of those things in the talmud pointed out, this is how the catholic hierarchy reacted to opposing views and challenges to its authority. they obliterated all of it to stay in power. in the 16th century, however, this tried and true method of burning everything, and everyone, which posed a challenge ceased to work.


    because jews infiltrated?


    because literacy expanded. the printing press was invented. now books were available to a vastly larger number of people. it wasn’t just the monasteries and a few rich or nobles who could have books any more. think of it as like now, with the internet speading the current heresies that the mass media had been able to keep from people’s minds. it’s gotten out of their control. well, that is what the printing press did in its time. the reason protestantism developed this time in the 16th century is because the catholic church was finally unable to stop it. btw, mant of those protestant sects the jews supposedbly are responsible for were hardly jew-friendly and were less well disposed to the jewish religion than the catholic hierarchy. 🙂

    it wasn’t just changes to the christian religion the printing press facilitated, it was changes to just about everything in peoples minds. it didn’t happen immediately, in fact it is very much still going on, through the internet now. it lead to science being rediscovered in western europe, for eample. the rediscovery of philosophy. massive changes in the way people look at things like history and politics. this is what brought the catholic church down. the christian church created the “dark ages (catholic church in western europe). they not only stopped virtually all progress and advancement, in every sphere of people’s lives, they turned back the clock and lost that progress which the greeks and romans had brought.

    for a 1000 years, from the fall of the romans to the start of the rennaisance, western europe was under the control of these christians and their repression of any and all dissent. for a 1000 years, western europe stagnated, while much of the rest of the world continued on without them. in fact, if it had not been for muslims, much of what we now know about the greeks and romans would still remain a mystery. the muslims saved many of the writings of these past civilizations which the christians (mostly catholics) consigned to oblivion. you see, catholic only saved and reproduced that which they agreed with, muslims were less repressive.

    with the invention of the printing press, the catholics could no longer stop people learning new things. that is what lead to their downfall. and downfall it is. look at the catholic countries today. they didn’t keep up with the advance of civilization, they stagnated. and fell behind. why, because they refused to evolve beyond the catholic doctrine. they held on to the mumbo jumbo, while others started asking questions and looking for answers. and catholics still are trying to keep the world as augustine would approve.

    when we refer to fundy christians now, many don’t seem to realise that catholics have views which are very similar to the more fanatical fringe of protestants. what is call fundie nutters when applied to protestants, and generally viewed as extreme, is actually mainstream in catholicism. especially offial catholocism as expressed from the vatican and church leadership. catholics are natural neo-con allies to zionist jews and they are by far the largest majority of christians allied to zionist jews. if it was jewish influence which created protestantism, why is it catholics are closer to zionist jews than protestants? answer that. 🙂

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 2:15 am #

      To summarize:
      Protestant and proud of it?

      • who_me June 11, 2012 at 2:55 am #

        Ariadna Theokopoulos

        “Protestant and proud of it?”

        ah….no. that is like asking a commie who had just expressed criticism of fascism if they were a liberal democrat and proud of it. 😉

        “why is it catholics are closer to zionist jews than protestants” – “Do you consider the baptists Catholic?”

        with regard to their backwardness, yes. 😉

        baptists are just one of the protestant sects and hardly representational. the baptists are not a solid block, either. not long ago i read something by someone claiming they used to be one of these fundie zionists. the person is now anti-zionist. i think he was a preacher at one time, or trained as such, too. he described how at his church they had a guest preacher, who touted the usual zionist line of israel loyalty and what he said is he noticed a visible negative reaction among the congregation when that preacher put israel before the usa in who they should worship first. i believe it was baptist or methodist and it was a church in texas (those 3 are all pretty much the same thing to me 😉 ). moral of the story: because the leadership of these churches is bought and paid for zionist jews, it doesn’t mean the people are.

        anyway, how many catholic churches or groups have officially come out and opposed zionist policies and actions? how many protestant ones have?

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 3:14 am #

          I read there are close to 40 million baptists/christian zionists. I don’t think there are as many Catholics combined in the US and Canada. Catholics do not collect funds to send to Israel, the others do.

    • who_me June 11, 2012 at 3:54 am #

      Ariadna Theokopoulos

      “Have you heard of liberation theology? They were Catholic priests too. Look them up.”

      yes, i have. have you looked into what it is about? i was quite in favour of it, until i heard a couple of priests explain what it was about in some depth. it’s an improvement over the catholic leadership, but is by no means liberating. the rules and regulations, the repression of spirit is all still there, intact. the basic catholic kit is unchanged in liberation theology. where they differ from the vatican is how the church should be with regard to people and governments. liberation theologists objected to the brutal dictatorships in central america and the way these treated the people. the vatican either rubber stamped or enthusiastically endorsed those fascists. Liberation theologists don’t want to change catholicism in the metaphysical sphere, they work to change things in the political one.

  27. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 2:16 am #

    “why is it catholics are closer to zionist jews than protestants”

    Do you consider the baptists Catholic?

  28. who_me June 11, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    Reviewed by Richard Edmondson

    “the word means “waging war against God.” The fact that no comparable word exists in the English language (or even a comparable idea of such) is probably testimony to the extent of the collapse of the church’s moral authority and the widespread feelings of alienation and powerlessness that permeate Western society today.”

    was there ever a term in western european for such a concept? the sort of god jews and christians worship probably deserves having a war waged against it. 😉

    it all depends what the term means, really. if waging war against oneself and one’s physical environment, i would agree, i would agree that such warfare is probably bringing people down. but such a concept of god is verbotten in the judeo-christian superstitions. the alienation and powerlessness in western society has nothing to do with religion, the religion of westerners is, and has been, 99% monkey see, monkey do conformism, a system of rules that must be followed so one doesn’t get outcasted to the wilderness (or burned at the stake). right now we got the media and consumerism replacing the church and providing the same false god to worship.

