…by Jonas E. Alexis
Justin Amash, the young and promising politician who has been appealing to the Constitution to support some of his arguments, was shocked to discover that both the Democratic and Republican parties do not really defend the Constitution. He lamented:
“When I entered Congress, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I have followed through on that promise. The political elites of both parties don’t like what I’m doing.
“They have a vision of government that is very different from the vision laid out in the Constitution. As the elites see it, the American people are their subjects, and a benevolent privileged few—standing above the law—must watch over the rest of society.
“History and logic show us that no matter how ‘good’ the leaders are, unrestrained government invites corruption and cronyism. On the whole, government power always benefits the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of others.”
We could have helped Amash here.
Yours truly has been saying for months that Washington, where both the Republican and Democratic parties politically reside, is warped around the Zionist matrix, which always promises to fight terrorism and protect the American people but inexorably ends up delivering something else, i.e., giving allegiance to the Israeli regime in America and deliberately censoring out dissident voices in academic institutions in countries such as Canada, supporting and training radical terrorist cells such as the Syrian rebels under the Obama administration (even though they knew that the rebels are terrorists) and the Mujahideen under Bush, killing innocent and dissident voices such as Rachel Corrie, killing Iranian scientists in the name of fighting terrorism, creating havoc in Iraq where hundreds of people die virtually every single day, attempting to murder at least one former U.S. Senator (James Abourezk), blackmailing countries such as Russia for resisting the neo-bolshevik and diabolical plan and allowing the rebels to attack Moscow’s embassy in Damascus, creating aesthetic terrorism among precious Americans by propounding that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, unleashing sexual debauchery and pornography in what they view as a “Christian culture” in America to corrupt the young and defenseless so that they do not have time to think about serious issues, grabbing both the American and precious Muslim people by the rope and swinging them back and forth into economic suffering, and finally sending precious Americans a six trillion-dollar bill.
If you were an American soldier and are confronted with all these facts. If you knew that supporting terrorist groups indirectly ends up blowing churches sky high in places like Pakistan, what would you do?
Well, our precious soldiers are committing suicide. Every day, at least 22 soldiers end up taking their own lives. But a large portion of Americans are much more concerned about getting the new iPhones than worrying about our precious soldiers dying for the Zionist mafia. In other words, Max Boot’s plan seems to be working.
Amash is also concerned that the national debt is out of control, but Amash is a proponent of rapacious Capitalism, the one giant octopus that never ceases to expand the power of the oligarchs such as Goldman Sachs and Wall Street at the expense of the poor and needy.
Amash rightly says that “unrestrained governments invites corruption and cronyism,” but Amash does not apply that principle to Capitalism, which always opens the door for rapacious usury, which always ends up benefiting the rich and powerful, and which ultimately ends up in economic suffering, as we have seen during the economic collapse.
(I still have not had the opportunity to discuss Capitalism. I will do so as soon as our study on the history of Christian Zionism is complete. Some people think that if you are against Capitalism, then you are against free trade and economic exchange. In other words, they mistakenly believe that Capitalism is simply economic exchange. Moreover, if you are against Capitalism, then you must be a Communist or Socialist. As we shall see in the future, this is not the case.)
I was also somewhat surprised that Amash is a fan of Ayn Rand, a Jewish ideologue whose work we have discussed in two previous articles.
THE NSA STRIKES BACK
Amash was not the only person who was surprised that our political categories do not support the Constitution. Daniel McCarthy of the American Conservative is astonished that the holy trinity of anti-war proponents—Obama, Kerry, and Hagel—radically turned their backs on what they had previously committed themselves to.
The reason is simple: the holy trinity had already been politically bar-mitzvahed and had become political prisoners in the Zionist matrix. The political consequences are so enormous that
“Online patrolling by the government is also happening in the U.S., particularly from the CIA and its infamous In-Q-Tel program. At a 2012 summit, former CIA director David Petraeus essentially admitted that the CIA has a covert online presence that it uses not only for data mining purposes but also to infiltrate online conversations for the purpose of protecting ‘national security’ interests.
