The truth at the core of the pontiff's sojourn in Palestine is something very different from what the partisans of the Left and Right perceive
The Israeli Shoah of the Palestinians: in January the Zionists turned Gaza into a white phosphorus gas chamber
by Michael Hoffman
Copyright©2009 • RevisionistHistory.org
The Cryptocracy has a different pontiff now from John Paul II, the Pole whose adoration of all things Talmudic and rabbinic surpassed all acts of obeisance in the annals of servility.
By this I do not mean that Benedict XVI is fundamentally different; that he represents a break with the Cryptocracy or the alchemical control process, but rather he is the new face on that process: seemingly less servile toward the rabbis and the Israelis, and more "even-handed," having reached out to the right-wing in the form of the Society of St. Pius X, whose Bishop Richard N. Williamson defied demands that he recant his doubts about extermination gas chambers.
But Benedict no more represents a break with the Cryptocracy than does Barrack Obama. President Obama is the kinder, gentler face of the hideous evil that secretly rules the US government. George W. Bush was the conservative face of the same evil and Benedict fulfills a similar cosmetic function for Rome.
When dealing with Hegelian dialecticians there is always something for the Left and the Right to admire and disdain. The Right will find in the pope's less than obsequious posture at the Yad Vashem "Holocaust" Museum a pose to admire. The Left will appreciate his remarks to the Palestinians decrying the "separation barrier" (apartheid wall) which the Israelis have erected around the huge concentration camp that is Palestine today.
In this way the Vatican maintains the continuing loyalty of Leftist and Rightist Catholics, as well as the great mass in the middle that is always easily pacified by power, pomp and spectacle. But the truth at the core of the pontiff's sojourn in Palestine is something very different from what the partisans of the Left and Right, and the great crowd in the middle, perceive.
During his Israeli visit, the pope established a false equivalency between the Zionists and the Palestinians -- between the Israeli dispossessor and the Palestinians who have been dispossessed: "“No friend can fail to weep at the suffering and loss of life that both peoples have endured over the last six decades. Allow me to make this appeal to all the people of these lands: No more bloodshed! No more fighting! No more terrorism! No more war! Instead let us break the vicious circle of violence.”
This kind of exclamation is worthless when it does not concern itself with justice and right and wrong, rather than the shades of moral gray that are always employed whenever an Establishment figure has the task of explaining away the stark reality of Israeli land theft and war crimes.
Let us examine Benedict's statement about the "suffering and loss of life that both peoples have endured." In Gaza last December and January 1400 Palestinians were slaughtered. The Israeli casualty figure, meanwhile, which includes soldiers killed by friendly fire during the invasion, totals 14. It is nothing short of obscene for the pope to create an equivalency between Palestinians at the mercy of the world's fifth largest military machine, and the comparative handful of Israelis who die as a result of their government's continuing policy of land theft, racial segregation and implementation of rabbinic injunctions to wipe out "Amalek" and "the gentiles," such as were issued during the latest bombing and invasion of Gaza.
For Pope Benedict, Talmudic Judaism and Israeli Zionism do not represent a special category of evil. Rather, he views these forces as merely one of the constituent parts of the Middle East tragedy to which all parties have contributed and are equally to blame. For denunciation of a special category of enhanced evil we must, as usual, look to the World War II-era Germans:
"...he used his most direct and personal language when he recalled one of his first acts after his arrival here when he visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and met survivors 'who suffered the evils of the Shoah. Those deeply moving encounters brought back memories of my visit three years ago to the death camp at Auschwitz, where so many Jews...were brutally exterminated under a godless regime that propagated an ideology of anti-Semitism and hatred, he said. 'That appalling chapter in history must never be forgotten or denied,' he said. 'On the contrary, those dark memories should strengthen our determination to draw closer to one another as branches of the same olive tree, nourished from the same roots and united in brotherly love." ("Citing Auschwitz, Pope Assails Hatred," New York Times, May 15).
There are no shades of moral gray in the preceding statement. It is a thundering papal anathema pronounced in no uncertain terms without any attempt to establish any equivalency between German suffering in World War II and the suffering of the Judaics of that time. One side was totally evil and wrong, the other was goodness personified.
The pope concluded his remarks with an allusion to one of the central planks of the new Shoah theology concocted by his predecessor: the Orthodox (Talmudic) Judaism that is the religion of the "Jewish state," far from being an evil "regime" that "propagates an ideology of hatred and racism," is, instead, one of the "branches" of the "olive tree" that nourishes the "roots" of "brotherly love." This is a lie so blatant it is laughable, and so pernicious it ensures the continuing spread of the lore of the Shoah theology from which it emanates.
