Le Vatican dénonce: Israël encourage la haine envers le christianisme -- Si les Juifs veulent le respect, qu'ils commencent par respecter autrui!

Vatican official says Israel fostering intolerance of Christianity - Telegraph

The Israeli government's failure to respond adequately to Jewish extremist attacks against churches and monasteries is fostering a climate of intolerance towards Christianity in the country, a senior Vatican official in Jerusalem has warned.

Trappist Monastery at Latroun, Israel where graffiti in Hebrew was spray painted early this morning and a wooden door set ablaze Photo: EPA

Senior Catholic cleric: ‘If Jews want respect, they must respect others’

Catholic Church condemns 'price-tag' attack on monastery, urges Israel to change 'culture of contempt'

Statement by top clerics, including Jerusalem's Latin Patriarch, urges authorities to apprehend those responsible; Netanyahu: Israel will punish perpetrators severely.

By Nir Hasson | Sep.04, 2012 | 6:01 PM | 50

A catholic monk standing in a doorway of the Latrun Trappist Monastery where vandals spray-painted anti-Christian and pro-settler graffiti, Sept. 4, 2012. Photo by AP

Christians disrespected in Christ’s Motherland

‘Price tag’ vandals consistently escape prosecution

Christian monastery near Jerusalem vandalized, door set on fire

VIDEO - Israeli Persecution of Christians in the Holy Land - 60 Minutes

Zionist American Jew Murders Christian Palestinian in Eilat

AJC Outraged by Christian Call for Congressional Investigation of Israel

Bishop Shomali’s disparaging statementes on Talmud are disturbing to friends of Christian-Jewish dialogue

Jewish and Catholic scholars are upset over the affirmations of the Vicar General of Jerusalem’s Latin Patriarch in a recent Famiglia Cristiana interview

Catholic Palestinian-American Murdered by Zionists

Profanation d'un monastère chrétien en Israel

Israeli settlers increase their attacks on Palestinian Christian sites

Jérusalem : explosion de vandalismes des lieux de cultes Chrétiens par les sionistes

Bethlehem Christians feel the squeeze as Israeli settlements spread

Jewish Projection For Christmas

Coloniser Noël : la réalité sur l’occupation israélienne et Bethléhem

Terrorisme caché dans un arbre de Noël! Israël tente d’interdire les célébrations religieuses non juives

New Anti-Christian Attack in Israel

Christianophobie : en Israël aussi

AMERICAN FREE PRESS OCT 7, 2013 EDITION
Nazareth Not Christian?
Shimon Gafsou, the mayor of the town of Nazareth, the birthplace of Jesus, was recently interviewed by The Washington Post. Gafsou wanted to tell the world Nazareth “is a Jewish city, now and forever. I would rather cut off my right arm than build an Arab school.” The same, he said, went formangers or Christmas trees or anything else that is Christian or Muslim. He added that “95 percent of Jewish mayors think the same thing.”

High above Nazareth, an Israeli mayor wants to keep his city Jewish ‘now and forever’

The Israeli mayor of upper Nazareth who called himself 'racist scum’

Shimon Gafsou began campaigning for re-election as mayor of Upper Nazareth with posters calling himself “racist scum”. But it’s working, he tells Robert Tait.

The incendiary messages seemed to herald the declaration of ethnic warfare. "Shimon Gafsou is racist scum and a neighbourhood bully who boorishly tramples the basic rights of Arab citizens to live wherever they want and to buy lands which, in any case, were theirs and were stolen from them by force," read one.(...)

"Nazareth Illit Jewish forever," declares one. "No more accepting the law that makes possible for every citizen to live where he wants. It's time to guard the home."

Another boasts of having "stopped the demographic change" that saw the Arab share of the population rising. "I will stop them from building an Arab school. I will work to construct neighbourhoods for Jewish citizens," Mr Gafsou states in another poster. "Nazareth Illit is a Jewish city." 

The messages have drawn protests from civil rights groups, who have complained to Yehuda Weinstein, Israel's attorney general, that the mayor is running a re-election campaign "consisting wholly of racial incitement".