“Such interests, it turns out, include disrupting conversations that discuss topics like 9/11 truth, for instance, or U.S. involvement in giving weapons to Syrian rebels.
“According to Occupy Corporatism, the [NSA]… has devised a training program that literally scouts out hackers from American colleges and universities and recruits them to work for the government.
“Among the many duties sought from those enrolled in the National Centers of Academic Excellence in the Cyber Operations Program are ‘collection, exploitation, and response’ activities to take place in the online environment.
“These ‘cyber operators’ are trained to become an elite team of ‘computer geniuses’ that are experts in computer hacking, digital communications, cyber intelligence — for the purpose of spying on Americans, as well as conducting interactive digital psy-ops with users of the internet,’ explains Occupy Corporatism about the program.”
PUTIN: AN ALLY IN THE POLITICAL WAR
Putin continues to challenge the Zionist matrix by saying that Israel’s nuclear warheads make foreign policy very difficult, particularly when Israel applies different standards. Victor Gilinsky, former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, have recently raised the same issue.
Israel continues to force countries in the Middle East to dismantle their nuclear programs, but Israel is not even willing to let the international community take a look at their warheads—and they have hundreds of them!
Countries in the Western world have recently again voted against the proposal that Israel should join other nations such as Iran in signing the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Israeli Defense Minister Danny Dannon has already gone on record saying that “Israel should annul the Oslo records.”
This is a slick way to absolve any responsibility. If they are out, then no country can hold them accountable. No country can ask them to play by the same rule.
What’s even more interesting is that Jewish organizations abide by the same double standards in America.
For example, Jewish lawyer Bob Wieckowski is making the ridiculous argument that the state of California should allow non-U.S. citizens to serve on California juries!
At the same time, in Upper Nazareth, which has about 50,000 people of various origins, including a small minority of Arabs and Christians, Mayor Shimon Gafsou does not even want a mosque or a church to be built there. Gafsou defends his position by saying,
“95 percent of the Jewish mayors think the same thing. They’re just afraid to say so out loud.”
He continues, “This is a Jewish city, now and forever.” Jewish police such as the ADL and AJC complain about neo-Nazis, but they will never complain about this form of Bolshevism.
Let us turn this double standard to the Middle East. For example, Assad has already sent information to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about his chemical weapons; Assad has even agreed that the international community is welcome to investigate his chemical weapons sites. But the Israeli regime has yet to agree that it will even allow such an investigation about its own nuclear warheads.
Moreover, it was the Israeli regime that provided the so-called evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons. If the West follows logical inference consistently, the West would be attacking the Syrian rebels/terrorists, not Assad, for hundreds upon hundreds of the rebels are consistently pledging their allegiance to al Qaeda almost weekly.
Here is the rub: the U.S. government knew that al Qaeda used chemical weapons!
If Western politicians would consistently draw rational conclusions, they would discover that the Israeli regime is not an ally as they thought it was. For example, just a few days ago,
“Israeli soldiers seized on Friday a truck full of tents and emergency aid that European diplomats had been trying to deliver to Palestinians whose homes were demolished…
“Soldiers were reportedly throwing sound grenades at a group of diplomats, aid workers and locals in the West Bank, and pulling a French diplomat out of the truck before driving away with its contents.”
Those diplomats were from France, Britain, Spain, Ireland, Australia, and the European Union’s political office. Marion Castaing, one of the diplomats, complained:
“They dragged me out of the truck and forced me to the ground with no regard for my diplomatic immunity. This is how international law is being respected here.”
The diplomats were visiting a place where the Israeli army “demolished” the homes of the local people and a kindergarten school.
“Despite losing their property, the inhabitants have refused to leave the land, where, they say, their families have lived for generations along with their flocks of sheep.
“Israeli soldiers stopped the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delivering emergency aid on Tuesday and on Wednesday IRCS staff managed to put up some tents but the army forced them to take the shelters down.”
