Scalia’s close friend and Talmudic crony, Nathan Lewin, served as the attorney for AgriProcessors, allegedly one of the worst and most inhumane kosher slaughterhouses in the nation. Lewin is on record advocating that the families of Palestinian suicide bombers should be executed. In 1994, in the case of Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Lewin argued before the high court for the creation of a school district based on the boundaries of the Satmar (Hasidic) synagogue-community. Justice Scalia also believed that Talmudic synagogue-schools should have taxpayer support. He wrote a passionate defense of his vote in favor of the taxpayer subsidy advocated by his pal, Lewin.
In 2009, Judge Scalia took an active part in advancing the Institute of American and Talmudic Law, chaired by Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe and Rabbi Noach Heber. The Institute operates under the auspices of the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidim, who place a heavy emphasis on the inculcation of the doctrines of the Kabbalah. Chabad-Lubavitch was founded by Rabbi Shneur Zalman. Its most revered text, after the Talmud and the Zohar, is Zalman’s Tanya, which decrees that gentiles are “supernal refuse” and that Jesus Christ was a diabolic imposter.
At the Institute of American and Talmudic Law, Justice Scalia, the alleged “traditional Catholic” paladin of the movement to restore America and the Constitution, apologized to the three hundred assembled rabbis and other “dignitaries,” over the fact that he had not managed to study a page (Daf Yomi) of the Talmud every day (which is strongly advised for Orthodox Judaic males). Scalia said, “I assume I’m here to talk about federal law because I must confess that my Daf Yomi attendance has been lackluster.” His defenders say that he was only joking. Imagine the reaction if Scalia had participated in a daylong conference of German nationalists and “jokingly” apologized for not reading Mein Kampf daily.
The outcry would have been explosive and nearly ceaseless. But a “traditional Catholic” Supreme Court judge who fronts for the Talmudic infiltration of America’s legal system, and grovels before hundreds of rabbis about his neglect of a demonic book, is no less a “great American” and a “devout traditional Catholic” for having done so? Here we glimpse the farce that is so-called Conservative and Traditional Catholicism. “Pragmatists” will say that we are setting too severe a standard; that Justice Scalia was loathed by the Left and many secular Zionists, and that, while not perfect, he did his best to slow the decay process sweeping the land. In return, they suggest that we should overlook the fact that he made common cause with the heart of evil. This argument reflects the moral pathology of the Right-wing: compromise with evil for the sake of some imaginary greater good.
Under color of his Catholicism and defiance of various symptoms of evil, Judge Scalia advanced the powerful Talmudic institutions which enlarge the stature and authority of halachic law over our nation and help to ensure its infiltration of our institutions. He also helped to burnish the reputation of Talmudic rabbis and their unholy Talmud in Catholic circles. No liberal could have accomplished this betrayal of our once Christian country so well as “Conservative” Antonin Scalia. If we are labeled “extremists” because we won’t partake of these Faustian bargains, and wink at the profound confusion and misdirection sown by Justice Scalia, then we accept the designation.
Jesus would have us be either hot or cold. After a time the “pragmatism” which confers hero status upon Scalia begins to look a lot like a chain of retreat and compromise that spells defeat for Our Lord’s commission to us that His Father’s will “be done on earth as it is in heaven.” A Right-wing that imagines that the Talmudic rabbis are our allies in the struggle for family values, or at most a subsidiary adversary far down the list of threats, has lost the battle before the first shot is fired. The more we mistake symptoms for causes, while shying away from the root of the iniquity that is tearing at the foundations of our civilization, the more we dig the graves of our children. A movement that has for its paradigm Justice Scalia’s simulacrum of Christian Conservatism, will be lethally compromised by the self-sabotaging contradictions of a doublemind.