    I also read something in your article about ridicule of christianity being pervasive in american media. from the tone of your comment, i was lead to believe you think that is the dominant view of christianity in american media.

    this is totally false. the american media is one of the most censored when it comes to criticism of christianity. while one may find an occasional comic or commentator having a go at the christians, most american media is still very much “god and country” bs. in some areas, half the radio stations are christian. it’s better now than it was 30 years ago. then there was literally zero criticism of christianity allowed. hell, i remember back in the 70’s a comedy sitcom had the main character and his girlfriend decide not to live together out of wedlock because it was unchristian.

    still cant criticise jews, though. i wonder why?

  29. who_me June 11, 2012 at 3:33 am #

    Ariadna Theokopoulos

    “I read there are close to 40 million baptists/christian zionist.”

    and all of them just itching to be israelis 🙂

    “I don’t think there are as many Catholics combined in the US and Canada. Catholics do not collect funds to send to Israel, the others do.”

    you cant be serious? 😀

  30. who_me June 11, 2012 at 3:37 am #

    Ariadna Theokopoulos

    i thought you were better than this.

    your responses are starting to look like what one would expect from a mathis type in a discussion of israel or jews. you’re trying to pick apart a sentence here and there, to make debate “points”, while ignoring the bulk of what i wrote. are you a catholic, by chance? 🙂

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

      Take a deep breath and count to 10, who_me.
      In answer to this some of your previous posts to me:
      No, I am not Catholic or pro-Catholic or pro- any religion because I believe that the hierarchy of any organized religion can make anything it wants (and they have done so) of its own dogma (or even AGAINST it) in the pursuit of power for itself and in alliance with lay power.
      But I don’t share your visceral hatred of Catholicism, as fanatical, it seems as the devotion of your adversaries. Perhaps I don’t hate Catholicism because I am not a lapsed Catholic (I have such friends who would beat your hatred by a mile), and not a Protestant either.
      Nevertheless I recognize (or perhaps only imagine) that most people are not satisfied to perform their spiritual quest on a personal and private level, but seem to need to be part of a community of like-minded believers, to have “expert” guidance and a liturgical environment of pomp and pageantry. The Catholic Church provides the latter in spades.
      If I recall my readings of 99 years ago (or so it seems), Swift described these differences in the parable of a Tale of the Tub, in which upon their father’s death (the early, “original” christianity), his sons each inherited a coat from him. One, chose to tear off what he considered unnecessary parts of it, rendering the coat into a humble and tattered garb (presumably the Puritan), another added many gaudy embellishment to it (the Catholic).
      My quibble with you is only this: that whenever the topic of Catholicism comes up (and sometimes even if it doesn’t), you set off a firestorm that doesn’t seem to abate for days, irrespective of the main thrust of the discussion.
      In the context of the jewish subversion of christianity, specifically in the US, I have no difficulty seeing the argument made by the author where the Catholic Church is concerned. You, however, seem to feel that it is hypocritical of the Catholic Church to impute any subversion to interests from without, specifically judeo-zionism.
      My position is that whatever the problems of the Catholic Church are (corruption of any sort), interventions from organizations of another faith (with a discernible subversive agenda) are on a par with zionists’ militancy for the rights of women and gays in islamic societies or western powers support of ‘democracy’ in the countries they wish to destabilize and take over. Let each clean his own house.
      Incidentally, you are wrong about Liberation theology in South America–those priests who actively supported the poor and militated against the junta regimes were executed with the knowledge and quiet acquiescence of the Polish pope (soon to be beatified if he wasn’t already) who, marked by his biography perhaps, was obsessed with communism and saw it as the greatest danger of mankind.
      As for Protestants in the US, what are Hagee and his lot? What are all the televangelists?
      I don’t think I am ignoring the bulk of what you wrote–it is an exposé of Catholicism and little else. That is what I responded to you: the fact that “the little else” is actually where the article resides.

  31. who_me June 11, 2012 at 4:42 am #

    Ariadna Theokopoulos

    wm:“look at the acceptance of fascism among catholic latin america.”

    at:”I think you willfully ignore much about Latin America if say that.”

    no, i don’t. not every country, but most have some degree of a fascist past. not the same as italy or germany, but similar to spain or the lebanese christian phalange. quite a few of these dictators rubbed elbows with other fascists in wacl. fortunately, that has changed in many of these countries.

  32. who_me June 11, 2012 at 5:15 am #

    as if on cue, the lord god has heretic john kozy write a piece for globalresearch, a notorious anti-catholic hate site, about much of what i was writing about here – at least in the same spirit of it. 😉

    “Rome, by contrast, was never populated by enough curious people to earn it a reputation for its intelligentsia. The Romans were a plundering people. They took what they wanted by killing, if necessary. Rome had made Papal Christianity the state religion and when the Empire fell, the Justinian Code was replaced by Canon Law. The augustness of knowledge was transformed into heresy and mankind’s curiosity was virtually extinguished. The age became dark.

    The darkness that enveloped the Dark Ages in Europe emanated from the monasteries, abbeys, and Scholastic universities of the Middle Ages. It consisted of the ideology that was thought to be the divinely inspired truth describing all things in the universe which itself was known as Creation. It tolerated no dissent which brought about heresy trials, executions, and the Holy Inquisition. Almost everything that would be considered learned today was suppressed. And even when the Church’s influence declined and heresy trials and the Inquisition ceased to exist, vestiges of the darkness were kept secure in other institutional ways. The love of learning that emerged in Classical Greece never regained its augustness. Anti-intellectualism never died; it continued to live in the dark alcoves of the religious institutions of the Middle Ages. That darkness came to America.”

