Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system, which crucified our Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no question whatever of recognizing our Lord.

They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject.

Maybe someone can explain to me, in all seriousness and in a short precise way why Maximilian Krah matters? I'm just not seeing it. Thanks.

Et je dirai : – Que pensez-vous des anathèmes du Concile de Trente ? Que pensez-vous des anathèmes de l’Encyclique “Autorem Fidei” sur le Concile de Pistoie ? Que pensez-vous du “Syllabus” ? Que pensez-vous de l’Encyclique “Immortale Dei” du Pape Léon XIII ? Que pensez-vous de la “lettre sur le Sillon” par le Pape Saint Pie X ? de l’Encyclique “Quas Primas” du Pape Pie XI, du “Mortalium Animos” justement du Pape Pie XI contre l’œcuмénisme, contre ce faux œcuмénisme ? et ainsi de suite… Pensez-vous tout cela ? Qu’ils me répondent ! Qu’ils me répondent s’ils sont toujours d’accord avec tous ces docuмents des papes, avec tous ces docuмents officiels qui définissent notre foi. Ce ne sont pas des docuмents quelconques, ce ne sont pas des allocutions ou des conversations privées des papes, ce sont des docuмents officiels qui engagent l’autorité du pape. Alors ?…

[size]Je pense que l’on peut, que l’on doit même croire que l’Église est occupée. Elle est occupée par cette Contre-Église.[/size] Par cette Contre-Église que nous connaissons bien et que les papes connaissent parfaitement et que les papes ont condamnée tout au long des siècles. Depuis maintenant bientôt quatre siècles, l’Église ne cesse de condamner cette Contre-Église qui est née avec le protestantisme surtout, qui s’est développée avec le protestantisme, et qui est à l’origine de toutes les erreurs modernes qui a détruit toute la philosophie et qui nous a entraînés dans toutes ces erreurs que nous connaissons et que les papes ont condamnées : libéralisme, socialisme, communisme, modernisme, sillonisme et que sais-je ? Et nous en mourons. Les papes ont tout fait pour condamner cela. Et voilà que maintenant ceux qui sont sur les sièges de ceux qui ont condamné ces choses-là sont maintenant d’accord pratiquement avec ce libéralisme et avec cet œcuмénisme. Alors nous ne pouvons pas accepter cela.

Quote

What he's saying is that holding the integral Catholic Faith, rejecting the false ecuмenism of Vatican II is to be hostile to Judaism.

When did Krah ever say this? I don't know the guy from Adam, but what Catholic dogma states that we must not believe in the existence of an Israeli political state? What does Catholicism have to do with that issue one way or the other? Who cares?

Quote from: John McFarland

If I were a little old Jєωιѕн lady, it wouldn't take much of this stuff to get me to send off a big fat check to the ADL.

Look, organizations like the ADL have a certain purpose: attacking antisemite behaviour. I can hardly criticize them for doing their job. People like my stalkers are doing the job of those who want to blame the SSPX. They give a bad example.  

Pope Pius XI. stated very clearly: "The Church has no share in anti-semitism." Neither has the SSPX, nor I. The German bourgeoisie´s gravest failure in history was to be bystanders when the nαzιs discriminated and later massmurdered their Jєωιѕн neighbors, colleagues, and friends. You won´t find any German of class who is standing aside when again losers try to compensate their inferiority complexes on cost of other people.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11233&view=findpost&p=22037858

We stand for the right of women to seek unveiled to the public, just as we defend the right of self determination of the Israelis. There can also be no middle ground. Islamism wants a world without music, no miniskirt, without wine and without Israel.

http://maximiliankrah.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/krass-der-grass

From the recent Remnant interview of "He who shall remain nameless", SSPX chief lawyer.

“We then communicated that the Superior General has given Bishop Williamson one year to study the facts and ordered him to read a book on the issue, written by Jean-Claude Pressac, who himself had doubts about the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz and later changed his mind after he started to look into the facts.”