ROUHANI VS. NETANYAHU
A few days ago, President Hasan Rouhani declares that international politics should not be “a zero-sum game but a multi-dimensional arena where cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously. Gone is the age of blood feuds.” Rouhani continues to put the political debate on a rational ground this way:
“We must pay attention to the complexities of the issues at hand to solve them. Enter my definition of constructive engagement. In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is — or should be — counterintuitive to pursue one’s interests without considering the interests of others.
“A constructive approach to diplomacy doesn’t mean relinquishing one’s rights. It means engaging with one’s counterparts, on the basis of equal footing and mutual respect, to address shared concerns and achieve shared objectives. In other words, win-win outcomes are not just favorable but also achievable. A zero-sum, Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss.”
A rational person is within his own right to give Rohani the benefit of a doubt. At the same time, it is not logical to completely dismiss him and say he is just lying. Why not taking into consideration his proposal here?
So far, Rouhani has been arguing within the parameters of logical inferences, and he has demonstrated that his views here are consistent with what the West represents. Paul R. Pillar declares Rouhani’s feet are firmly planted in rational analysis.
“Sadly, unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. Security is pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others, with disastrous consequences.
“More than a decade and two wars after 9/11, al-Qaeda and other militant extremists continue to wreak havoc. Syria, a jewel of civilization, has become the scene of heartbreaking violence, including chemical weapons attacks, which we strongly condemn.
“In Iraq, 10 years after the American-led invasion, dozens still lose their lives to violence every day. Afghanistan endures similar, endemic bloodshed.
“The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say all because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.”
How does Netanyahu and respond to Rouhani’s proposal? You guessed it:
“One should not be taken in by Rouhani’s deceptive words. The same Rouhani boasted in the past how he deceived the international community with nuclear talks, even as Iran was continuing with its nuclear program.”
The same regime went on to say that there is no time left for negotiations with Iran. The Obama administration was surely listening to their Israeli boss. They later declared that Rouhani’s proposals are “insufficient” without even telling us why it was so.
Stephen J. Hardley, former national security adviser during the Bush administration, came to similar conclusions. Hardley adds:
“Every American committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should urge Congress to grant President Obama authority to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria.”
If the West does not have any faith Rouhani, at least Siamak Moreh Dedgh, “who represents Iran’s Jewish community and holds a reserved seat in the Iranian parliament” and who also happens to be an anti-Zionist, trusts him.
THE ZIONIST BURDEN
Rouhani is absolutely correct. The Israeli regime is pursuing its so-called security at the expense of the entire Western culture, at the expense of U.S. poverty and economic havoc in Europe. The regime has even asked more irrational demands, such as asking for more $3 billion every year.
More importantly, the Zionist regime has placed a heavy burden on the West. As Bob Dreyfuss and Nick Turse of the Nation themselves write:
“When an American soldier dies in Afghanistan, his death is not anonymous. The tragedy of that loss is mourned, and his life is remembered and celebrated. In many cases, the death is covered prominently in local and state media, often for several days.
“The Pentagon dutifully records the loss, medals are delivered, a ceremonial flag is presented to survivors, and the Defense Department pays the soldier’s family $100,000 in compensation, plus back pay, insurance, housing allowances and more.
“But when an Afghan dies in the war—especially an Afghan civilian—her death is rarely noticed by the outside world. Often, it’s not even recorded by Afghan hospitals or morgues. Asked whether his country keeps records of civilian casualties, Said Jawad, the former Afghan ambassador to the United States, sighs.
“In Afghanistan, you know, we don’t even have birth certificates,” he says. “Do you know we don’t even have a list of Afghan soldiers and police, members of the security forces, who are killed?”
Inconsistencies and double standards such as this have always create more anger and terrorist cells.
PUTIN SEEMS TO BE A VISIONARY
Putin, using his intellectual prowess, in several occasions scorns and laughs at the West’s double standards—or shall we say the Zionist version of the West. For example, he declares at a recent gathering of several academics,
“Berlusconi is on trial now because he lives with women, but if he were a homosexual, they wouldn’t lay a finger on him.”