  33. Jay Knott June 11, 2012 at 6:05 am #

    Reply to Deadbeat, June 10, 2012 at 11:36 pm:
    You separate industrial and financial capital. You think the latter is parasitical on the former, and Jews dominate it. I expect you’re aware of Moishe Postone’s critique of that position – I’m not saying I endorse it, just that it’s a complex debate. I’m not sure that contrasting ‘productive’ capitalism with ‘parasitic’ is right – I can’t imagine capitalism without banks.

    Reply to Ariadna, June 11, 2012 at 12:44 am:
    ‘Preponderance’ is established by numbers, but not by a list of positive examples. A list of X famous Jewish bankers does not prove preponderance. You have to say what ‘major banker’ is, then try to DISprove your hypothesis – what would be the case it it were false? – are there goy major bankers too?

    • Deadbeat June 11, 2012 at 9:25 am #

      I expect you’re aware of Moishe Postone’s critique of that position – I’m not saying I endorse it, just that it’s a complex debate.

      I’m not familiar with Moishe Postone’s critiques but if you can please provide me with a link I’d like to read it and understand his arguments.


    • Roy Bard June 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

      ‘Preponderance’ is established by numbers, but not by a list of positive examples. A list of X famous Jewish bankers does not prove preponderance. You have to say what ‘major banker’ is, then try to DISprove your hypothesis – what would be the case it it were false? – are there goy major bankers too?

      Bearing in mind that 0.2% of the worlds population is Jewish it should be really easy to come up with a long list of “goy major bankers” as it should be about 500 times longer.

      At least thats how it looks to me….

  34. Roy Bard June 11, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    I hadn’t heard of Moishe Postone before. But a quick google is pretty revealing.

    Wikipedia tells us that:

    Moishe Postone (b. 1942) is a professor of History at the University of Chicago, where he is part of the Committee on Jewish Studies.

    and as it happens he is concerned with anti-semitism and the Holocaust.

    The 1st link offered in that wikipedia article is an interview with Workers’ Liberty* where Postone lays out how anti-semitism is a unique form of racism because:

    The Jews are seen as constituting an immensely powerful, abstract, intangible global form of power that dominates the world. There is nothing similar to this idea at the heart of other forms of racism. Racism rarely, to the best of my knowledge, constitutes a whole system that seeks to explain the world. anti-semitism is a primitive critique of the world, of capitalist modernity. The reason I regard it as being particularly dangerous for the left is precisely because anti-semitism has a pseudo-emancipatory dimension that other forms of racism rarely have.

    He then goes on to say that anti-zionism is not necessarily anti-semitism BUT

    One strand he tells us “rejects Jewish collective self-identification in the name of abstract universalism” – however it is often inconsistent in that it recognises other forms of nationalism but not Jewish nationalism and this suggests it is ideologically driven and furthermore “the abstract universalism expressed by many anti-Zionists today becomes an ideology of legitimation that helps constitute a form of amnesia regarding the long history of European actions, policies and ideologies toward the Jews, while essentially continuing that history.”

    Another strand of anti-zionism , he tells us, isclearly anti-semitic:

    Another strand of left anti-Zionism – this time deeply anti-semitic – was introduced by the Soviet Union, particularly in the show trials in Eastern Europe after World War Two. This was particularly dramatic in the case of the Slansky trial, when most of the members of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party were tried and then shot. All of the charges against them were classically anti-semitic charges: they were rootless, they were cosmopolitan, and they were part of a general global conspiracy. Because the Soviet Union could not officially use the language of anti-semitism, they began to use the word “Zionist” to mean exactly what anti-Semites mean when they speak of Jews.

    It is this anti-semitic strand that was ” imported into the Middle East during the Cold War”

    Its origins had nothing to do with a movement against Israeli settlement. Of course, the Arab population of Palestine reacted negatively to Jewish immigration and resisted it. That’s very understandable. That in itself is certainly not anti-semitic. But these strands of anti-Zionism converged historically.

    A third strand is the movement to ‘delegitimise Israel” which is absurd because:

    ….today in the Middle East there are roughly as many Jews as there are Palestinians. Any strategy based on analogies to situations like Algeria or South Africa simply won’t work, on demographic as well as political and historical grounds.

    We should therefore see Israel/Palestine as a national conflict and “try to see if there is akind of resolution to what is essentially a national conflict that could free up progressive politics”

    To subsume the conflict under the rubric of colonialism misrecognizes the situation.

    Having got that far, I have to say that walking my dog seems like a much better option than ploughing through the rest of the article…..

    * For more on Workers Liberty why not read Greenstein’s critique?

  35. Jay Knott June 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Roy @ June 11, 2012 at 11:05 am: Point taken. You’ve answered my and Deadbeat’s questions well. Postone is a sophisticated Marxist crypto-Zionist.

    Point taken also about Jewish overrepresentation in banking. And among New York attorneys, left-wing academics and Hollywood film directors. But that’s not enough to prove that this is significant. Are they self-identified Jews? Does that affect how they carry out their jobs? With academics and movie directors, it’s fairly easy to answer – yes.

    With lawyers? How are they any different, except maybe better? And bankers, to return to the original question… how do they ‘bank’ differently from gentiles?

    • Roy Bard June 11, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

      “Postone is a sophisticated Marxist crypto-Zionist.”

      Having walked the dog, I’ve been following a trail of Postone related posts – he seems to have had a major impact on the anti-Deutsch and his ‘structural antisemitism’ thesis went down well with “Some Anarchist Occupiers” in Bloomington. It would appear that to be anti-capitalist IS to be antisemitic:

      Antisemitic arguments from the middle ages (ostensibly that Jews control the money / banks / world) have been in play continuously since then; the personification of the “rich banker” or “Wall Street trader” as class enemy #1 plays into this and proves that these arguments have moved through history seamlessly. This populist rage against Wall Street for “betraying” or “selling out” America amounts to a contemporary redux of the “stab in the back myth,” a staple of nazi lore that blames “Jews and other subversives” for the betrayal of the German people, the loss of WWI and subsequent floundering of the German economy. Just as there was no conspiracy that was singlehandedly responsible for undermining the German war effort (it was already done in), there isn’t a cabal of Wall Street bankers to blame for selfishly wrecking the economy for their own gain.