I can confidently say that neither "He who shall remain nameless" nor Society Superior-General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has actually read Pressac’s chief work, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, published in 1989 and therein is a tale with much to tell about the current status of the SSPX.  I make this assertion because I have actually worked my way through Technique and Operation’s 564 ponderous and wordy pages, took copious notes and in so doing discovered what Pressac was attempting to do, something far different from "He who shall remain nameless"’s interpretation.  "He who shall remain nameless"’s misinterpretation of Pressac’s work, duly probed, helps us to understand what has been happening to the Society.  

The Remnant self-portrait furnished by "He who shall remain nameless" is quite revealing.  His economic and social mobility has been meteoric.  "He who shall remain nameless" has come a long way from his birth (1977) into what was then East Germany, an Iron Curtain country still in the grip of Soviet scarcity economics.  The newly united Germany of 1990 certainly granted his parents as well as himself advantages through improved conditions.  "He who shall remain nameless", however, should receive direct credit for earning both a doctorate of law and an M.B.A. and should be honored for his marriage and his four children.  

"He who shall remain nameless"’s politics are also revealing.  A Christian Democrat, he identifies his politics as that of “right wing Democrats and the moderate Republicans.”  Indeed the label Mitt Romney-Republican would best appear to characterize "He who shall remain nameless"’s politics, especially as the Romney wing of Republican politics shares with "He who shall remain nameless" a total – and unembarrassed – support of Israel.  A number of Romney Republicans I know are sincere novus-ordo Catholics who strongly support modern Israel.  They simply do not see a tension between the two allegiances.  "He who shall remain nameless" is a German variation of the same type.

For people who are successful and hold advanced university degrees, the certainty of the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” is a no-brainer.  They absorb this powerful contemporary dogma with the educational air they first breathe, from kindergarten through graduate school, in a dogmatic thought control which is both systematic and relentless.  My local paper, The Washington Post, regularly promotes such indoctrination – from a recent review of a new play that dramatizes WW II Polish Catholics incinerating imprisoned Jews to constant, regular, predictable articles about “h0Ɩ0cαųst” survivors to reviews of slanted historical studies such as Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners.  There is no other perspective.  "He who shall remain nameless" is the product of similar shaping, the details only different; he is that much more intellectually imprisoned because of his advanced education and global contacts.  He cannot imagine he could be deceived on a subject such as the Auschwitz gas chambers.  All the prominent people he knows think alike.

Given this world view, "He who shall remain nameless" must have been – and probably still is – utterly befuddled by Bishop Williamson’s “h0Ɩ0cαųst-denial” in the notorious five-minutes snippet from what was to be a ninety-minute interview.  "He who shall remain nameless" of necessity must view the Bishop as an eccentric and believe the Society did well to distance itself from these views.  "He who shall remain nameless" during The Remnant interview is unapologetic about having employed Der Spiegel journalist Peter Wensierski to accomplish that objective.  Wensierski is “really independent, which also means he is equally distant…to everybody.”  It would never occur to "He who shall remain nameless" that a liberal university-educated journalist could not possibly be “independent” on the subject of the Auschwitz gas chambers.  To the indoctrinated modern mind, Auschwitz’s gas chambers are “factual” the way a simple arithmetic sum is.

In bringing into play the work of Jean-Claude Pressac, however, "He who shall remain nameless" unwittingly reveals a serious flaw in the basis for the Auschwitz dogma.  Neither "He who shall remain nameless" nor Bishop Fellay could have read Pressac’s book in part because they are very busy men, too busy to examine closely Pressac’s 564 pages of badly-organized and deliberately confusing arguments.  "He who shall remain nameless" claims – and Bishop Fellay seems to agree – that Pressac had “changed his mind once he started to look into the facts.”  Whoever briefed the two men gave them erroneous information.      

