web analytics
Racial right

Bishop of Rome

I told you. Christians, including white nationalists, ‘can think of themselves as anti-Jewish without understanding that they are the ultimate conclusion of Judaism’, as the author of The Antichrist put it.
American white nationalism is deluded. Only Hitler and the anti-Christians whom he talked to in the after-dinner conversations saw the light.

15 replies on “Bishop of Rome”

the bishop demostrates the act of jewing. sucking schmeckle. sick. sickening.

It is a strangely sickening sight, but perhaps unsurprising in that the present holder of the office, like a number of his predecessors, is likely part Jewish. The late Revilo P Oliver, in an article called ‘How They Stole the Church’, written in August 1991, made his case that the Jews had actually taken over the Vatican, at the time of the infamous ‘Vatican II’, in 1961.
The relevant parts are these:
‘The Christian churches fall into two categories. The Protestant sects necessarily depend for their authority on a belief that the Bible was divinely inspired and is therefore literally accurate. This basis of their religion was gradually eroded over the past century. With few noteworthy exceptions, the major Protestant churches have slyly but effectively replaced their Bible with the “social gospel” of the Marxian Reformation, relying on the fecklessness or gullibility of their congregations to overlook the spiritual swindle. They have thus become religiously, as well as intellectually, fraudulent.
‘The Roman Catholic Church was less vulnerable because less dependent on the Bible, which, for many centuries, it forbade laymen to read. It claims to represent an apostolic succession from the incarnate god of Christianity, and until quite recently, it…exhibited a monolithic solidarity that made it seem impregnable. Then, only a few years ago, it was suddenly shattered by an internal revolution, as sudden and drastic as the Jews’ Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and far more suprising to observers of world affairs.
‘It was a ‘palace revolution.’ What had been the Church’s great strength became its fatal weakness. When the conspirators captured the Vatican, they became the masters of all their subordinates in the regular Church and in the monastic orders, from archbishops to parish priests to yet unordained postulants and students in seminaries. By the power of excommunication they could deprive any dissident of his livelihood by preventing him from practicing the only art he knew. It required great faith and great courage even to question the dictates of the revolutionary regime…after the murder of John Paul I in 1989.
‘Religiously, the Church committed suicide. Every ‘revealed’ religion must profess to be based on transcendental truth that is immutable and eternal, revealed, directly or indirectly, by an eternal, immutable, and infallible god. The Roman Church claimed to have been founded by an Apostle expressly delegated for that purpose by its incarnate god, and Pius XII, the last Pontifex Maximus before the new regime, was the two hundred and sixty-second in an apostolic succession, representing, it was claimed, an unbroken tradition and a doctrine that had been received from the divinely-appointed Apostle.
‘As every man capable of logical thought saw at once, the radical changes in doctrine made by the new regime necessarily implied that either (a) the Church’s god had ignorantly, irrationally, or maliciously lied to his Vicars on earth for nineteen centuries, or (b) the two hundred and sixty-two Vicars had misrepresented the wishes and commands of their celestial principal.
‘The drastic changes did not make the Church simply explode, because faith commonly precludes logical thought, and in the Roman Church, the mass of votaries had long been accustomed to believe whatever they were told by their priest and unquestioningly to follow his directions.
When the Church was “modernized,” as though it were an old house or an obsolete railroad, many ostentatious changes in practice may have been partly devised to conceal vital changes in doctrine. Most churches, for example, were stripped of their ornaments and made as bare and uninteresting as churches of the most Puritanical Protestant sects. The Latin mass, which was impressive when well performed, was replaced with vernacular gabble that was tediously flat and boring when it was not ludicrous. Priests were converted into Protestant ministers, delivering commonplace sermons. Some venerated Saints were unceremoniously tossed out onto the scrap heap. But all these changes were relatively superficial.
‘If one considered the new doctrine critically, one immediately saw what had been the cardinal and most drastic change. The attitude toward the Jews that the Christian god had presumably ordained for nineteen centuries was reversed. The change was neatly illustrated by the Cardinal who is believed most likely to become the next Pope. He boasts that he is a faithful and practicing Jew, and brazenly asserts that Christianity is merely a kind of auxiliary church by which deserving *goyim* are admitted to some of the privileges God irrevocably bestowed on his Chosen People.
‘It was obvious, therefore, that the Roman Catholic Church had been captured by the Jews and would be operated in their interests. Strangely enough, this fact was generally ignored by even the most vehement adversaries of the “modernization.”
‘Since I am certain that Christianity is a fundamental fact that must be taken into account in any worthwhile consideration of our present situation or attempt to foresee our probable future, I have devoted many pages in *Liberty Bell* to that subject, with special attention to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest and most influential of all Christian denominations.
‘I was pleased when my opinion about the cardinal importance of the Roman Church in our plight today was corroborated from an unexpected source, Mr. Lawrence Patterson’s *Criminal Politics* is devoted exclusively to finance and to consideration of the ways in which Americans may conserve what they have saved and still own, in spite of the Federal government. Since in countries like the United States and Soviet Russian economic laws have been nullified by a tyrannical government, it is necessary to consider political forces, and that includes Catholicism. The issue for April contains an article entitled “The New World Order: Catholicism and the Zionist War Against Our Cultural Standards.”
‘After noting that the Vatican was once a strenuous opponent of the Communists, and now is virtually allied with them in promoting the “New World Order,” Mr. Patterson takes his departure from an astonishingly candid article published in what was then one of the most widely circulated periodicals, *Look*, 25 January 1966. It was written by the magazine’s senior editor, Joseph Roddy, and entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking.”
‘Mr. Roddy, after noting that the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith put pressure on the Vatican Council to alter Catholic doctrine in their favor, reported that the real author of the Council’s surrender to Judaism was a French Jew named Jules Isaac, who co”perated with a “Fifth Column” of Marrano traitors in the Council, including the slimy Cardinal Bea, but the success of the work of subversion was to be attributed to a “priest spy,” a Jesuit who served on the staff of Bea and shuttled back and forth between the Vatican and the American Jewish Committee in New York.
‘According to Mr. Roddy, the decree of the Vatican Council drafted by Jules Isaac “would have gone down early,” but for the “covert help” of the “priest-spy.” That seems implausible. It is hard to see how the “priest-spy” could have had the pivotal r”le attributed to him. When Roncalli, who, under the laws of the Church, was not even a Catholic, slithered onto the See of Rome as John XXIII, his election must have been procured by accomplices in the College of Cardinals, (8) and he almost certainly had *in petto* a scheme for capturing and Judaizing the Church, probably including the Vatican Council that he convened in 1962 and guided through its intermittent sessions to its consummation of the revolutionary take-over in 1965. Mr. Patterson notes that after Roncalli was elected Pope in 1958, the larger newspapers in this country dropped their neutral or mildly hostile attitude toward the Catholic Church and suddenly blossomed with bouquets for “good Pope John.” The Jewish Lords of the American press must have received from their superiors advice that “Roncalli is our boy.”
It goes on from there, and if anyone is interested I can post more, but I feel that this post is alreadyu quite long enough.