      The left here is just as culpable as the extreme right, with popular criticism of the Israeli State, the IDF or Zionism manifesting as completely indistinguishable from antisemitism – CounterPunch’s article “Israeli Organ Harvesting- the New Blood Libel?” is just one particularly glaring example. Not to mention the postwar-Left’s nearly wholesale adoption of conspiracy theory – notably 9/11 truth – often explicitly or subtly antisemitic in it’s ludicrous claims that Jews completely control the U.S. government, media and business interests. We point these things out to challenge the idea that, because antisemitism is systemic, that it is out of our control or is just semantic; contrarily, these threads work their way into our language, our assumptions, and our movements in quite sinister and penetrative ways.

      The comments are worth a read – for example ‘Waterloo Sunset’ writes:

      Worse, to suggest that talking about “the personification of the “rich banker” or “Wall Street trader” as class enemy #1″ is an antisemitic position is to imply that, in fact, antisemites are entirely correct to suggest that Jews and finance capital are the same thing. I believe that’s an analysis the author shares with Rush Limbaugh.

      Here we run into a bit of a problem – which could, I think, easily be remedied if a list of ‘goy major bankers’ could be produced to show that there is no ‘preponderance’ of Jewish major bankers.

      If there is a ‘preponderance of Jewish major bankers’ as asserted by Ariadna, is it anti-semitic to state it as a fact? If there isn’t, then wouldn’t the best way of destroying the ‘antisemitic canard’ be to list the 500x more (or so) bankers who are not Jewish? I feel the same about Chomskys claim that the Jewish lobby is just like any any other lobby. Why hasn’t someone produced evidence of other lobbies having the same effect on western policy makers and their decision making? That seems to me the most straightforward way to lay wrong claims to rest, once and for all.

      Instead we get treated to claims of an anti-racist left riddled with antisemitism and assurances that Israel is a decent place…..

      The seminal refutation of Postone’s ‘structural antisemitism’ seems to be this article

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

        so… what is “crypto” about Postone? Only the fact that he doesn’t say “I am a zionist”, I suppose

      • Deadbeat June 11, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

        Thanks Roy for your research. It is clear to see from his rhetoric that Postone is a flaming Zionist.

      • Deadbeat June 11, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

        First off the whole notion of “antisemitism” is bogus as being Jewish is not biological and the word co-opts the true Semites.

        The fact that this “Marxist” is making a religious argument is an outright contradiction and it behooves the Left to tell the truth about who the real Semites are and confront this bogus distortion of the English language in the first place.

        “Jews”, “Jewish”, etc are not racial designations. If someone does not not like “Jews” they have a choice of changing their religious affiliation or have none at all.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

          Agreed, but it goes far beyond terminology. If the term ‘anti-semite” were to immediately replaced by “anti-jewish” the problem that would remain is the “specialness” of the category.
          We are conditioned to believe that no other hate crime is as odious by far. In the US, where jews were not decimated with the remainder placed in reservations, or brought on slave ships (let’s not even get into by whom) and kept in slavery for 200 hundred years, one would expect that to be “anti-jewish” would be on far lower rung than to be anti-native American or anti-black or anti-“jap” (see internment camps). But it is the constantly drummed up as the most despicable thought/hate crime.

          • Jay Knott June 12, 2012 at 7:50 am #

            I put my reply at the bottom – June 12, 2012 at 7:48 am

    • Jonathon Blakeley June 11, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

      Its Chutzpah that differs Jewish banking from Gentile. The Jewish Banking model is the Goldman Sachs model which seem to without any sense of ethics fuelled by a conviction that they are”doing God’ work” to quote Lloyd Blankfein the chairman of Goldman Sachs.

      Bearn in mind that Goldman loned Greec the moey whihc they could bnever pay back to join the Euro. Knowing that this would collpase the eruo whilst Goldman could make huge profits on the whole deal.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

        See the Taxi Driver’s bit on Goldman Sachs as well, on the right side of this page. (“Is there any blame attached to these banks for what they did to Greece? Goldman Sachs are effing everywhere… the vampire octopus”)

      • Somoe June 11, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

        Hehehe JB … your s**t spelling has reached new heights with one. I’m rotfl:-)))

  36. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    “how do they ‘bank’ differently from gentiles?”
    They must “self-identify” and work in companionable cooperation with each other, otherwise it is either a bewildering coincidence that all major non-Jewish owned banks and financial institutions that used to exist like Chemical Bank (now Chase, taken over by JP Morgan), Great American Insurance, and others have bitten the dust, taken over, and ALL major banks in the US are now jewish owned. Unless you wish to suggest, as you did for jewish lawyers, that are simply… “better.”

  37. who_me June 11, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    1700 years of consistancy. what’s not to like?

    • who_me June 11, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

      not being able to burn it must be very fustrating. 😉

  38. who_me June 11, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    Jay Knott

    “To ‘who_me’, June 10, 2012 at 10:03 pm:

    Another thing worth pointing out is the imbalance in the way the media (in the US at least) treats Catholic persecution of others. It used to be well known that the Inquisition was notorious for its persecution of Protestants. Today, its Jewish victims are overrepresented in the popular media. The Catholic church was complicit in persecution and murder of numerous types of infidel, from Muslims to Caribs. Protestants were especially hated because they were apostates.”

    yeah, i noticed there was a distinct move to exonerate the current catholic church and white wash its role in history during the 80’s. this was especially noticable in the psuedo-left. it was rather weird to listen to people railing against things like anti-birth control and repressive sexual mores, then turn around and praise how wonderful catholocism was for latin america. pacifica radio was full of that sort of inconsistant rubbish. the propaganda spread and is now in academia where in historical material one now sees praise for the way catholic spain and portugal treated their latin american colonies because they didn’t kill all the indians. at the time i first started hearing this, in progressive media, i put it down to a misguided attempt at solidarity with the latin american people under the jackboots of american-israeli run death squads there. it didn’t know about the zionist jewish-catholic connection till this decade, that catholics in the usa provided a major block of the neo-con dupes and that this resurrection of the catholic church was part of a jewish zionist strategy of co-opting christian churches to make them zionist and israel supporting.