"We are talking about a racist mayor who is using his racism in his re-election campaign. He is proud to be a racist," said Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, whose quote was used in one of Mr Gafsou's early posters.

VIDEO - Les Palestiniens chrétiens


VIDEO - Les Chrétiens persécutés en Israel


VIDEO - La persécution des Chrétiens en Israël

Samuel Roth dans JEWS MUST LIVE!:

     "What the goyim [non-Jews] had was only a temporary possession which 'the stupid law of the gentiles was attempting to make permanent. Were not they, the Jews, God's chosen? Did not God mean in the very beginning that all the good things of the world should belong to His favorites?
It was the Jew's business to remember this at all times. Especially in his dealings with the goyim, It was practically a moral obligation on the part of every conscientious Jew to fool and cheat the goy wherever and whenever possible.
The impression that this arrangement made on me at that time was the world had been created by God for the habitation and prosperity of Israel. The rest of creation--cows, horses, nettles, oak trees, dung and goyim-were placed there for our, the Jews', convenience or inconvenience, depending on God's good humor for the time being.
We despised the goy and we hated his religion. The goy, according to the stories crooned into the ears of the children, wantonly worshiped an unsightly creature called the "yoisel" (NOTE: THIS IS JESUS-CHRIST) -- and a dozen names too foul for repetition. The yoisel had once been a human being and Jew. But one day he had gone out of his mind, and in that pitiably bewildered state, had announced that he was the Lord God Himself."

“Gentiles Must Perish”—Latest Hate Crime Outburst Suppressed by Jewish Supremacist Controlled Media

Christian monastery in Israel firebombed in suspected hate crime

Cross defaced near grave of Rabbi Nachman

A cross near the gravesite of a Jewish sage in Uman, Ukraine, was defaced with a Hebrew inscription.

Crucifix defaced with Hebrew graffiti in Ukraine

Attaques antichrétiennes, souillure du symbole de la Croix, le jour de la fête juive de Pourim: extraits de Reckless Rites - Purim And The Legacy Of Jewish Violence (p.68 et 157-158)

La première réponse de Radbaz , qui utilise le terme Kedushat ha-Shem (la sanctification du nom de Dieu), a laissé entendre que s’incliner devant Haman aurait pu être considéré comme un acte idolâtre, reflétant la tradition rabbinique selon laquelle Haman portait une image idolâtre sur sa poitrine. Abraham Saba, qui était comme Alashkar un exil d’Espagne, a également évoqué, dans son commentaire sur Esther, la tradition rabbinique concernant l’image idolâtre portée par Haman, ajoutant, toutefois, dans une veine plus contemporaine, que c’était « comme les rois Édomites [ndt : c'est-à-dire Chrétiens] dont les fonctionnaires arborent la croix abominable sur leurs vêtements, afin que quiconque les voit se prosterne ».) (…)

La croix comme abomination

Avant de procéder à d’autres cas de comportement indiscret vis-à-vis de la croix, permettez- moi de revenir sur le terme « abomination » et l’histoire de son utilisation par les Juifs comme un moyen de se référer cacophémistiquement (mon néologisme) à la croix. L’exemple le plus lointain que j’ai pu trouver se trouve à la fin des travaux midrashiques connus sous le nom de Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (Les Chapitres de Rabbi Eliezer) qui, tel qu’indiqué plus haut, a été évidemment composée en Palestine au huitième siècle. Comme nous l’avons vu, l’auteur de l’œuvre tente implicitement, en racontant l’histoire de Pourim, de résoudre un des problèmes les plus épineux dans l’exégèse du livre d’Esther : Pourquoi Mardochée a-t-il refusé de se prosterner devant Haman ? Selon PRE, Haman « avait une « image » [ tzelem ] brodée sur son vêtement, et tous ceux qui se prosternaient devant Haman saluaient également à l’ « abomination » [ to'eva ], qu’il avait faite. Madochée a vu cela et n’a pas consenti de se prosterner devant sa « chose dégoûtante » [ shikutzo ], comme il est dit : « Mais Mardochée ne s’inclina point, ni ne fit révérence » ». L’auteur de ce midrash tardif transforme Haman en un évêque chrétien portant fièrement sur sa poitrine le signe de la croix, appelée du nom peu flatteur de la trinité des termes hébreux – tzelem to’eva, shikutz. Et bien que l’auteur midrashique résida apparemment dans les Omeyyades de Palestine, il sentait néanmoins la nécessité de lier l’ancien ennemi juré du peuple juif avec le symbole central du christianisme. (…)

