Friday, September 11, 2009

Documented History of the Jewish Attack on Catholicism and the Rights of Catholics

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

The rise in Jewish influence through the Rothschild family at the expense of the Roman Catholic Church was so apparent in the 1870's, that some felt a need to defend themselves against a general vilification of Jews based on the Rothschilds' corruption of international politics. The Chicago (Daily) Tribune reported on 28 June 1874, on page 2,

"Disraeli and the Jews.

London Correspondence of the Cincinnati Commercial.

Every now and then there are little intimations of the bitterness with which the Jews regard the desertion of their ancient religion and fraternity by Disraeli. All the glory which his genius and eminence reflect upon them ethnologically is lost again by his condemnation of them religiously, by his example,--that is, allowing himself to be spoken of at May anniversaries as a 'converted Jew.' Disraeli is so plainly a Jew in physiognomy that his look has unconsciously reminded the public again and again of the debt they owe to the intellectual distinction of the race. A very clever Jewish writer of London,--Mr. Levy,--recently wrote a very remarkable article showing to what a large extent European nations are at present under the influence of Jews (as Castelar, Gambetta, the Rothschilds, etc.), and contrasted the fact with the decay of Roman Catholic power over the politics of Europe--the implication being that the historic position of the two, Jews and Romanists, might one of these days be reversed. The clever writer of the article might have given it more point by reference to certain facts in the career of the late Sir David Salomons, who, above all others of his race who have lived in England, deserves to be remembered as the true representative of his people. Through his influence Parliament altered the declaration, 'On the faith of a true Christian,' which he refused to make, thereby annulling his election to the office of Alderman twice. He then obtained very civic distinction, and in 1855-'56 became Lord Mayor of London. His first work after being raised to this distinction was to secure two things which relieved the Roman Catholics of special grievances. He put down the before boisterous and general observance of Guy Fawkes Day, which was always the occasion of insults to the Catholics, and he caused so much of the inscription on the monument near Billingsgate, which attributed the great fire of London to the Catholics, to be erased. Pope wrote of that column, which--

Towering to the skies,

Like a tall bully lifts its head and lies.

But that it no longer slanders the Catholics is due to the determination of a Jew. Baron Lionel de Rothschild was the first Jew elected to the House of Commons, but he had omitted the declaration, 'On the true faith of a Christian,' and withdrew. In 1851, Sir David Salomons was elected to Parliament by the borough of Greenwich. He also refused the declaration, and was requested to withdraw. He did so, but not until he had made a wise and temperate speech to the House which made it feel ashamed of the disabilities imposed on Jews. The late Lord Westbury took the matter up, and after a time the 'Jewish Disabilities bill' was passed. From that time Sir David, who, meanwhile, was created a Baronet of the United Kingdom, sat in Parliament, where he was considered the highest authority on finance, a subject on which he wrote several valuable books. He was one of the founders of the London and Westminster Bank, and was its Chairman until the day of his death. It is a notable circumstance that the Catholic organs of London should have attacked the Jews generally because of the loan the Rothschilds are said to have made to the Italian Government, saying that they were as ready to crucify Christ, when the first acts of the first Jews who got into power in London were the abolition of the two things which most annoyed them. When he was before the people for election as Sheriff, they were curious to know whether some of his views might not impair his official work. Some one asked him what he would do in case a reprieve for a criminal came on Friday night--riding being then prohibited to Jews--and he promptly responded, 'I would order my carriage and go at once.' Some propositions have been made lately that the large and increasing body of Theists should graft themselves on to the ancient Jewish stem; but there is in England no society of Jews who have dispensed with the old formulas and usages--paschal, sabbatarian, etc.,--which would, of course, render such amalgamation impossible. However, amenities have been passing between the Theists and the Jews, and not a few of the latter are now found attending the religious services of Mr. Voysey and other rationalists."

It should be noted that the seemingly altruistic actions of David Salomon towards Catholics had an ulterior motive. Jews were traditionally staunchly anti-Catholic, but they saw an opportunity to benefit themselves by the emancipation of Catholics. This freedom for Catholics in England would set the precedent for religious tolerance for Jews in England--which is ironic given that it was Cabalist Jews who created Protestantism, Puritanism, and Theism as a means to destroy Catholicism and convert it into Judaism. The North American Review wrote in 1845,