    “Postone is a sophisticated Marxist crypto-Zionist.”

    here your rightwing bias fails you rather spectacularly. right above your post, roy bard posted how postone (keep seeing that as postpone 😉 ) invented this bs:

    “Another strand of left anti-Zionism – this time deeply anti-semitic – was introduced by the Soviet Union”

    who then exported this “leftwing antisemitic anti-zionism” to the middle east and infected unsuspecting arabs with it.

    then there is also postone’s equating antisemitism and anti-capitalism. 😀

    no marxist would invent this sort of ahistorical mental buggery, that is strictly rightwing rubbish. a retelling of the standard neo-con/jewish zionist propaganda line. whatever postone is (neo-con most likely), he’s no marxist. it sounds like he’s another bennie morris type zionazi clown working to institute zionazi propaganda as esteemed, higher learning.

  39. who_me June 11, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Ariadna Theokopoulos

    “Incidentally, you are wrong about Liberation theology in South America–those priests who actively supported the poor and militated against the junta regimes were executed with the knowledge and quiet acquiescence of the Polish pope (soon to be beatified if he wasn’t already) who, marked by his biography perhaps, was obsessed with communism and saw it as the greatest danger of mankind.”

    that is what i wrote. liberation theology is a political move, to better the lot of the peasents, not a move to change church doctrine. go back and reread what i wrote, that is about the 2nd or 3rd time you have misrepresented what i’ve written on this thread.

    “As for Protestants in the US, what are Hagee and his lot? What are all the televangelists?”

    another strawman. again what did i write? go back and you will see i addressed that already.

    look, “dr. mathis”, if you want to address what i’m really saying, i’ll be happy to engage you. but so far all you’ve done is misrepresent what i wrote, play the strawman game and play the attack the messenger game (you’re down on catholics because you’re this, or that, etc.).

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 11, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

      You say I misrepresent what you say but it is you who misrepresents what you say:
      I said that there are more Protestants in the US than Catholics in the US and Canada combined. You scoffed: “Are you serious? :-)”
      I replied that some place the number of born again around 40 mil. and gave Hagee’s crowd as an example. To this you reply that that’s strawman and I misrepresent what you said. Like it or not only 24% of the christians in the Us are catholics, compared to more than 52% Protestants.

      I’ll be happy to stop “engaging” you at all, who_me, if you get irascible and insulting and keep up with the name calling.

  40. who_me June 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm #


    first you repeat the standard zionist jewish islamophic bigotry. then you post a glowing recomendation of a jewish zionist propaganda piece designed to give the latin american capital of the jewish mafia a clean bill of health.

    “There is actually a beautiful documental movie, done by Polish director, Dominik Tarczynski ,about Columbia and all the amazing changes that happened recently in this country.
    Film is titled :” Columbia- testimony for the world” ,( or hope for the world).”

    here is a better description of your jewish zionist paradise in south america:

    Imperialism and Violence in Colombia

    you wont like petras, i’m afraid, he’s not a jewish zionist pretending to be a catholic. 😉

  41. Richard Edmondson June 11, 2012 at 11:15 pm #


    I won’t respond to “the bulk of what you wrote” because it’s quite rambling–there are multiple entries–and much of it reads as if you composed it in state of adolescent pique. I will say that the genocide of Native Americans was not ordered by any pope, and that there were Catholics, such as the Dominican friar Bartolome de las Casas who did their utmost to stop it. As to your notion of book burning and censorship being the exclusive domain of Catholicism, I wonder–had Muslims of the 13th century discovered a book depicting the Prophet Muhammad as Christ gets depicted in the Talmud, what the reaction would have been. What was the reaction a few years ago when the Danish cartoons came out? Or the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book?

    Don’t get me wrong, I have only admiration for the Muslims who took to the streets to protest the Danish cartoons, and I wish more Christians felt similarly motivated when their own faith comes under attack–and it does come under attack periodically, perhaps the most recent example being the “GCB” TV show. The sole objective of GCB (Good Christian Bitches) was to ridicule Christians and particularly Christian women. I can think of no Hollywood-produced movie or TV show that has ever demeaned Jews in such a manner.

    One part of your comments toward which I actually don’t take any great exception is that concerning squabbles in the early Church. There were indeed disputes–over Monarchianism, Docetism, Pelagianism, the Quartodecimian controversy, and numerous other issues, and yes, Jews had little if anything to do with much of it–although I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. The bottom line is early Christianity was EXTREMELY diverse. The Johannine Christians seem to have had some major differences with the Thomas Christians, and then of course there were the Gnostics, and even within the latter were different subgroupings that didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of things–there were the Valentinian Gnostics, for instance, the Sethian Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Basilideans, and so on. Everybody had their own ideas on what was “orthodox” and what was “heterodox,” and it didn’t all get sorted out until the 4th century, and even then differences lingered.