Similar and blatant contradictions are rampant within our own political categories. For example, the Obama administration has been supporting the Syrian terrorists since last year, and both Kerry and McCain have been forcing the U.S. to support the same terrorist groups. Here’s the rub:
“An Army veteran accused of fighting alongside an al-Qaida-affiliated group of Syrian rebels has been released from jail following a secret plea deal. Eric Harroun, 31, of Phoenix, had been charged with providing material support to a terrorist group and faced up to life in prison.
“But under a plea agreement entered Thursday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Harroun pleaded guilty to an obscure law regulating export of munitions. He was sentenced to time served. He had been jailed since returning to the U.S. in March.”
Why in the world did he get arrested in the first place? And if he should spend some time in jail, what about John Kerry, Barack Obama, William Kristol, Jonathan S. Tobin, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Stephen Bryen, Robert Kagan, Frederick Kagan, David Wurmser, Dov Zakheim, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, to name just a few?
Putin also makes it clear that sexuality is a private matter and has traditionally been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Does that exclude people who want to express themselves as gays and lesbians in their private lives?
No, says Putin. Putin cogently argues, “Any minority deserves respect for its distinctive identity, but the rights of the majority must not be questioned.
“What can be a better indication of a moral crisis in human society than its loss of the ability for self-reproduction?”
Putin, unlike the Zionist regime, which is theologically and essentially Masonic, does not allow gay propaganda to parade in front of children and society in order to corrupt the moral order.
According to Putin, people are welcome to perform whatever sexual acts they choose in their private lives, but they are not free to simulate any kind of sexual acts in public as a form of subversion.
Putin implicitly argues that gays and lesbians are not free to force the government to adopt their private lives, which in the end will amount to chaos.
More importantly, from a biological perspective, “same-sex marriages do not produce children,” says Putin. In other words, if Europe is to survive the next one hundred years, Europe has to go back to the traditional definition of marriage, which is consistent with the moral order.
“We are dying out,” says Putin. “Europeans are dying out.” How does the average Russian respond to Putin’s solution? More than half of the population agrees with him.
LIBERATE THE JEWISH BOY’S LIBIDO!
Yet while Putin was making rational arguments for the traditional definition of marriage, Pope Francis came out and declared that the Church is “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage, and contraception. He arbitrarily and quickly separates “moral doctrines” and “serving the poor and marginalized” as if both are contrary to one another. He declares,
“It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.
“We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
I personally would like to know what that new balance is, since in the Gospel Christ himself declares, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).
Moreover, I would like Pope Francis to expand on what he means by “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”
Virtually every serious person knows that there is indeed a problem with priests molesting children, that Europe’s population is in decline, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues?
As we shall see, Pope Francis, who should be articulating the Church’s traditional teachings on marriage, seems to be indirectly infected by Wilhelm Reich’s sexual ideology.
As John Paul VI articulated in the Encyclical Letter,
“Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design.
“As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.
“This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment….
“Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.”
Instead of articulating these principles to the world, Pope Francis turns around and embraces what Wilhelm Reich was propounding in the 1930s and all the way to the 1950s.
First, Reich, who has been christened one of the most influential intellectuals in the history of psychiatry, rejected the moral order. For him, rejecting Christianity was the first step in deconstructing sexual restraints. He states in the Sexual Revolution:
“The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition…
“We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality!”
Biographer Myron R. Sharaf notes that “Reich was impressed with the failure of not only Marxism but of other revolutionary ideas such as Christianity.”
Accordingly, Reich stirred up sexual revolution wherever he could, moving from one country to another.
“As a Communist in Germany, Reich was expelled from the party for his writings on sexual permissiveness and ‘counterrevolutionary’ thinking…In Denmark the attack on him by orthodox psychiatrists in 1933 hastened his departure for Sweden, but the hostility he encountered there led him in 1934 to Norway.
“In 1939, after two years of adverse publicity in the Norwegian press, he left for the United States, where he resumed his psychiatric practice in New York, trained other psychiatrists, and lectured at the New School for Social Research.”