My Memories of Nino Scalia
The Most Jewish Gentile on the Supreme Court
By Nathan Lewin
When there was no Jewish justice on the Supreme Court, Antonin “Nino” Scalia told me, “I considered myself the Jewish justice.” After Abe Fortas resigned in May 1969, there would be no Jewish justice on the court for nearly a quarter of a century, until President Bill Clinton named Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the court in 1993. Scalia had been on the Supreme Court since Ronald Reagan appointed him in 1986, so there were seven years during which Scalia saw himself as the court’s guardian of Jewish heritage.
Scalia’s admiration for Jews and Jewish learning explains the frequent references in his opinions to the Talmud and other Jewish sources, and the significant number of Orthodox Jewish law clerks he hired.
We were both in the Harvard Law School class that began in 1957 and graduated in 1960. Scalia and his wife were guests in our sukkah. He accepted my recommendations to attend and address Orthodox Jewish gatherings such as colloquia run by Chabad-Lubavitch, sessions and dinners with Agudath Israel of America, and a mass meeting at Yeshiva University where he and I discussed current issues of constitutional law and public policy.
There is universal agreement that Nino Scalia was brilliant, amazingly articulate and a real mensch…all must concur that he was a great man, that the United States he loved is greatly diminished by his loss, and that he greatly revered Jews and Jewish tradition. 51
1 Gerard van Rjinberk gives the year of Pasqually’s birth as circa 1709. Other documents indicate circa 1726.
2 Cf. Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (Oxford University, 2004) pp. 40-41.
3 One of Constant/Levi’s followers lectured at the seminary of the “traditional Catholic” Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in Winona, Minnesota in the 1990s. As of this writing, he continues to give interviews on “Catholic radio,” and to lecture and write on behalf of ultramontane “traditional Catholicism,” monarchy, and the Anglo-Catholic-masonic Stuart dynasty.
4 Christopher Mcintosh, Eliphas Levi and the French Occult Revival (State University of New York, 2011), pp. 109 and 171.
5 “The occultist group that (Rene) Guenon joined in 1906, and from which he developed his ‘Vedanta-Perennialism,’ was the Martinist Order. It had been established in about 1890 by Gerard Encausse (famous as ‘Papus’)…The Theosophical Society was established in New York in 1875…by…Colonel Henry Olcott. Olcott wanted the Theosophical Society to…find ‘ancient wisdom,’ especially in the ‘primeval source of all religions, the books of Hermes and the Vedas’—in other words, the Perennial Philosophy.” (Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World [2004], p. 40). For the role of Papus in helping to erode the institution of the Tsar in Russia, cf. Sergei O. Prokofieff, The Spiritual Origins of Eastern Europe (2016), pp. 208-211.
6 March 10, 2009; published on March 12; excerpts with emphasis supplied.
7 http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4431
8 This is a legal category derived from Mishnah Gittin 5:8, which lists various laws centered upon the custom, under certain circumstances, of mipnei darchei shalom (giving the appearance of benevolent acts toward gentiles). Behind this camouflage is the actual halachot (law)—the mishum aivah, denoting actions performed “because of animosity.” The teaching is that where Judaism encounters powerful opposition it is best to wear a mask of benevolence until such time as Israel is supreme; at which time the pretense is no longer necessary and can be dropped.
9 Rabbi Abraham Heschel, interviewed by Geula Cohen for Ma’ariv, January 4, 1965, as translated by AJC/Paris; emphasis supplied.
10 http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/12/vatican-ii-kabbalist-sage-rabbiabraham.html
11 John 14:6; I John 2:23.
12 Instituted by Pope Paul VI on October 22, 1974, for the ninth anniversary of the
promulgation of Nostra Aetate.
13 Cf. Judaism Discovered, [2008], p. 421.
14 “Address to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,” March 23, 1995, in Selected Works of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin: Homilies and Teaching Documents (2000), pp. 285-299; with a forward by child-molestation facilitator Cardinal Roger Mahony.
15 Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, v. 3, p. 241.
16 John-Paul II, March 6, 1982, alluding to Romans 11:17-24; emphasis supplied).
17 Bob Burridge “God’s Olive Tree,” http://www.genevaninstitute.org/2012/02/gods-olive-tree/ Emphasis supplied.
18 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2008), p. 620.