"Strange to say, in England the Jews still suffer under grievous civil disabilities. In 1290, Edward the First banished all in his kingdom, and seized on their property. The exclusion was so rigid and complete, that no traces of them in that country occur again till the period of the Commonwealth. Cromwell made an unsuccessful movement in their behalf; and in his time they began to return in small numbers. In the reigns of Charles the Second and James the Second, some privileges were granted them; which, however, were withdrawn after the Revolution of 1688. In 1753, a bill was passed in parliament, not without virulent opposition, permitting Jews, who had been residents of Great Britain or Ireland three years, to be naturalized; but so odious did the law prove to the nation at large, that the ministry who had encouraged the enactment shrunk from its support, and it was repealed at the very next session. From the pulpit generally, by the mercantile corporations, and by a bigoted populace, it was vehemently opposed. Dean Tucker, who, almost alone among the clergy, wrote decidedly in favor of the naturalization of the Jews, was very roughly treated, and, by the people of Bristol, burnt in effigy in full canonicals, with his obnoxious writings. In May, 1830, on the back of the Roman Catholic emancipation act, another effort was made in parliament to emancipate the Jews; but it was opposed by the ministry, and failed. In short, the decree of Edward the First has never been formally abrogated; and though several acts of parliament have recognized, and thus legalized, their presence in the kingdom, England, with all her boasting of Roman Catholic and negro emancipation, still treats native-born Jews as foreigners, admitting them to few privileges but those of alien residents and traders. To a single inch of the soil they cannot obtain a title."--"The Modern Jews", The North American Review, Volume 60, Number 127, (April, 1845), pp. 329-368, at 346.

Alas, the Catholics had to wait their turn in line to enter the British Parliament behind the Catholic hating Jews, because of the Catholic hating Jews. The above article "Disraeli and the Jews" gave the false impression that the Jews helped the Catholics gain full emancipation. Though the Jews sought to ride the backs of the Catholics when Catholic initiatives forwarded Jewish interests, they also denied the Catholics rights when able to do so, even to their own detriment, as proven by the following article in The New York (Daily) Times of 13 June 1854, on page 4,

"The Jews in Parliament

Lord JOHN RUSSELL displays consistency in connection with the Jewish Disabilities bill very unusual in so fickle and procrastinating a Minister. On May the 25th, the second reading of the bill was moved, when a singular and unexpected debate took place. The great champion of Israeliteism in England, the eulogist of it in the House of Commons, the glorifier of it in his novels, the steadfast, eloquent defender of the Hebrew race--Mr. D'ISRAELI--voted against the bill which contemplated the admission of Jews to a seat in the British Senate. The reasons which induced this singular opposition of his own opinions, were stated by him at length, in a speech distinguished by his usual earnestness and happy sarcasm. The bill framed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL was intended to remove certain obnoxious clauses from the Parliamentary oath, and substitute other forms, which should be unobjectionable to Hebrew or Roman Catholic. The words, 'on the faith of a Christian,' were to be abolished for the Jews, while the anti-Jacobite and anti-Papal clauses were to be cancelled in favor of the Roman Catholics. This was, no doubt, looked on by Lord JOHN RUSSELL as a skillful combination, by which his bill would secure a double support. The Irish members, from association or actual interest, would vote for a bill abolishing an oath by which every Roman Catholic entering the House was required to declare himself no traitor, while those members who on other occasions passed the previous Jewish bills through the Lower House, only in order to have them assassinated in the House of Lords, would doubtless sweep this through with an overwhelming majority. Lord JOHN, however, miscalculated. His double blossomed liberality was nipped in the bud, and the bill was rejected by a small majority. This is curious and significant. Heretofore the House of Commons has passed the Jew bills triumphantly, while the Upper House butchered them one after another with dogged determination. The moment, however, that license to the Jews was coupled with license to the Roman Catholics, that instant the Lower House was alarmed, and not daring to trust the insidious bill even to the tender mercies of the Peers, strangled it in its infancy on the spot.

It was a singular sight to see the leader of the despised Hebrew race, disdainfully rejecting constitutional rights for his party, because the same hand held out the same gifts to the Roman Catholics. Mr. D'ISRAELI displayed, however, considerable astuteness in this opposition. It is his policy to disconnect the Jewish question from all possible odium, whether religious or political. At some future, and more favorable period, he calculates that the untiring animosity of the House of Lords will be exhausted, and Baron ROTHSCHILD, and Mr. SOLOMONS will be legally elected members of the House. To mix up the Jewish interests, therefore, with those of the Roman Catholics, and let the bill appear before the Lords with this duplicated offensiveness, would be to sustain another defeat, and strengthen still more the enmity entertained against the original bill, Mr. D'ISRAELI, therefore, used his influence to have the bill crushed before it could go before the Lords, and so bides his time until he can present the claims of the Jews at a more favorable opportunity, and unclogged by the weight of an obnoxious addition.