Reich had to flee Germany right after the rise of Hitler in 1933 because he was promoting sexual revolution among the youth, particularly with his book The Sexual Struggle of Youth.
Taking refuge in America, it was not long, however, before Reich’s “research” was found to be fraudulent in the United States as well, and he was later investigated by the Food and Drug Administration and sent to prison. After eight months, “he suffered a fatal heart attack” and died in 1957.
Around the same time that Reich was promoting sexual revolution, a number of Jewish psychiatrists and novelists were doing the same thing in America.
Albert Ellis began to propagate the idea that “healthy adultery” could spice up marriages. Abraham Maslow argued that “group nudity could also be personally beneficial [and] that nudist camps or parks might be places where people can emerge from hiding behind their clothes and armor, and become self-accepting, revealing, and honest.”
And within a few years, popular Jewish novelist Phillip Roth would contribute to the sexual revolution through fiction, peppering his writing with psychology by saying things like, “Put the id back in the yid! Liberate this nice Jewish boy’s libido, will you please? Raise the prices if you have too! I’ll pay anything!”
Reich’s books, particularly The Sexual Revolution, “found a receptive audience among college students and activists who, through him, understood more clearly the connection between sex and politics.”
In the 1920s and 1930s, Jewish professor Jay A. Gertzman declares in his study Bookleggers and Smuthounds, “Jews were prominent in the distribution of gallantiana, avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials.”
Jewish philosopher Paul Edwards, editor-in-chief of Macmillan’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy, almost fell under Reich’s sexual spell in 1947:
“Wilhelm Reich was the talk of the town. Reich had at that time a large and enthusiastic following, especially among young intellectuals and people whose sympathies were clearly on the left but who, like Reich himself, had become totally disenchanted with communism as it had developed in Russia…
“It was first and foremost Reich’s new therapy that seemed an exciting advance over the techniques of establishment psychiatry of the Freudian and other schools. There was also a widespread feeling that Reich had an original and penetrating insight into the troubles of the human race…
“For some years many of my friends and I regarded him as something akin to a messiah…I concede that Reich had no real competence as a physicist…At the same time I am quite convinced that the orgone theory cannot be complete nonsense. For a number of years, largely out of curiosity, I sat in an orgone accumulator once a day.”
WHILHELM REICH TAUGHT PRIESTS HOW TO BE TITILLATED
What is interesting to our study here is that since Reich viewed the Church as the arch-enemy of his sexual revolution, he had to find a way to titillate priests and nuns so that they could succumb to his sexual virus.
Reich, who frequented whorehouses as a form of experimentation, tried unsuccessfully to persuade people to become atheists during his stay in Vienna. Reich found his eureka moment when he discovered that masturbation could be used as a form of weapon to destroy the convictions of priests and nuns about sexuality.
In other words, when priests and nuns start to masturbate, they will inexorably be drawn to the conclusion that God, to borrow Richard Dawkins’s title, is simply a delusion. Reich came to this conclusion not because he was simply a theoretician but because he had put his sexual ideology to the test, particularly his experience with a communist girl. Reich declared in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism:
“The compulsion to pray disappeared when she was made aware of the origin of her fear; this awareness made it possible for her to masturbate again without feelings of guilt. As improbable as this incident may appear, it is pregnant with meaning for sex-economy. It shows how the mystical contagion of our youth could be prevented.
“We do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of God—we merely eliminate the sexual repressions and dissolve the infantile ties to the parents.
“The inescapable conclusion of all this, is that a clear sexual consciousness and a natural regulation of sexual life must foredoom every form of mysticism; that, in other words, natural sexuality is the arch enemy of mystical religion.
“By carrying on an anti-sexual fight wherever it can, making it the core of its dogmas and putting it in the foreground of its mass propaganda, the church only attests to the correctness of this interpretation.”