    One major controversy which very much DID involve the Jews, however, was the issue of how much veracity was to be accorded the Old Testament, and this I alluded to in the review of Jones’ book. Two of the Gnostic groups, the Sethians and the Marcionites, took exception to any worship of the god of the Old Testament. The Sethians (who interestingly were comprised largely of Jewish Christians) viewed him as an alien entity, or demiurge, whom they referred to as “Yaldabaoth,” which probably translates roughly to “child of chaos.” The Marcionites took it even a step further, advocating outright elimination of the Old Testament from the Christian canon. I plan to do an entire post on this at some point in the near future, but what it boils down to is that there is a colossal contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, and this has for centuries been a stumbling block for Christians, as Jones so amply illustrates. Trying to worship a God of vengeance and genocide, on the one hand, and one of love and mercy, on the other–and thinking of both of them as the same deity–has created enormous pitfalls for the Christian faith, and the Sethians and Marcionites seem to have been farsighted enough to realize the problems that it would bring.

    Also it’s at this point I have to part company with Jones, for this sort of knee-jerk tendency to condemn the Gnostics is a trait that in my view has long outlived its shelf life. Rather than condemning the Gnostics, Christians should actually celebrate them as part of our rich heritage. But there’s yet more you might consider, Who-me, for even beyond the differences of opinion existing WITHIN Christianity, we have the question of the various other religions that existed ALONGSIDE it during its formative years. Why did Christianity survive when so many of these others fell to the wayside? I’m talking about religions like Mithraism, especially popular amongst Roman soldiers, or the Greco-Roman mystery cults, the Demeter and Persephone mysteries based at Eleusis and elsewhere, or Apollo, or the Delphic oracle, the followers of the various Egyptian deities, etc.–how did Christianity manage to last through the centuries when all these others died out? You, Who_me, perhaps think it was because the Catholic Church went out and forced everyone at the point of a bayonet to convert, but I will offer another theory for you to consider. At the core of Church doctrine was the belief that we are to care for the poor. This was put into practice on a wide scale, and as the poor had their needs met, their natural tendency was to become Christians. Thus in its earliest centuries, Christianity took the form of a movement of largely poor people and slaves, which is why Roman authorities found it so threatening, and why the Church suffered persecution over the first three centuries of its existence. This is not to say there were no rich Christians. There were. But within the ranks of the early Church, even the wealthy regarded it as their obligation to care for the poor. Yes, the faith eventually got co-opted and became the official state religion of Rome, yet even then compassion for the poor remained a central tenet, a state of affairs that carried over and continued, still, into the era you refer to as the “dark ages.”

    As I said before, the Church had its faults. But if you take an institution like the Catholic Church, founded upon the teachings of Jesus (even if it didn’t always live up to them), and compare it with any institution founded upon the teachings of the Talmud, the difference is going to be like night and day. This is why I say your portrayal of the Catholic Church as the epitome of all evil doesn’t hold water.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 12, 2012 at 12:39 am #

      A minor point perhaps, from the cultural pdv, but one I wish to make about the “dark ages.”
      First of all I think it reductionist in the extreme to ascribe the passage into the “dark ages” to Catholicism or Christianity, ignoring the fact that Europe was played out, sacked and exhausted by no less than 1,000 barbarian invasions. Feudalism and its “castle economy” model was not working nowhere near as well as the the ancient model of city states had.

      Speaking from the perspective of someone raised in (and thus more familiar with) the faith and culture of the Eastern Orthodox Church I have to state my convictions that it was BECAUSE of the Catholic church that the dark ages lasted SEVERAL CENTURIES less in Western Europe, and that Catholicism contributed enormously to the culture of the Renaissance, which skipped Eastern Europe entirely.

      Illiteracy? The first universities were in England and, in continental Europe, in Poland, not in Greece or Russia. Maybe the Church was threatened by Galileo but back east there was no Galileo, or Copernicus. There could not be.
      Catholicism in the “dark ages” produced a Fra Angelico and a Giotto and then the giants of Renaissance. Popes were patrons of the arts too–without them would we have Gothic architecture? What was there in the east while the grand Catholic cathedrals were erected in Spain, France and Italy? “Yoc.” Without Pope Gregory (I forget his number: VII?) who commissioned it we would not have Michelangelo’s statue of Moses sitting in Chiesa di San Pietro in Vincoli.
      What do we have in East in the meantime? Icons. Yes, some are beautiful, but most of them are not painted by artists because the cannons of the Orthodox Church require copyists, not artists: no perspective allowed because an illusion of 3-d creates ‘false idols.” So forget sculpture entirely, not allowed.
      The icons are symbolic, not representational. Take the face of any saint, put a blue veil on his head and he passes for Mary, because faces have to be alike, by cannon.
      So, there is “dark” and “dark”….

  42. who_me June 12, 2012 at 1:16 am #

    Richard Edmondson

    “I won’t respond to “the bulk of what you wrote” because it’s quite rambling–there are multiple entries–and much of it reads as if you composed it in state of adolescent pique.”

    well, you blow a chance to show my basic assumption wrong then, that jones’ book was about showing how jewish influence corrupted and brought the catholic church down to the level of disgrace that it’s considered to be in today. and instead play the ad hominim card. i will now assume that was the intent of jones’ book.

    “I will say that the genocide of Native Americans was not ordered by any pope, and that there were Catholics, such as the Dominican friar Bartolome de las Casas who did their utmost to stop it.”

    the popes did nothing to stop it and they didn’t even recognise indians as human beings for some time. the official church played an extremely disgraceful and damaging role. casa is one of the few shining lights during that dismal time. there were others too, but it needs to be recognised these priests were aberations in their time, like daniels elsberg in 1968. the norm was to treat the indians like animals and that is how they were treated. in fact nice columbus had haiti indians killed and fed to the spanish attack dogs. the indians of haiti and cuba had already been genocided to extinction by the time casa came into the picture.