That the Jew will eventually conquer opposition, and enter the British Parliament, no one can have a shadow of a doubt who looks at all closely into his claims and the course of events in England. There is nothing in the Jewish character to alarm the supporters of the Established Church. The Hebrew makes no proselytes, for the Jewish faith is as much a matter of race and blood as it is of religion. It is physical as well as moral, and like the Poet, the Jew must be born, not made. There is little fear then of the Jews using political influence to subvert the established religion, and as to the disbelief in Christianity, they are surely as well qualified to hold a place in the English Senate as Lord BOLINGBROKE was, who made no concealment of his Atheism. They represent large commercial and political interests. They sway the destinies of many nations, and the issue of more than one great European question is dependent on their word. The basis of this power to be sure is a monetary one, but English gold is represented in the Commons by Mr. BARING; why not Jewish capital by Baron ROTHSCHILD?

That the House of Commons holds these opinions is evident by the alacrity with which they passed every Jew bill up to the last; but they seem to hesitate about extending the favor to the Roman Catholics. The Jew is virtually obliged to recant his faith, if he wishes to enter the House at present, which is of course a complete barrier, while the Roman Catholic is merely forced to forswear any designed or secret allegiance to the House of STUART, and promise to keep his fingers out of the pie of the Established Church.

After the anti-papal feeling exhibited by the House of Commons on this question, it is probable that the Jewish Disabilities bill will take another shape when it next appears before the Senate. Meantime, Mr. D'ISRAELI and his sister will write novels in which it is proved that the world owes everything, from the mariner's compass up to the steam engine, to the Hebrew race. Baron ROTHSCHILD will be again elected, perhaps, and again martyred for his faith, until that incapable congregation of old women in the House of Lords think fit to admit a little of the liberal light of the nineteenth century into their chamber, darkened with worm-eaten prejudices. [Colored emphasis added.]"

Note that the Jews saw themselves as Jews, not as British, and did what they believed was "good for the Jews" and would never consider doing what was good for humanity other than as a means of somehow profiting the Jews. Note that the Jews saw themselves as international lords over Europe, not as loyal citizens of any given nation in Europe. The Rothschild family, who held government posts in several different and often hostile nations, were loyal to none but themselves and the Jews whom they ruled.

Wealthy Jews prevented the emancipation of the Jews of England, though as Jews so often do, they scapegoated Christians for their heinous actions. The famous American Zionist Jew, Mordecai Manuel Noah, noted in 1818, that it was wealthy Jews who had opposed the emancipation of English Jews,

"Great Britain,(7) by an act of parliament, passed in the year 1753, granted to the Jews the rights of citizens; the clamours of the people, and, indeed, the discontent of a large portion of the Jews themselves, caused this honourable law to be revoked; and from the organization of the government, there exists no hope at present of its revival. [***](7) Great Britain. The act of Parliament alluded to produced a considerable clamour among the wealthy Jews, who were fearful that giving rights to a vast body of their nation who were ignorant of their value, would have a tendency to create a stronger current of prejudice against the nation. This objection, joined to the indignation of an ignorant populace, induced its repeal. The Jews in England have almost forgot the cruelties formerly practised towards their nation during several reigns; particularly the third Henry, and John; however, these things had better be forgotten, and are compensated by the liberality of the present times."--M. M. Noah, Discourse Delivered at the Consecration of the Synagogue of [K. K. She`erit Yisra'el] in the City of New-York on Friday, the 10th of Nisan, 5578, Corresponding with the 17th of April, 1818, Printed by C.S. Van Winkle, New-York, (1818), pp. 13, 38.

During the Holocaust, it was the Jews, not the Gentiles, who kept the Jews of Continental Europe from migrating to England and America, and they offered up the same excuse that the presence of the Eastern Jew would lead to "anti-Semitism" in England and America.

Again, I must emphasize the fact that this documented Jewish attack on Catholics and on Catholicism was hardly the first or last such attack. The Rothschilds ran the Papacy into bankruptcy and took over the Vatican through its debts. The Jews pitted the Muslims against the Catholics and created the various reformation movements to pit fellow Christians against Catholics. The Jews created the Kulturkampf to pit Protestants against Catholics, and used it as an opportunity to smear Catholics and the Catholic clergy in the Jewish controlled press. Etc. Etc. Etc. Vatican II was a Jewish orchestrated subversion. Today, the Jews are scapegoating the Catholics for Jewish crimes past and present.