E. Michael Jones comments:
“What Reich discovered in the girl’s behavior was a fundamental truth of sexual politics, one discovered by the Catholic Church long ago. It can be formulated in either of two ways: either masturbation destroys your prayer life, or prayer destroys your ability to enjoy masturbation. The two forms of activity are psychically mutually exclusive.
“Anyone interested in changing the default settings of the culture would notice that the settings are binary as well: either/or. There are only two cultural options.
“Either the state fosters prayer, belief in God, the authority of the father as God’s representative, and the social order based on morals, or it fosters masturbation, which is to say, illicit sexual activity, which brings about an inability to pray, the ‘death’ of God, the loss of authority by the father, revolution, and—the evidence from the Russian Revolution which Reich ignored—social chaos.”
Reich writes, “We do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of God, we merely eliminate the sexual repressions and dissolve the infantile ties to the parents.” Jones again comments: “The crucial political struggle, according to Reich, was over who controlled sexual mores because Reich understood, like Nietzsche and Euripides before him, that he who controls sex controls the state…
“Reich felt that sexual license would win out over self-control in every instance, and he probably felt that way based on his experiences, where self-control lost consistently.”
Reich was a metaphysician of some sort. His sexual ideology has been found to be true time and again. Take for example John W. Loftus, a former Protestant Christian and pastor who quickly fell into pornography. Once the moral order is out of the equation, the non-existence of God eventually followed.
Loftus is now an atheist fundamentalist, but he never mentions this pornography issue in any of his books largely because if his readers actually know one of the true reasons behind his atheism, his arguments would not reach as many people as he would like.
POPE FRANCIS AND THE JEWS
Pope Francis has recently declared that “we have rediscovered that the Jewish People are still for us the holy root that produced Jesus.”
What serious Christian would ever doubt that Jesus was an ethnic Jew? Pope Francis knows very well that the Jewish question is not primarily an ethnic issue. As the Apostle Paul himself declares,
“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Romans 2:28-29).
Moreover, Pope Francis seems to think that by saying “nice” things, he would get the favor of the Jews. If Pharisees were not convinced by Christ’s miracles but sought to kill him, what makes Pope Francis think that he will gain the favor of the rabbis by giving them a false sense of security? Pope Francis also knows that Sicut Judaeis non is an essential doctrine of the Church, which states in part:
“[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints or Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the shield of Our protection.
“For We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny.
“Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.
“Too, no Christian ought to presume…to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit.
“Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform. …
“We decree… that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried. If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this degree once known, to go against it…let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.”
The second principle that flows from Sicut Judaeis non is that Jews—and here I am arguing on a theological ground—are spiritually blind and therefore will always seek to subvert the moral order.
Since they reject Christ, who is viewed by Christians as the fountainhead of knowledge, order, reason, and beauty, they will always attack any Christian culture. In that instance, Jewish revolutionaries will always implicitly attack Western culture at its eventual roots.
We shall see this in the writings of Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and a host of others. This is why the Church has always kept an eye on “the Jews” because they are theologically the enemies of all mankind (1 Thessalonians 2:15). We shall expand on this more vigorously in the next article.
This is also why the Church always prays for them.
These theological positions have always been the central core of the Church; at the same time, the Church, throughout the early centuries, has already protected the Jews from physical persecution. This has been the positions of both philo-Semitic historians and Jewish historiographers. Will Durant himself declared that “the popes were the most tolerant prelates in Christendom,” most particularly when it came to protecting the Jews.
Jewish historian Salo Baron, who himself is a staunch defender of the thesis that Jews are persecuted for what they are and not for what they do, had this to say,
“Had it not been for the Catholic Church, the Jews would not have survived the Middle Ages in Christian Europe.”
Despite all that, Pope Francis stays away from that long tradition and moved on to declare that “we [Jews and Christian] are awaiting the return of the Lord as pilgrims, and must therefore always remain open to Him and never retreat from what we have already achieved.”
Pope Francis can’t certainly find this idea anywhere in the Church’s teachings. How are they waiting for the Lord’s return when in fact they do not believe that he is indeed the Messiah? That doesn’t make sense.