Mais les Juifs ne se sont pas seulement engagé dans le discours sur le christianisme et ses symboles. Les mots s’étaient, depuis l'Antiquité tardive, reportés dans les faits, comme dans la pratique, interdite par la loi de Théodose de 408, de la fabrication d'une effigie d’un crucifié le jour de Pourim. Des siècles plus tard, les juifs convertis au christianisme dans l'Empire byzantin étaient requis non seulement de renoncer généralement à toute la loi hébraïque, ses coutumes et cérémonies, mais spécifiquement de « maudire ceux qui gardent la fête du soi-disant Mardochée ... clouant Haman au bois, le mêlant ensuite à l'emblème de la croix et les brûlant ensemble ». Un tel serment pré-baptismal, datant de quelque part entre les huit et au début du dix-sept siècles, est venu jusqu'à nous depuis l'Orient byzantin. (...)

Comme Basnage, l'historien juif du dix-neuvième siècle Graetz a pu imaginer plus d'une explication de la loi de Théodose de 408 interdisant de se moquer du christianisme et de ses symboles lors de la fête de Pourim. « En ce jour », écrit-il, « les jeunes lurons [ lustige Jugend ] étaient habitués d’avoir à la main une effigie du pire ennemi des Juifs, Haman, sur une potence (gibet), et cette potence, qu’il était coutume de brûler, avait, soit par dessein, soit par accident, la forme d'une croix ». (Nous soulignons). Son contemporain, cependant, Ferdinand Gregorovius, l'historien de Rome né en Prusse, a présenté la question d'une façon un peu plus unilatérale. Gregorovius, contrairement à Graetz, appartenait à l'école qui avait tendance à considérer les Juifs comme étant eux-mêmes « responsables du mépris » dont ils faisaient souvent l’objet. Il est fortement étonnant, donc, qu'il a vu la loi de Théodose comme interdisant aux Juifs « de célébrer une certain fête [ Pourim ] au cours de laquelle ils étaient habitués à exprimer sournoisement leur haine pour le Sauveur crucifié ». Selon Gregorovius, au cours de cette journée, « ils représentaient Haman crucifié et ... le brûlaient en effigie au milieu des cris et des festivités comme s'il était le Christ » (je souligne). Comme il l'a lui-même vu (et entendu) dans son imagination, il n'y avait pas deux manières d’aborder ce sujet. Les Juifs du cinquième siècle détestaient le Messie crucifié et donnaient une « expression rusée » à leur haine en l’évacuant « au milieu des cris et des festivités » le jour de Pourim.

La loi de Théodose de 408 évoquée par ces trois chercheurs informait les gouverneurs des provinces, tel que mentionné plus tôt, qu’ils devaient « interdire aux Juifs de mettre le feu à Aman en souvenir de sa peine (châtiment), dans une certaine cérémonie de leur festival, et de brûler avec une intention sacrilège une forme faite pour ressembler à la sainte croix au mépris de la foi chrétienne, de peur qu'ils ne souillent le signe de notre foi avec leurs moqueries ».

//

Radbaz's first reply, which used the term kedushat ha-shem (the sanctification of God's name), implied that bowing before Haman could have been considered an idolatrous act reflecting the rabbinic tradition according to which Haman had worn an idolatrous image on his chest. Abraham Saba, like Alashkar an exile from Spain, also referred, in his commentary on Esther, to the rabbinic tradition concerning the idolatrous image worn by Haman, adding, however, in a more contemporary vein, that this was "like the Edomite (Christian) kings who have their officials wear the abominable cross on their clothing, so that whoever sees them would bow down".) (...)

