It's funny how jws posture as anti-racism, as do their gentile noahide followers. They are the only people I'm aware of who have codified racial superiority. Gentile peoples are tribal, of course, but tribalism isn't sinful. The Church has always allowed Catholics to ethnically and racially cluster. Given the dominance of jaynek's family members in this world, and the gullibility of gentiles in allowing themselves to be led by jws, it might be tempting to suspect that racism works. Many Catholic gentiles allow themselves to be led my marranos posing as Catholic.

From Fr. Feeney's The Point June 1956:

https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-june-1956/

If copies of the Old Testament — even expurgated ones — are occasionally to be found lying on lecterns in Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυєs, they are being preserved there only as a kind of racial heirloom. For plainly this is not the Jews’ book. Its prophecies concerning the Messias are too plentiful and detailed, its history of Jєωιѕн infidelity is too vivid, its foretelling of God’s rejection of the Jews in favor of the Gentiles is too insistent a theme for the Jews to read more than a few scattered verses of the Bible in comfort.

Still, that title by which the Jews like to be known — “the people of the book” — is a fitting one. For they do have a book of their own: one perfectly tuned to their temperament and aspirations: one which they cannot merely read, but revel in. That book is the тαℓмυd.

Unlike the Old Testament, the тαℓмυd meets the initial requirement for being the book of modern Jewry, by having been composed in post-Crucifixion times. The Palestinian тαℓмυd was completed about the year 300 A. D., and the Babylonian тαℓмυd (the longer, more used version), about 200 years later. Both editions are built on the same scheme. There is a text, called “Mishna,” consisting of non-Biblical maxims and regulations, embracing in minutest detail every aspect of Jєωιѕн life. Enlarging upon the Mishna, interpreting and illustrating it, is the “Gemara,” the commentaries of the rabbis.

Concerning the place which this strange, contrived work has in their affections, the Jews have a saying: “The Bible is like water, the Mishna like wine, the Gemara like aromatic liqueur.” And another: “Jehovah himself studies the тαℓмυd, standing out of respect.”

The full significance of such statements strikes home only when one realizes what the тαℓмυd is. For in its fourteen folio volumes and 6,000 crowded pages, this monument of Judaism is compounded of three principal elements: stark, shrieking anti-Christian blasphemy; rank obscenity; and a driving, irrepressible contempt for the people and customs of the Gentile world.

Thus is constructed the world’s most characteristically, quintessentially Jєωιѕн hook. No Christian — no matter how far he had strayed from grace — could ever have conceived it. It belongs to the Jews and to no other people. The Jews belong to it and to no other book. They have made it, and it in turn has nurtured and sustained them. For 1,500 years they have been steeped in it — in its foul vocabulary, its sordid, blasphemous anecdotes, its depraved, anti-social principles. And it belongs not just to one faction or sect of Jews but to all the race. Even those Jews who do not regard the тαℓмυd as “divine,” as the Orthodox Jews do, consider it “the supreme guide.” In a recent article published by the American Jєωιѕн Congress, Rabbi Simon Federbush declared, “The тαℓмυd is unique among the classics of world literature. No other book has exercised such an over-whelming influence upon the spirit of men as the тαℓмυd upon the Jєωιѕн people.”

Yet, it must not be thought that the Jews derive their perfidy simply from perusal of the тαℓмυd, or that destruction of the тαℓмυd would put an end to the Jєωιѕн problem. For the тαℓмυd is more than just the molder of the Jєωιѕн mind. It is its mirror.

Perhaps the most striking way to indicate the horror of the тαℓмυd, to show that it is “really that bad,” is to cite some of Christendom’s reactions to it. On May 3, 1240, Pope Gregory IX gave orders that while the Jews of France were in their ѕуηαgσgυєs, their homes were to be searched and all copies of the тαℓмυd confiscated. Additional copies were rounded up and burned in Paris, by order of King Saint Louis IX in 1244 and 1248, and, after his death, in 1299 and again in 1309. Rome had a public тαℓмυd burning, at the direction of Pope Innocent IV, in 1244, and Spain held one, at Barcelona, in 1263. Pope Honorius IV, in 1286, wrote to the Archbishops of England, calling the тαℓмυd “that damnable book” and enjoining them “vehemently to see that it be not read by anyone, since all evils flow from it.”