I stopped reading your comment when I hit your phrase ‘…is likely part Jewish’.
You see, this is the sort of thing that creates a fissure between me and WNsts.
As a native Spanish speaker, I can understand Pope Francis’ spoken words in his native language perfectly; and what he says I have heard millions of times among the non-Jewish people I interact with on a daily basis in this country.
Also, there is no distinction between what the Jews say in the Mexican media and what the average Creole says. They are exactly on the same page. Or haven’t you read my recent posts (e.g., this one)?

Cesar, I confess to being somewhat puzzled by your reply. That all the Christian churches are on the same page as the ‘Progressive agenda’ is clear to all of us (on this side of the divide at least). That Jews have exploited and promoted this same progressive agenda is equally clear. What is far less understood is Christianity’s direct genetic link to the phenomenon of progressivism, at least insofar as post-Reformation Protestantism is concerned. ‘We unhappy few’ (if I may adapt a phrase of Shakespeare) at least, understand this, and attempt to draw attention to it (lone voices crying in the wilderness, alas).
What I think is seldom remembered, even by those who do grasp this link, is that until Vatican II the Roman Church was friend to neither Jews nor progressivism. Hence the importance of Revilo Oliver’s piece extensively quoted in my post: they understood that an unreformed Catholic church was an obstacle in their path, and thus set about capturing it. The results are all too clear if only by glancing at the photograph of Pope Francis bowing before the self-chosenites (as Revilo Oliver was fond of referring to them).
I have always agreed with you on just about everything, and am no mono-causalist (‘a country gets the Jews it deservers’, as has been famously said). Hence my puzzlement that you stopped reading my post after I referred to the pope as a Jewish tool. By the way, I have just re-read my introduction: it was the Polish pope John Paul II who was part Jewish, not Francis, but I don’t think this is a material difference to my point that Jews now ‘own’ Catholicism.

Hence my puzzlement that you stopped reading my post after I referred to the pope as a Jewish tool.

What a strawman: I stopped reading your post when you said that Francis I could be Jewish himself.

There is no ‘reply’ button at the end of your reply to my reply! Hence I shall reply again here:
‘What a strawman: I stopped reading your post when you said that Francis I could be Jewish himself.’
Mea culpa: as I noted in my first reply to you, I meant John Paul II, and my temporary confusion was possibly down to feeling ragged (personal reasons) at the time. My point surely stands though: Jews seized control of the Vatican in 1965, because despite Christianity’s glaring ‘criminal history’, the pre Vatican II Catholic church at least stood in the way of the Progressive agenda (I am no Catholic by the way. I was brought up in the Church of England, from which I made my early escape). Yes, of course, Europeans have built for ourselves a vast tomb, on which is inscribed ‘The finest race to grace this earth, brought low by Jewish Christianity and finished off by parasitism by Jews’.