The Cross As Abomination

Before proceeding to other instances of indiscreet behavior vis-a-vis the cross, let me return to the term "abomination" and the history of its use by Jews as a means of referring cacophemistically (my neologism) to the cross. The earliest instance I have been able to find occurs in the late midrashic work known as Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer), which as noted earlier, was evidently composed in eighth-century Palestine. As we have seen, the work's author implicitly attempts, in retelling the story of Purim, to solve one of the thorniest problems in the exegesis of the book of Esther: Why did Mordecai refuse to bow down to Haman? According to PRE, Haman "had an 'image' [tzelem] embroidered on his garment, and anyone who bowed down to Haman bowed also to the 'abomination' [to'eva] which he had made. Mordecai saw this and did not consent to bow down to his 'disgusting thing' [shikutzo], as it is said, 'But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence'." The author of this late midrash transforms Haman into a Christian bishop who proudly wears upon his chest the sign of the cross, referred to by the uncomplimentary trinity of Hebrew terms -- tzelem to'eva, shikutz. And although the midrashic author apparently resisded in Umayyad Palestine, he nonetheless felt the need to link the ancient arch-enemy of the Jewish People with the central symbol of Christianity. (...)

But Jews did not only engage in discourse about Christianity and its symbols. Words had, since late antiquity, carried over into deeds, as in the practice, prohibited by the Theodosian law of 408, of burning a crucified figure on Purim. Centuries later, Jewish converts to Christianity in the Byzantine empire were required not only to generally renounce every Hebrew law, custom, and ceremony, but to specifically "curse those who keep the festival of the so-called Mordecai ... nailing Haman to wood, and then mixing him with the emblem of the cross and burning them together." Such a prebaptismal oath, dating from some time between the eight and early seventeen centuries, has come down to us from the Byzantine East.(...)

Like Basnage, the nineteenth-century Jewish historian Graetz was able to imagine more than one explanation for the Theodosian law of 408 prohibiting mockery of Christianity and its symbols on Purim. "On this day", he wrote, "the merry youths [the lustige Jugend] were accustomed to hand in effigy the arch-enemy of the Jews, Haman, on a gallows, and this gallows, which it was the custom to burn, had, by design, or by accident, the form of a cross." (emphasis added). His contemporary, however, Ferdinand Gregorovius, the Prussian-born historian of Rome, presented the matter in a somewhat more one-sided way. Gregorovius, in sharp contrast to Graetz, belonged to the school of scholarship that tended to regard the Jews as being themselves "responsible for the contempt" with which they were often held. It is sharply surprising, therefore, that he saw the Theodosian law as forbidding the Jews "to celebrate a certain festival [Purim] at which they were accustomed to give sly expression to their hatred for the Crucified Saviour." According to Gregorovius , on that day, "they represented Haman as crucified and... burned him in effigy amidst shouts and revelry as if he were Christ" (emphasis added). As he saw (and heard) it in his imagination, there were no two ways about it. The Jews of the fifth century hated the crucified Messiah and gave "sly expression" to their hatred by venting it "amidst shouts and revelry" on the day of Purim.

The Theodosian law of 408 alluded to by all three of these scholars had instructed the governors of the provinces, as mentionned earlier, to "prohibit the Jews from setting fire to Aman in memory of his past punishment, in a certain ceremony of their festival, and from burning with sacrilegious intent a form made to resemble the saint cross in contempt of the Christian faith, lest they mingle the sign of our faith with their jests."

Why Crucify Haman? 
Artistic representations of the Purim villain shed light on medieval Jewish and Christian interpretations of the holiday.
By Menachem Wecker

According to Martin Luther's 1543 essay "On the Jews and Their Lies," Jews demonstrate their "bloodthirsty" and "vengeful" character in their love of the Book of Esther.