19 Rees (1998), p. 41.
20 Cf. “When Israel is Mighty,” a video interview with Israeli Yossi Gurvitz,http://bit.ly/1LtBWLk (in Israeli-Hebrew with English subtitles).
21 “This Baraita supports Rav, for it teaches that if a man engaged in homosexual intercourse with a child under nine, he is exempt from liability…“Since a child less than nine years old cannot commit sodomy, he can also not be the object of sodomy.” Cf. The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition (1991), vol. XVIII, p. 77; Sanhedrin 54b). Rabbi Moses Maimonides confirmed the ruling. Cf. Issurei Biah 1:14.
22 The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition (Random House, 1991), volume VII, p. 145; Ketubot 11b.
23 In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 69b, a woman having sex with a boy less than nine-years-of-age is an act that is exempt from punishment (and therefore permissible), and does not render her a zonah (trollop), or disqualify her from marrying a kohen (priest), because sex with male children less than age nine is not a regarded as a sex act. The reference in Sanhedrin 69b is to incest between a mother and her son. If the woman’s son is less than nine years-of-age, then it is rabbinically permissible for her to have sexual intercourse with him, according to the halacha of the Talmud Bavli.
24 Cf. The Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce (FIUV) and the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales (LMS) Position Paper 28: The Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in the Extraordinary Form. The whole text with footnotes is online here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/03/good-friday-prayer-for-jews-new.html#more
25 Ramon Marti, a.k.a. Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos (“Dagger of Faith Against Muslims and Jews,” circa 1278).
26 The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, part III, question 47, articles 5-6. Aquinas here distinguishes between the less culpable am ha’aretz and their more guilty leaders.
27 Readers are encouraged to study Dr. Lamont’s text in its entirety online, at: http://www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-jews-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/
28 Cf. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 9:4; Teshuvos Pri ha-Sadeh 2:4 and Igros Moshe, Y.D. 3:129-6.
29 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a.
30 Cf. Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Melachim U’Milchamoteihem (“Laws of Kings and Wars”), Section 8, Halacha 10. This passage from “Hilchot Melachim” deals with battle captives, but in the course of elucidating those laws pertaining to captives, Maimonides is drawing on the larger corpus of laws having to do with non-Jews; i.e. the Seven Laws (of the Noahide). (Maimonides is specifically cited in this regard in Tosefot Yom Tov, Avot 3:14]. The call to execute all those “among the nations” (goyim) who do not accept the Noahide laws (not just those who are prisoners of war), is indubitably present in Hilchot Melachim 8:10. In the early 21st century, this killing may occur in Palestine, where the Israelis are supreme. In Europe and America Judaic executions of those who worship Jesus Christ as God, or refuse to submit to the Noahide laws, cannot take place at this time. This is due to the fact that Maimonides decreed that killings of obstreperous nonJews can only occur in those places where “the hand of Israel is powerful over them.” In other words, where Judaic supremacy is complete. Cf. Hilchot Melachim 8:9.
31 Cf. Yayin Malchus, 234-237. Minchas Elazar 1:53-3. Yechaveh Da’as 4:45. Darchei Teshuvah 150:2. Tzitz Eliezer 14:91.
32 The Judaic who undertakes the virtue of harming western civilization earns the honorific, makhnia’ zedim (“he who degrades the insolent”).
33 Cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 653-656.
34 Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut (“Israel’s Supremacy and the Question of Exile”; Lakewood, New Jersey, 2003).
35 Blumenthal, “How To Kill Goyim And Influence People: Leading Israeli Rabbis Defend Manual for For Killing Non-Jews” (Aug. 31, 2010). http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/how-to-kill-goyim-and-influence-people-leading-israeli-rabbis-defend-manual-for-for-killing-non-jews/
36 Rabbinic Judaism teaches that the meaning of the Bible is to be found in the interpretation of letters, words and combinations of words having a numerical value that conveys secret meanings. This gematria is a superstition worthy of the soothsayers of Babylon, not the Israel of God.