Yes. In fact I stopped my précis of Mr Oliver’s article just before this was revealed. To continue:
‘The capture of the Church had already been planned before the Council got under way, and I cannot imagine how the “priest-spy” could have done more than arrange matters of detail or transport cash when he served as liaison between his Jewish employers in New York and important members of the Council. Only if millions or billions of dollars in real money were needed to consolidate the position of Roncalli and his accomplices, and were supplied from New York, could the messenger who delivered the bribes be said to have determined the decisions of the Council, but Mr. Roddy says nothing about that.
‘Mr. Roddy did not name the “priest-spy,” who, he said, pretended to be a conservative Catholic but was really “100%” in the Zionist interest and might himself be a Jew disguised as a Jesuit. He provided, however, a series of more or less enigmatic clues to the man’s identity.
‘Mr. Patterson reports that his research has identified the “priest-spy” as Malachi Martin, alias (by his own admission) Michael Serafian, alias (by implication) F.F. Cartus, and (therefore) alias Timothy Fitzharris-O’Boyle.
‘Martin’s career corresponds to the clues given by Roddy. He was a Jesuit, had been a professor in the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome (reputed to be a scholar of Semitic languages and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls), had migrated to New York, written for the Jewish periodical, *Commentary*, under an alias, a book, *The Pilgrim*, under another alias, and under his own name many articles as a “conservative Catholic” for Buckley’s *National Review*, of which he was, for a time, the Religious Editor. Although neither Roddy nor Mr. Patterson mentions the even more significant fact, Malachi Martin claims to have been an intimate friend and advisor of Roncalli.
‘According to various reports, Martin, after he established himself in this country, left the priesthood and married. He has certainly produced under his own name an amazing number of presumably highly profitable books, all aimed at Catholics who have not abandoned the traditional faith of the Church. Whether he continues to write under pseudonyms, I do not know.
‘Now if Martin did indeed play an important role in betraying the Church into the hands of its inveterate enemies, he certainly knew what he was doing. Piers Compton quotes him as having predicted, at the time the Vatican Council completed its work of subversion in December 1965, “Well before the year 2000, there will no longer be a religious institute recognizable as the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of today…. There will be no centralized control, no uniformity in teaching, no universality in practice or worship, prayer, sacrifice, and priesthood.” He believed that his prophecy was being fulfilled. In his *The Jesuits, the Society of Jesus, and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church* (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1987) he wrote:
‘The extent of the damage produced in the Church….after 1965 can be gauged a mere twenty years later. Pope John Paul II now presides over a Church organization that is in shambles, a rebellious and decadent clergy, an ignorant and recalcitrant body of bishops, and a confused and divided assembly of believers. The Roman Catholic Church, which used to present itself as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, appears now as a pluralistic, permissive, ecumenical, and evolutionary ecclesial group.’

nice recap of revilo’s article. showing the forever weakness of the hominid homo for alpha personalities rising to the top of whatever group and living for the power brokering dopamine hits. (and xtian collectives are particularly odius as they present an image of being above this essential behavior. lies. lies. and more lies.)

Quite so. Priests are no different than any CEO or politician who has clawed his way up the slippery pole in this regard.

That “priest spy” is Malachy Martin.
On the one hand, the Vatican-II sect is the antithesis of Roman Catholicism, however it is also its reductio ad absurdum, its logical conclusion.
Reading about the unforgivable destruction by Catholicism of the Pagan temples cheered me greatly. As a pre-conciliar Catholic, to witness the senseless destruction of Catholic shrines is extremely traumatic. However, it is no less than we deserve. It is Karma. We destroyed the temples and the statues and the books of the Pagans.

You talk a lot about Vatican-II. The Catholic priest who baptized me was excommunicated because of his criticism of Vatican-II. But like all traditional Catholics, he saw nothing wrong with the mestization that ruined the gene pool of Latin Americans in the latest centuries.
The priest of the 14 words sees no substantial differences between post-Vatican-II Catholicism and the previous one.

I am conflicted on Vatican II. I think, though, that it was probably a necessary evil, much like the reformation. Just speaking of myself, I am glad that a Jewish god no longer has an indefectable church on earth. I observe my compatriots in the glorious act of deconversion, as atheists put it. They are becoming more pagan and less Christian by the day. Even the women wear Ygdrasil medals without having a clue what that symbol means.

Roman Catholicism: nothing but Judaism for Gentiles.
You can be sure that the Pope is up to something; there is a devious scheme behind this.

Comments are closed.