Luther, a priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation and a known opponent of Jews and Judaism, also said the Book of Esther should be ignored for being "too Jewish" and packed with "too much heathen corruption." The 18th century German Bible scholar Johann David Michaelis took Luther's attack on Mordecai and Esther one step further, by protesting Haman's execution without a fair trial.

Luther and Michaelis were not the only ones to think that the Persian Jews in the Book of Esther should have turned the other cheek to Haman. 

Michelangelo's "The Punishment of Haman"

In Michelangelo's depiction in the Sistine Chapel, "The Punishment of Haman" pays Haman the theological compliment of crucifying him. Though the Jewish (and literal) reading of the Book of Esther is that Haman is the evil antagonist, Michelangelo seems to imply the opposite: Haman's attempt to kill the Jews was justified, and the fact that the Jews persecuted and killed Haman makes him like Jesus.

Haman's Cross to Bear

Similarly, a miniature in the collection of The Hague, from around the year 1430, shows a bejeweled Esther kneeling before Ahasuerus begging for the lives of her fellow Jews. Ahasuerus, flanked by attendants and a bearded man, who might be Mordecai, extends his golden scepter to Esther. The story progresses from the left, where Esther kneels, to her right, where a near-naked Haman is crucified behind the seated scribe.

The artist or artists who created the work, referred to as the Azor master, would have been familiar with the fourth century Vulgate, Jerome's Latin translation of the Hebrew scriptures, which used the word crux to refer to the gallows which Haman created for Mordecai, and which Haman was later hanged upon.

The word the Hebrew Bible uses for the gallows, etz, more properly refers to a tree, though Hebrew versions of the Gospel of Matthew (controversial in their own right because there are no surviving versions from Matthew's lifetime) also use the word etz in reference to Jesus' crucifixion.

Jerome's translation may have derived from the reference to Haman's crucifixion in the Septuagint, which originated a few centuries earlier--initially by rabbis, who were forced to produce the translation, and later retranslated over time by Christian scholars. In addition, the first century Jewish historian Josephus' account of the Purim story has Haman prepare a cross for Mordecai, and in Josephus' version Haman's death is by crucifixion. The fourth century monk Evagrius, who lived in Constantinople, implied in his writings that Jews of his time considered Haman's death a crucifixion.

A number of medieval Christian authorities were certain that Jews acted upon the belief that Haman, like Jesus, was crucified. For example, the early fifth-century Theodosian Codex, a set of Roman laws, insisted that Jews abstain from "celebrating a certain feast" during which they "very shrewdly" showed their "secret hatred of the crucified Savior" by representing their enemy Haman as a crucified man and burning his effigy amidst "great shouting and frenzy just as if he were Christ."

There are no other sources that clarify how widespread this practice was--or if it happened at all. But according to this source, fifth-century Jews drew comparisons between Jesus' crucifixion on the second day of Passover and Haman's hanging, which according to the Talmud occurred on the same day.

(Michael Collins Piper, The Confessions of an Anti-Semite: The First-Ever Critical Analysis of the Linguistic Legerdemain Underlying the Propaganda Techniques of the Newo World Order, 2013)

Michael Collins Piper, The Confessions of an Anti-Semite

 

(...)

Michael Collins Piper, in The Judas Goats--The Enemy Within

Chapter Nineteen 

The Vatican’s Own Enemy Within: 

Buckley Associate Malachi Martin’s 

Secret Role as a Subversive Acting on 

Behalf of Zionist Interests 

The identity of an operative for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith inside the Catholic Church during the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s has been revealed: the late ex-priest-turnedbest- selling author, Malachi Martin, a longtime close associate of none other than William F. Buckley, Jr., himself an outspoken Roman Catholic. As a result of the revelations concerning Buckley’s friend Martin, some prominent Catholic traditionalist critics now call Martin a “de facto Zionist double agent” and a “priest-spy for Zionism”—labels that will come as a surprise to many good traditionalist Catholics who viewed Martin, at least in his later years, as their ally. 