    “As to your notion of book burning and censorship being the exclusive domain of Catholicism”

    a strawman argument. i never wrote that. i pointed out that book and censorship are consistant happenings throughout catholic history. and that the same attitude still exists in the catholic heirarchy. every other religion and culture has also had their ups and downs in the censorship realm. muslims committed the 3rd and final burning down of the library of alexandria (first 2 burnings were by christians), but other muslims also saved copies of many of the works in that library elsewhere. protestants are just as burn-happy at times, too – note the florida idiot burning korans (though he probably got paid in shekels to do it, like most fundy preachers are now). btw, in the 13th century, some parts of the middle east saw very harsh repression. it is generally conceded this was a reaction to the devastatingly bloody crusader and mongol invasions (don’t worry, i wont claim the mongols were catholic 😉 ).

    “You, Who_me, perhaps think it was because the Catholic Church went out and forced everyone at the point of a bayonet to convert, but I will offer another theory for you to consider. At the core of Church doctrine was the belief that we are to care for the poor. This was put into practice on a wide scale, and as the poor had their needs met, their natural tendency was to become Christians.”

    i was refering to western europe being forced into christianity. the initial wave was by roman hands, not catholic, in roman dominated western europe. this came about because the roman colonial governership, merchants and army had already converted mostly, the people in these regions who wanted to do business with the romans converted as well. that’s a common vector in colonies. colonials imitate the colonisers to get an advantage over those stubborn souls who cling to their own culture. vichy france is a modern example. the conversion of the romans to christianity was the strongest influence. concern for the poor is a modern christian myth in this, as it was actually a desire to prosper like “the boss” does that was the motivating factor getting locals to convert and the sword of the roman legionaire.

    the conversion wasn’t total and a lot of local beliefs were also incorporated into local church doctrine. some areas were more open, some more repressed, depending on the roman leadership and its choice of govenors. once the romans fell apart, and withdrew from western europe, their unifying force over these people ceased and all hell broke loose. it was at this juncture pelagianism made its appearance. this was soon declared heresy by the now catholic church and rooted out by violent repression in regions the church had military backing and by other means where they lacked that military backing. for example, in france and italy, where the romans still held sway, force, or the threat of it, was used, but in britain, where the romans had withdrew, they sent agents to try and convert leaders and stir up trouble against those leaders who resisted. the result was that the catholic-pelagian divide also factored in the civil war that took off there at this time.

    my point is the early conversions were part forced, part not. but by catholocism becoming the roman state religion, this ensured catholicism would be generally adopted and other religions abandoned. the banishment was not total initially. some regions held onto and continued practicing their earlier beliefs, some practiced hybrids of local and christian beliefs, etc.

    a lot of this history is lost now. virtually only the catholic version has survived of western european history beyond rome and greece. naturally, this history shows them in a good light, like american history taught to americans show americans in a good light.

    the amount of tolerance or repression of other religions went up and down, depending on the region up till the 13th century. at that time, the catholic church clamped down completely and no pagan vestages would be tolerated. whatever non-catholic religions which still existed in western europe, were completely stamped out.

    compasion for the poor was never something the romans preached, whether christian or not. they wanted their taxes paid and their “compassion” consisted in determining what level of tax they could collect without killing off too much of the tax base. feudalism worked the same, with the main difference it wasn’t a centralised system, but individual warlords or coagulated lumps of warlords.

    “compare it with any institution founded upon the teachings of the Talmud”

    i’m no fan of either. if the neo-cons and jewish zionists are any indication of what talmudic culture is about, then there is probably no limit to the damage they could do if given the time the catholic church has had, and their reign of power. the facts are, though, is that the catholic church has been the most destructive force in human history. they have genocided whole continents in their march to acheive total conformity. the talmuds never got the chance to exercise that sort of long lasting power. they got that power now, and what they do could well put the catholic genocides to shame.

    but unlike catholicism’s millions of past victims, we can stop these jewish zionists and their various fascist allies, including the unrepentant catholic church.

    • who_me June 12, 2012 at 1:42 am #

      the difference between a religion founded on “the teachings of Jesus”, and one not, may seem like a big deal on paper, but in an historical perspective, the violence wrought by christians has not been hamstrung by compassionate constraints. the violence and destruction christians have brought to the world dwarfs that of any others. those “teachings of Jesus”, i’m afraid don’t amount to a hill of beans in the real world.

      • Roy Bard June 12, 2012 at 1:54 am #

        Yeah – with widespread child abuse, covered up at the highest levels in Ireland, I struggle to see how the “teachings of Jesus” amounted to much. One documentary I saw suggests many Irish people feel the same way about it now.

        And a christian sect managed to prop up the apartheid regime for years.

        It seems to me that power, money and authority very quickly subvert “the teachings of Jesus” in practice. From everything I’ve learnt about Jesus’ teachings, its my guess that he would have been anti the established church.

  43. who_me June 12, 2012 at 1:23 am #

    a welcome comparison:

  44. Jay Knott June 12, 2012 at 7:48 am #

    Roy @ June 11, 2012 at 4:03 pm, Deadbeat @ 10:19 pm, Ariadna @ 10:45 pm:

    I read Postone’s contribution to The Big H Theory and his pamphlets, and had started to criticize it, but Roy has saved me the trouble.

    Ariadna – were bankers nice guys prior to Judaization of the industry? Are the few goyim bankers left desperately trying to help the poor? Ariadna suggests Jewish bankers work together – well so what? What do they work together to achieve that is different to what gentile bankers do, did, or would do?

    I disagree with Deadbeat about race. Humanity, like most species, may contain races. If a subsection of it favors intramarriage, it tends to become a race. Saying that Jews are not a race, just part of the ‘Semites’, is ineffectual, given this fact.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

      The Goyim bankers can be and have been “nice” in societies that forbid usury and predatory loans. The examples often cited, Nazi Germany and islamic societies like Libya under Gaddafi, show that such a banking system can actually be a force for good, helping rather destroying millions of people.