37 Reagan’s spiel constitutes an over-the-top muttering of meshugganah megalomania on behalf of the Zionists. It was spoken by a man who has been enshrined by the Right-wing as one of our most celebrated Conservative exemplars. As of this writing his 12 minute oration can be viewed online: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoA83ZREL_U
38 Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah Unesi’at Kapayyim 2:1.
39 This is a reference to Rabban Gamliel II, who is reputed to have survived the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
40 Sever Plocker, “Stalin’s Jews: We mustn’t forget that some of the greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.” www.ynetnews.com, December 21, 2006.
41 Cf. Hilkhot Melakhim 10: 9; R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes, Kol Sifrei Maharatz Chajes (Jerusalem, 1958), vol. 2 p. 1036; Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe (New York, 1973), Yoreh Deah II, p. 9.
42 David Berger, “Al Tadmitam shel ha-Goyim ba-Sifrut ha-Pulmusit haAshkenazit,” in Yehudim mul ha-Tselav, p. 90.
43 Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities (1974), p. 7.
44 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Melachim UMilchamoteihem (“Laws of Kings and Wars”), Section 8, Halacha 10.
45 No accusation of wrong-doing is here leveled at Professor John Lamont. His blunders, though most regrettable, are surely not deliberate; nor are they malicious.
46 http://bloodpassover.com/xbp.pdf
47 OnePeterFive.com describes itself as “Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.”
48 In December, 2016, Dr. Lamont lent his pen in support of the “Conservative Catholic” campaign of the four cardinals (Brandmuller, Burke, Caffarra and Meiser) who questioned the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris laetitia, of Pope Francis: cf. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/article-considerations-on-dubia-of-four.html#more
49 The Angelus, December, 2009, pp. 29-34.
50 “Enchantment” is a word is derived from late Middle English, denoting “under a spell” and “deluded.” To term something “enchanting” or as offering “enchantment” is considered a high accolade in our world. The vocation of the disenchanter is a lonely one. Yet, to attempt to behold things as they are one must dispel enchantment.
51 Jewish Telegraph Agency, February 15, 2016.
Chapter XVI
The Breeders of Money Gain Dominion over the Church of Rome
Our book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not 1 is a history of the rise of the Money Power inside the Church and readers may wish to access it for the depth at which it attempts to explore the subject matter. It would be redundant to reprint substantial portions of it in this volume. 2
In these pages we will summarize our thesis and present additional research that has come to light since our book was published. Let us commence our pursuit of that goal by surveying the actual teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is often misrepresented by papist usury apologists and others, as having tolerated escape clauses in the Church’s immemorial proscription against profit on loans.
Aquinas confronted the loophole which the money-lenders and their agents sought to implement to their advantage:
theological relativism that renders usury evil only because it is prohibited (thus leaving the door open to a future time when it will not be forbidden by the Church and therefore not evil). Aquinas replied, in De malo, that usury is not sinful because it is forbidden, rather, it is forbidden because it is a grave sin, secundum se. Historian Christopher A. Franks elaborates on the Christian economics of Aquinas:
“(St.) Thomas’s position on usury depends, not on a particular way of configuring money, but on the very notion of abstractable exchange value that any understanding of money presupposes. Thomas argues that abstracted exchange value as such cannot have a vendible use value in addition to the exchange value it abstracts. To believe that it does indicates that a spurious ‘usefulness’ humans can attribute to something has been mistaken for true use value. Further, Thomas goes on to consider other possible justifications for interest on a loan, and he faults them not for misconstruing the nature of money, but for presumptively seeking a security against the future that denies the deferent receptivity necessary to humans as members of an antecedent natural order that sustains us. Thus, we can see Thomas’s adherence to the usury prohibition not as evidence of his obscurantism in the face of ‘economic realities,’ but as his resistance to the presumption inherent in emerging economic practices…
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Page 67