It now turns out that this same “double agent”—Martin—was a financial backer of a conspiratorial group that was working to destroy Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist institution. 

It was Cincinnati-based Lawrence W. Patterson who was apparently the first-ever national publisher to unveil Martin as the so-called “priest-spy”inside the Vatican who, in Patterson’s words,was the key figure in “saving the Vatican II documents which have since been used to begin the attempted melding of Zionism and Catholicism.” 

In the April 1991 issue of his magazine Criminal Politics, Patterson called Martin the magazine’s “fake conservative of the month, fronting for the Trilateral/Zionist cause,” and outlined the explosive evidence indicting Martin. 

But Patterson is not the only major figure to expose Martin. Widely regarded revisionist historian Michael A.Hoffman II called Martin a “double-minded occultist”and a “20th century Judas.”(See Hoffman’s website at hoffman-info.com) 

In addition, Hutton Gibson, the outspoken lay traditionalist Catholic, said of Martin on a broadcast of Radio Free America (with host Tom Valentine) that “I think Martin was kind of a Judas Goat.He was at the Second Vatican Council and one of the things he did was call in bishops who were a little obstreperous and threaten them to get in line. Malachi Martin is not my idea of a Catholic.” 

The late Revilo P. Oliver, one of the great nationalist intellectuals, wrote that “if Martin did indeed play an important role in betraying the [Catholic] Church into the hands of its inveterate enemies, he certainly knew what he was doing. (See Oliver’s essay, “How They Stole the Church,” at revilo-oliver.com) 

Hoffman said that Martin “saved the day for the Jewish/Masonic infiltrators of the church.”In Criminal Politics, Patterson explained how Martin did just that, outlining the amazing story of Martin’s intrigue. Relying largely on an indubitably “mainstream” article, “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking” by Joseph Roddy—published in the January 25, 1966 issue of the now-defunct Look magazine—Patterson pointed out that the Look article revealed quite candidly that a priest working inside the Vatican was shuttling back and forth between Rome and New York during the Vatican II proceedings. 

The priest was providing inside information about proposed Catholic Church “reforms” to not only The New York Times, but also to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee and its magazine, Commentary. 

Then, as the article noted, this confidential information leaked from inside the Vatican was then used to pressure the Vatican into making major changes in church policy. 

The Look author would not identify the priest by his real name, referring only to him as “Timothy Fitzharris-O’Boyle,” but also explained that this priest also wrote for Commentary under the name “F. E.Cartus” and had written a book, entitled The Pilgrim, under the name “Michael Serafian.”

(The Pilgrim was a 1964 book, rushed into print, according to Michael A. Hoffman II, for the very purpose of divulging efforts by traditionalists inside the Vatican to counter the proposed revolution in church teachings.) 

As Lawrence Patterson’s investigation determined, when Malachi Martin (by then an internationally-known writer) released his 1974 book, The New Castle, a filler page listing “books by Malachi Martin” indicated that Martin had written the aforementioned book, The Pilgrim, “under the pseudonym, Michael Serafian.” 

And as if Patterson’s revelations (based on Martin’s own published acknowledgment) are not enough evidence that he was indeed the “priest-spy” inside the Vatican, a July 31, 1999 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel obituary for Martin said that he had published The Pilgrim under the “Michael Serafian” pseudonym. 

Almost immediately after completing his subversive ventures inside the Vatican, Martin left the priesthood and went to New York where he began writing for the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary (under his real name) and acting as “religious editor” for William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review. 

In the years that followed, Martin’s novels and other works received widespread international promotion in the organs of the major media, making Martin almost certainly a multi-millionaire. 

According to Michael A. Hoffman II, Martin “was the descendant of a Jewish banker who sought refuge in Ireland,” where Martin was born in 1921. Hoffman scored Martin for, as recently as 1997, comparing himself with Maimonides, whom Hoffman identifies as “the foremost interpreter of the Jewish Talmud and one of the most implacable enemies of Christ in the annals of Judaism” who once “commanded the extermination of Christians.” 