Pope Clement IV decreed death for any Jew in the Papal States found with a тαℓмυd in his house, and during the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries such Popes as John XXII, Martin V, Julius III, and Saint Pius V added their own particular condemnations to the lengthy canon of anti-тαℓмυdic legislation.

Volume III of the Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia contains a “black-list” of sixty-nine censors of the Roman Inquisition who at various times have been assigned to delete from the тαℓмυd its immoral and blasphemous passages. Such censorship came to be regulated by the Church’s Index Expurgatorius, and for several years after its initial appearance, this Index was aimed exclusively at тαℓмυdic and related texts.

Better known than the Index Expurgatorius is the Church’s more inclusive Index of Prohibited Books, whose very first listing condemned not only the тαℓмυd, but also all of its “glosses, annotations, interpretations, and expositions.” So thorough and emphatic was the Church’s ban of the тαℓмυd that in 1939 the Jews complained that only one original copy from the High Middle Ages was known to be still in existence.

The invention of printing in the fifteenth century eventually brought more wide-spread distribution of the тαℓмυd, causing such a furor that in 1631 the Jєωιѕн Synod of Poland, in an effort to take the heat off, sent the following decree to all ѕуηαgσgυєs: “We order you in all future editions (of the тαℓмυd) to leave blank the passages treating of Jesus of Nazareth and to put in place of them a circle like this: 9675;. This will be an indication to the rabbis and teachers to acquaint their pupils with these passages only orally. By this precaution the learned among the Nazarenes will have no excuse for attacking us on this point.”

On October 4, 1890 some of the “learned among the Nazarenes” — the Jesuit priests at Rome — published in their magazine, Civilta Cattolica, the following: “That the sinister тαℓмυdic code, in addition to horribly immoral rules of conduct, enjoins hatred of all who are not of Jєωιѕн blood, and especially of Christians, and allows them to be plundered and maltreated as noxious brutes, are no longer matters of controversy.” And the late Bishop Landrieux of Dijon, France, in agreement with the Jesuit fathers, had this shrewd observation to make: “In our day the тαℓмυd does not provoke either astonishment or anger among Catholics, because it is no longer known.”

The following excerpts from the тαℓмυd, and its summary, the Shulkan Aruk, are representative of the many passages which the Church has explicitly complained about in condemnations of тαℓмυdic literature:

“The world was created only for Israel; none are called children of God but Israel; none are beloved before God but Israel.”

“If an ox of an Israelite bruise an ox of a Gentile, the Israelite is exempt from paying damages.”

“A Jew may rob a Gentile, that is, he may cheat him in a bill — provided he is unlikely to be perceived; otherwise the name of God might be dishonored.”

“To communicate anything to a Gentile about our religious relations would be equal to killing all the Jews; for if the Gentiles knew what we teach about them, they would kill us all openly.”

“If you must go to war, then do not march in the front ranks, but rather in the rear ranks, that you may be the first to return.”
“Cursed be those who calculate the time of the Messias.”

The most vile of all the тαℓмυd’s passages are those which deal with Our Lord Himself and His Ever-Virginal Mother. We could never reprint the filthy allegations leveled against the spotless Mother of God, but we will leave our readers with a very real impression of just how bitterly foul the тαℓмυd is in this matter. Commenting on the Jєωιѕн teaching concerning the birth of Jesus, the Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia (Funk & Wagnalls, N. Y., 1906), in its article on “Jesus,” boldly justifies the тαℓмυd’s unprintable details by saying, “For polemical purposes it was necessary for the Jews to insist on the illegitimacy of Jesus as against the Davidic descent claimed by the Christian Church.”

And we are seeing the тαℓмυdic fruits of what Fr. Feeney preached against nearly seventy years ago.  The Jews would spit on Fr. Feeney as he preached in Boston Common, telling him, "You take that scoundrel down from the cross and we will crucify Him again."