Pope Benedict XVI has cloaked the exterminationist ideology of Talmudic Judaism in the habiliments of brotherly love, just four months after that "love" was showered over Gaza in the form of the the burning gas known as white phosphorus, turning Palestine itself into a gas chamber. But Benedict is oblivious. He contents himself with safety valve criticism of a wall. His callous indifference to a holocaust that only just occurred is a telling indicator of his secret belief in the inherent racial and spiritual superiority of the Israelis over the Palestinians.
The myth of the fundamental benevolence of Zionism and Rabbinic Judaism is non-negotiable in the eyes of the Cryptocracy. Criticism that does not challenge this myth is tolerated, even encouraged as a sign of "dialogue" and "fairness." While Right and Left debate the pluses and minuses of the papal trip, the core axiom concerning counterfeit-Israel and the Talmudic religion escapes censure and scrutiny, and is further strengthened and extended as a result of yet another act of Vatican diplomacy in the Middle East, guaranteeing that ever more Palestinians will lose their homes and their lives in the years to come because the pope, like all the other leaders of Churchianity, refuses to recognize in the Israeli imperium, the unmistakable contours of brutal colonialism, racism and occupation, made even more evil by the supremacist religious ideology which fuels it.
Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered, the only book on this subject banned by Amazon.com. His essay, "The New Catholic 'Shoah' Theology: Alibi for the Revolutionary Overthrow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," was recently published in Revisionist History newsletter.
9 comments:
Well spoken, Mr Hoffman...
everything but the title - the Pope.
Of course, I don't want to impute you bad intentions in writing like that but objectively it supports all that stuff: Cryptocracy, Hegelian dialectic, etc...
True, Catholic Pope worthy this name could have never done things which B16 and his modernist predecessors did.
"Sede" is unfortunately "vacant" !
Best regards, Mr Hoffman and all the best for your great work to defend the truth.
I reluctantly published the preceding comment from a sedevacantist. I say "reluctantly" because in my experience, with some honorable exceptions, almost any negative response to the sedevacantist thesis results in a deluge of prolix theological arguments that are almost never amenable to contradiction and often attended by a tenor of uncharitable omniscience and even fanaticism.
I have not published this person's comment in order to initiate a debate with sedevacantists, i.e. those who believe that the papacy is vacant and that there is no valid pope at present, but rather to clarify my own position on sede vacantism. Please do not respond to my clarification.
There are a number of well-written advocacy websites produced by sedevacantists and anyone who wants to learn about the sede vacantist theory from the originators of the theory itself have only to "google" that term.
My hope is that, once having clarified my position, sedevacantists will not seek to convert me to their theory or attempt to use this blog as a sounding board for their theory.
In my opinion, sede vacantists are engaged in two errors:
1. Even though they are Roman Catholic they believe they can judge a pope in some manner that is binding on others.
Nota bene: Roman Catholics may certainly hold, as a private belief of their conscience, that a pope is a heretic, and since no pope can be a heretic and still retain his office, they may privately hold, as a belief of their conscience, that when the pope is a heretic, in their eyes, he is no longer the pope.
Sede vacantists make the error of extrapolating from that right of conscience the insistence that others must believe as they do: " He's a heretic! There is no pope!"
They seem to forget what religion they are in. Roman Catholicism is not a democracy. It has been set up so that the person elected by the college of cardinals to be pope, for example, Paul VI, cannot be deposed by anyone, much less judged by anyone. He is "sovereign." Martin Luther regarded Leo X as a heretic. Did Luther thereby have the power to declare Rome's "Chair of Peter" empty? According to Roman Catholic theology no one has that power. Perhaps Roman Catholic theology grants too much power and status to the pope, in which case sede vacantists have an argument with Roman Catholic theology.
If you are a Roman Catholic priest or layman, you have no standing or authority to declare that the pope is not the pope, except in terms of a judgment of your private conscience concerning that to which you will or will not submit. Your sincere belief in this regard convicts and obliges no one else. In Roman Catholic theology, priests and laity have zero competence in these matters. Pope John XXIII, for example, had no judge on earth according to Catholic theology. The same was true for Paul VI. Yet sede vacantists deposed them, at least theoretically, and they have done the same with JPII and Benedict. By what force of law? By whose authority? How does their private conscience become binding on others?
I have never understood how Roman Catholics known as "sedevacantists" imagine that a pope can be declared by priests and laity to be not the pope and insist with an almost Talmudic fervor and contentiousness that everyone must view the pope as they do. This is Lutheranism with a super-traditional facade.
2. Psychologically it seems that sede vacantists cannot bring themselves to view a pope of Rome as a dastardly or wicked miscreant. Yes, they will concede that there were "Borgia popes" with moral failings related to sins of the flesh, but they deny that there have been antiChrist popes who promoted the Talmud, protected Kabbalists, promoted the occult, made themselves into infallible godlings, dropped the strict laws against usury that had been the legal and unanimous consensus patrum of the Church from its earliest days, etc.
It didn't start with Vatican II. Papal evil only came out into the open in 1960s. Prior to that era it was mostly clandestine. Therefore, I disagree with the sede vacantists that no pope of the past practiced doctrinal evil like Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI.