      The American non-Jewish bankers of the past (the ogre portrayed in “It’s Wonderful Life”) were not “nice guys” but they were already operating in a Jewish, predatory usury set-up after the creation the Fed. Even so, they were the penultimate phase of the takeover underway, when capital was still used primarily for investment (industrial, job creating), not speculation, allowing many of the lower classes to rise into the middle class and the middle class to fulfill its “American Dream.”
      It was with the complete Jewish takeover of the financial system that banking arrived at its predatory apogee, where money became used primarily in speculative “investments,” aggressive takeover of companies stripped them of their assets and destroyed them, derivatives and “bundling” of debt deceivingly sold as “assets” was invented and Wall Street came to stand for the American “economy.
      The lethal force used to destroy any state that seeks to free itself from the claws of the international Jewish banking system and its debt weapon shows the length to which JP will go, using the subservient powers, to defend the “means of production” they own.
      Those means of production nowadays are imaginary money, created out of thin air in order to extract value to the last drop of blood out of the indebted.

      • Jay Knott June 12, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

        Ariadna – June 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm- the gentile capitalists of Marx and Engels’ day were not at all nice, and neither were the bankers who lent them money. If they chose ‘investment’ over ‘speculation’, either it was because it was more profitable, or they were not very good at it.

        As for “it was with the complete Jewish takeover of the financial system that banking arrived at its predatory apogee”, even if that statement were meaningful, and true, it would be correlation, not causation.

        I thought you said somewhere you had a scientific background. When small subsets of a given species interbreed, choosing adaptive traits, is that ‘inbreeding’? No, it’s normal, everyday, natural selection. Selfish genes make the right trade-off between ‘hereditary diseases’ and those adaptive traits. ‘Right’ because they are the ones which survive.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 12, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

      I am not replying for deadbeat–if he can find his way to to your post he will do it himself. This is only my reaction.
      “Humanity, like most species, may contain races. If a subsection of it favors intramarriage, it tends to become a race. Saying that Jews are not a race, just part of the ‘Semites’”

      Ahem… no, Jay. You can not create a new race by inbreeding. Only increasing incidence of group-specific diseases.
      He never said Jews are part of the semites. Au contraire.

  45. searching June 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    “Those means of production nowadays are imaginary money, created out of thin air in order to extract value to the last drop of blood out of the indebted”
    How much longer people are going to put up with it??
    Untill the last drop of blood is squeezed out of their bodies??

  46. who_me June 13, 2012 at 2:39 am #

    Ariadna Theokopoulos Reply

    June 11, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    “You say I misrepresent what you say but it is you who misrepresents what you say:
    I said that there are more Protestants in the US than Catholics in the US and Canada combined. You scoffed: “Are you serious? 🙂 ”

    this was the post:

    Ariadna Theokopoulos Reply

    June 11, 2012 at 3:14 am

    “I read there are close to 40 million baptists/christian zionists. I don’t think there are as many Catholics combined in the US and Canada. Catholics do not collect funds to send to Israel, the others do.”

    my response:

    who_me Reply

    June 11, 2012 at 3:33 am

    Ariadna Theokopoulos

    (at):“I read there are close to 40 million baptists/christian zionist.”

    (wm):and all of them just itching to be israelis 🙂

    (at):“I don’t think there are as many Catholics combined in the US and Canada. Catholics do not collect funds to send to Israel, the others do.”

    (wm):you cant be serious? 😀

    you misrepresent an exchange and claim i’m the one doing it. it’s all there in b&w.

    yeah, i can see where ga was coming from (about at acting like azz – that is how they debate, they play stupid games like above) on the “one gay solution” discussion. 😀

    • fool me once... June 13, 2012 at 3:56 am #

      AZZ!?!! You gotta be joking? Next you’ll be saying if Roy B whipped off his bally, he’d be Greenslime underneath! 😉
      This is all getting a bit weird, I’m off ta bed, nighty nite all. Hey come to think of it, was this shoshana’s curse come true, creepy!

      • who_me June 13, 2012 at 4:12 am #

        calm down, sir lancelot, saying someone is acting like means acting like, like telling an adult they are acting like a child. i’m not accusing at of being azz. or zionist. or a greenslime.

        • fool me once... June 13, 2012 at 10:35 am #

          “calm down, sir lancelot,” ha ha, you’re right there my liege. Now, in the clear light of day, I do believe that last night, I witnessed how artistic/intellectual ego trippin’ can quickly turn into a big theatrical mind melee with plenty of curtain slamming. Out of my depth, I couldn’t see why GA got so upset over a friendly joke. I think he should take it as a compliment, that people feel relaxed enough with him to say such things…

  47. who_me June 14, 2012 at 4:04 am #

    i know, frightening stuff – soory.

  48. Simorgh March 4, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

    re video #3, “just like what Mossad did in Iraq — whipped up fear to drive Jews to Palestine.”

    = = =
    Ed. Black, Transfer Agreement: “Arthur Ruppin was very agitated about presence of Jewish terror groups — plural, groupS — in Germany in 1930s.”

    Kristallnacht — in fact, the Jewish boycott of Germany, 1933-1940 — were BOTH zionist operations to drive Jews out of Germany and into Palestine.

    Zionists even figured out the holding capacity of Palestine and where to stash the overflow until Palestine could absorb Jews — USA was ‘overflow central.’

  49. mulligas March 17, 2013 at 6:50 am #

    re Leo Frank.

    It wasn’t his factory. Leo Frank was the superintendent and engineer at the factory. The factory was owned by Sigmund Montag. Major doubt has been cast on Leo Franks guilt In 1982, Leo Franks Office, boy came forward and made statement saying that he had seen the other suspect in the murder, Jim Conley, alone at the factory, carrying Mary Phagan’s body, contradicting Conley’s testimony.