Here are two letters from Ottawa-based Revisionist, Philip Belgrave, a devout Catholic with an incisive, thinking mind and an elegant pen. The letters speak for themselves:
1. The following is a letter submitted to Christina Spencer, who is the Editorial Pages Editor of the Ottawa Citizen newspaper.
Dear Miss Spencer,
We spoke on Sept. 01 about the editorial entitled "Ineffable," regarding the public's perception of the recent beatification of Pius IX. I complained about the sarcastic tone of this article. I also advanced my more general perception of habitual, ignorant bias against Catholicism in The Citizen's pages, over the years.
Beatifications cannot be of much interest to the general public. When they are given media attention, this seems due to the efforts made by political Jews to dictate to the Vatican the suitability or otherwise of particular candidates. The "anti-Semitic" angle is what makes the story interesting and eminently printable.
You suggested that it might be useful to the public to learn that saints need not to have been good and sweet, but that they must have demonstrated "heroic virtues." This is valid, perhaps, but it would be better to indicate that a saint is someone who has been formally recognized by the Church to have been "graced by God" to an extraordinary degree. This approach would emphasize what God has done for a particular man or woman, rather than what someone has achieved by and for himself or herself. We should not be led astray by the ethos of our time and place, to imagine that anybody but Christ is a 100 percent celebrity.
Did Pius IX in fact "describe Jews as dogs"? This is very unlikely. Nevertheless, we must remember that Jesus himself called an inoffensive gentile woman a "household dog" (Matthew 15:21). He chose the occasion to point out that, in accordance with God's will and plan, the jump from Israel to the wider world would have to wait. The woman, far from being crushed and humiliated, rose to the occasion and was rewarded for her tough integrity of purpose. Context is everything, and your article is one more example of a studied with-holding of contexts in the interest of political Jewry.
"The Jews" are using their political and economic and cultural power in today's world, in order to intimidate and give instructions to the Vatican on an internal Church affair. This has worked in recent cases: Pius XII, and Isabella the Catholic, who expelled the Jews from Spain. Since canonizations are not done for the sake of the canonized, the Church has not a strong motivation to resist these pressures. Prudential considerations therefore operate strongly in determining who is a suitable saint in the given circumstances.
Jews, like the rest of us, are destined to be judged individually. There is no good reason to believe that they will be measured against the Ten Commandments with strikingly different results than those for gentiles. "The Jews", the collectivity, are however a different matter altogether. "The Jews" are a strongly self-conscious and self-promoting ethno-political entity; one that manifests a continuous habit and/or instinct to deceive and to dominate, to manipulate and to provoke societies that, as aliens, they are inhabiting. The most spectacular evidence of what I am referring to here, is the contemporary mega-phenomenon that has acquired the distinctive title of "The Holocaust."
The "survival value" of the characteristic "modi operandi" of "The Jews", is that they generate the distinctive psychological atmosphere that is now referenced by the familiar term "anti-Semitism". This works to preserve separateness through non-assmiliation for Jews, and often facilitates the privileged, though isolated, status that the bulk of Jewish communities have enjoyed and do enjoy throughout the world. The largely impotent antagonism of host societies apparently provides an important stimulus and source of self-satisfaction and self-righteousness to "The Jews", the collective, the tribally strongly conscious people.
Is there a chance that you will attempt to clean up your act and wean yourself from your present status of stooges of Jewry; e.g., by stopping your promotion of the Holocaust hoax? I request a reply. The candid liberal line of apologetics appears to be as follows: "The Jews" are the most morally admirable, persecuted and suffering, reading and advertising, and succeeding, people in the world. What sane commercial enterprise would allow even a speck of anti-Semitic tar to soil its garments? Besides, some self-conscious body must be in charge of our culture and institutions. Why not "The Jews", rather than decadent, dissipating hereditary aristocrats?
Likely, with some modifications and changes of emphasis here and there, this is your view as well. I don't like the status quo myself; and I wish to point out some of the grave abuses and harms to the generality that are associated with its maintenance and celebration by the Ottawa Citizen and other mass media.
2. The following is a letter submitted to Fr. R.J. Neuhaus of First Things, a New York-based ecumenical publication.
Dear Fr. Neuhaus,
I feel that I must protest against the line taken by Michael Novak (Aug./Sep. 2000) in defense of Pope Pius XII's conduct during World War II, in regard to whether or not Pius XII spoke out (or spoke out enough) about the deliberate extermination of Jews, in millions, in Nazi death-camps.
Mr. Novak conforms to the scheme of embarrassed apologetics that is being used by all the defenders of Pius XII. He uses "freewheeling" arguments that appear to be largely notional. He relies heavily on moralizing ("the brutal jackboot", "the effort to comprehend the sheer barbarity, madness an evil of Hitler", etc.). We are invited to accept that, though almost totally boxed in at a time, Pius XII did the best he could. With iron nerves, he did not allow himself to be baited into precipitating a catastrophe; e.g. the kidnapping of himself by Hitler.
Where does the hard evidence for Michael Novak's scenario come from?
My view is that the Novak article demonstrates a general desire to evade the very awkward but nevertheless likely explanation of the Pope's alleged malfeasance during World War II. According to this view, Pius XII really was perceptive, and responsible, and politically neutral in his actions. He knew nothing about "the holocaust" because the idea of planned extermination did not acquire a definition and distinctive title until long after the end of the war. He discounted for good reasons the atrocity propaganda, in regard to Jews and others, with which he was being bombarded. He did have reliable means of knowing whether or not killings of a "genocidal" type and scare were occurring. That his policy was to "outwit" the mad dictator rather than to uphold and promote truth and goodness, in and out of season, is improbable.
While dealing with probabilities in this context, it is appropriate to state that the Katyn massacre of thousands of Polish officers, in cold blood, by dialectical materialists, almost certainly did take place; while the secret gassings and/or genocide planned and executed by romantic racialists did not take place. The hard evidence of the former action appears to be very substantial, while the means alleged to have been used in the latter could not have worked, nor matter how diabolical and ingenious, energetic and idiotic, the perpetrators might have been.
Thought for the Day:
"Apropos the holocaust. One of my French friends told me that he had a distant relative who died in Auschwitz. A rather tragic death, he fell off the visitor's ramp and broke his neck!"
(Letter to the Zundelsite)
Back to Table of Contents of the Sept. 2000 ZGrams