In response to these opinions of mine I will probably receive a torrent of counter-arguments running to dozens of pages and most likely abuse and denunciation such as I usually only receive from yeshiva talmidim in Brooklyn. I have zero interest in debating sede vacantism. For me it's a dead issue.
I will say that I know some sede vacantists and some of them are absolutely wonderful people. Not all of them are one-track minds or fanatics, by any means. When not discussing sede vacantism they can be highly astute scholars and keen students of the Cryptocracy. In my opinion their sede vacantist beliefs are a flaw or an eccentricity. We all have them. I am not the Grand Inquisitor. I believe in freedom of conscience, including for sede vacantists.
But I never discuss their theory, which I have always thought is a matter of psychological avoidance -- avoiding having to confront the painful truth and sad fact that there have been in the past, and are now, very wicked and exceedingly fallible papal antichrists.
Rather than run away from this truth, it ought to be confronted. If you are a Roman Catholic you do not have the freedom to decide for yourself who is or who is not the pope. The fact that sede vacantists have abrogated this freedom to themselves makes me think that they are Protestants without realizing it; and a very peculiar Protestant at that. But then the world is a very peculiar place.
With kind wishes and charity for sede vacantists, I NOW BID ADIEU to sede vacantist theology. Without meaning to give offense, I must candidly confess that sede vacantism is about as interesting to this writer as watching paint dry, or sitting with the denizens of a kollel as they haggle over a tractate from the Gemara.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
Boy, I wish I had something to say to that comment, but you've pretty much nailed it. Let me sleep on it. Maybe I can come up with some abuse and denuciation in the morning.
Wisely stated. Being a former sede myself, you have captured the problems I experienced, and I leave it to time and the Church to decide such matters.
-Jay
Mr. Hoffman: Thank you. You just helped push me off the fence back into the Church.
God reward you for what you wrote.
What Michael Hoffman wrote equally applies to the Society of St. Pius X. It is The Church that teaches -- it is not taught. The Magisterium does not work by proof-texting one Pope against another. Lefebvre and his "episcopal heirs" are, ironically, anathematized by their beloved Trent -- and Vatican I -- for daring to cast doubt on the validity of the new rites. When any series of Popes are referred to as "antichrists" you know you're dealing with a Catholic version of Seventh Day Adventism in which, via private judgement, someone attempts to tell the Church what it can and cannot do. Neither Nostra Aetate or Dignitatis Humanae are fertile seedbeds for apostasy (as is claimed ad nauseam) -- both of them, as well as the rest of the conciliar texts, are nothing if not reasonable and eminently Catholic.
Mr. Hoffman:
I wonder if you would be so kind as to attempt to answer a question to which I have yet to hear a plausible answer. Why is the Pope serving Judaic/Zionist interests? It's the simplest question, yet no one can seem to answer it. I'm assuming Pope Benedict is not a Marrano, yet he was enthusiastic about Vatican II as a young priest. Why? Why does he do these things? Is it blackmail? It doesn't make sense.
Thank you and God bless you.
During his trip to the Holy Land, didn't Pope Benedict XVI call for an independent Palestinian state? That hardly sounds like someone serving Judaic/Zionist interests. (And, no, I'm not in thrall to the double mind).
People would do well to put away literature and musings from the Dimond Brothers, Michael Davies, Fr. Wathen, Patrick Omlor, Hutton Gibson, Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Cekada and all the other conservative cafeteria Catholics (the Hans Kungs of the "right," so to speak) and just read the Vatican II documents themselves (preferably the Abbot edition from the 60s) without filtering them through a "traditionalist" Sanhedrin-like prism. Vatican II is very rich in doctrine and you'll find extensive footnotes citing all of the previous Church councils (Trent is cited frequently for those who need their daily caloric Tridentine count satisfied).
Get out of the Catholic ghetto. The Gospel is the good news yet it's treated like a death sentence in the "traditionalist" milieu.
Both posters attacking the SSPX really have no idea what they're talking about! If the first poster attacking the SSPX really had an idea of what Archbishop Lefebvre and his society believes, he would not put such an outrageous assertion. And I would also ask the first poster: is not praying with Jews for the coming of the Messiah anti-Christ?! Is not holding interfaith prayer gatherings for peace anti-Christ?!
As for the second poster, defending Vatican II won't help you. Vatican II is so ambiguous and even contradictory, that we're still NOT OUT OF THE SPIRITUAL RUT THAT HAS BEFALLEN THE CHURCH SINCE VATICAN II. If Vatican II is so clear, why is it still implemented so badly?! The Novus Ordo Catholics are the ones who are cafeteria Catholics, NOT THE TRADITIONALISTS! BTW, we don't object to all Vatican II documents, but the big ones on religious liberty, ecumenism, etc.
Post a Comment