This is interesting since Martin, in fact, did study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem where he concentrated on the knowledge of Jesus Christ as transmitted in Jewish sources. Soon afterward, according to London’s Independent of August 6, 1999, Martin was “marked out as a high flyer” and promoted to a post at the Vatican as a theological advisor to Cardinal Augustin Bea, who was himself, along with several other of his advisors, of Jewish descent. 

It was Bea who emerged inside the Vatican as the prime mover behind the changes in church policy during Vatican II, and Martin acted as his agent in dealings with the Jewish community in New York City during that time frame. Revilo Oliver went so far as to suggest that Martin may have actually been a “courier” for vast amounts of cash bribes transferred out of New York to Rome and elsewhere during the Vatican II period. 

The fact that Martin forged a close relationship with William F. Buckley, Jr.—one that lasted for decades—is noteworthy since both Buckley and his former supervisor in the CIA, E. Howard Hunt, waged extensive (albeit failed) lawsuits against The Spotlight for the purpose of demolishing the populist weekly. Thus the question remains as to whether Martin was later acting as an agent for the vengeful team of Buckley and Hunt in assisting other operatives who were working to silence The Spotlight. 

The bottom line: Malachi Martin’s role in financing a conspiracy to destroy The Spotlight does point toward the origin of that conspiracy, and it is safe to say that Martin was clearly a prime example of The Enemy Within—in this case involved in the subversion of the Roman Catholic Church. The damage done to the church by the revolutionary conclave known as Vatican II may never be undone and the future will remember Malachi Martin as a treacherous Judas Goat of the worst order.

*BETTER KNOWN UNDER HIS TITLE of Pope Paul VI—under which name he implemented the controversial Vatican II “reforms” that re-directed and distorted traditional Roman Catholic doctrine—at a time when Judas Goat Malachi Martin (see accompanying chapter) was acting as an agent inside the Vatican II conference on behalf of Zionist interests. On more than one occasion Montini (above) publicly wore the Freemasonic emblem known as the “ephod,” the symbol worn by Caiaphus, the Jewish High Priest who ordered the death of Jesus Christ. Montini’s ephod can be seen (circled) at the bottom of his portrait. At right is an ephod in which Hebrew letters can clearly be seen at the top. Said to be of Jewish extraction, Montini was buried Jewish-style, in a plain wooden box, in a ceremony at the Vatican which featured not a single crucifix. Many traditionalist Catholics consider Montini a Judas Goat. Zionist interests have also forcefully infiltrated Protestant fundamentalist churches, promoting the “dispensationalist” doctrine, first cooked up by John Darby in the 1840’s and then widely promoted in the 20th century by Cyrus Scofield, whose famous “Scofield Reference Bible” was financed by the Zionist Rothschild family-funded Oxford University Press in London. Today, Rothschild-sponsored “dispensationalism” dictates the pro-Zionist stance of the so-called “Christian Right,” a major influence in the Republican Party. Thus, an alliance between Radical Judaism and Radical Christianity is responsible for the misconduct of U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of the Zionist imperium under President George W. Bush, a fervent disciple of dispensationalism surrounded by Zionist fanatics.

Sur ce blog:

États-Unis: Le National Council of Churches, les Églises luthériennes, méthodistes et unitariennes réclament une enquête sur l'aide financière et militaire à Israël

L'évêque Williamson sur le déicide

Rabbi Yosef: il est interdit de soigner un non-Juif le jour du Shabbat

Le racisme permis: le racisme israélien

Selon le Grand rabbin orthodoxe sépharade Ovadia Yosef, « les Gentils n’existent que pour servir les Juifs »

Jérusalem occupée par l’anti-Christ 

Du meurtre du Christ au conflit des civilisations 

Ce qu’ils ont dit: Les Papes

Aveugle synagogue

Adrien Arcand

De la séparation

La réincarnation à la sauce matérialiste-hollywoodienne ou hébraïque, au secours du Shoa-business et des forces anti-christiques