First, a little background information on Jean-Claude Pressac.  Born in 1944, he began his working career as a pharmacist.  The general question of the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” along with its specific application to the Auschwitz gas chambers came later as an avocation.  "He who shall remain nameless" is correct in his assertion that Pressac doubted the gas chambers before seeming to shift to the other side.  Pressac’s underlying motive for this seeming shift is of course known only to God.  The reality, however, is that increased research funding and opened archives readily accompanied his change-of-view.  The Klarsfeld Foundation became a principal Pressac supporter and was especially interested that he refute Fred Leuchter’s 1988 study – The Leuchter Report, a report which used laboratory data based on samples from Auschwitz’s alleged gas chambers to discredit the idea of their existence.  Pressac’s 1989 book sought to discredit Leuchter and definitively prove the existence of the gas chambers.

With such a commission in hand, Pressac surprises the serious reader by his casual use of data and the historical concessions he is willing to make.  Early in his scientific magnum opus, Pressac begins by copying Leuchter’s data, nakedly asserting that Leuchter’s study actually proves Auschwitz had gas chambers.  Pressac, further, claims to possess 39 additional “trace proofs” but the total used in his study does not even equal 39, a sloppy use of evidence that would fail a high school sophomore’s chemistry report.      

Pressac also undercuts the very thesis he was expected to support.  Pressac, for instance, concedes that the Auschwitz gas chamber routinely shown to tourists had been “reconstructed” by the Soviets to [/i]“assist”[/i] historical memory before concluding it is not possible “to formally establish proof of homicidal gassing in its morgue…”  

To his credit, Pressac locates and publishes many new docuмents and photos.  However, the persevering reader begins to see, step by step, the difference between assertions Pressac is willing to docuмent to prove versus others he implicitly asks the reader to take on faith.  Here are two examples that suffice to establish the contrast between Pressac’s visible and invisible proof.  The Topf Company manufactured the five Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria.  Kurt Prufer, its principal sales representative, makes many appearances in Technique and Operations.  Pressac furnishes considerable docuмentation of Prufer’s work for Topf at Auschwitz. We read memoranda of Prufer’s visits to Auschwitz authorities; we see a number of his typed requests to be reimbursed for his invention of a more efficient crematorium; we read a September, 1943, notice that Prufer proceed promptly to Auschwitz because a Topf crematorium has broken down (which happened frequently).  What the reader does not see is any docuмented proof of Prufer’s shift from a salesman and administrator of crematoria to a supplier and custodian of lethal gas chambers.  The latter assertion needs to be taken on faith.  

One sees the same gap between docuмented claims and undocuмented assertions in the material Pressac supplies about Topf’s many sub-contractors.  Because Topf specialized in the building of crematoria, they often subcontracted – to Huta, to construct the building “shell” of the combined morgue-crematorium; to Vedag, to furnish the damp-flooring; to Robert Kochler, to assemble the crematorium chimney.  Here docuмentation exists in profusion, from Vedag’s complaints about Auschwitz’s winters limiting their floor warranty to Kochler’s claim that Prufer’s company, not his own, was responsible for a cracked chimney (a compromise between the two was eventually reached; that, too, is docuмented).  On the other hand, crucial docuмentation about poison-gas expertise – which Topf did not have – is never supplied.  Pressac claims that the Auschwitz buildings which (he agrees) began as morgue-crematoria were later converted into lethal gas chambers.  Where is the docuмentary proof in the form of diagrams, building materials and the instructional personnel necessary to accomplish such a momentous change?  Pressac provides none.  The reader is meant to take such claims on faith.  

The gap between Pressac’s thesis and actual supporting evidence grows steadily into a chasm long before the work comes to a close.  The Ariadne’s thread out of this endless labyrinth is furnished by Germar Rudolf.  A German Ph.D. student in chemistry during the later 1980s, Rudolf, looking for an interesting topic to examine, decided to investigate the truth of Fred Leuchter’s Auschwitz study.  That was a dangerous thing to do in the Germany of that time and still is today because there are laws on the books, with jail sentences attached, for engaging in “h0Ɩ0cαųst-denial”.  Rudolf plunged ahead anyway and published research supporting Leuchter’s thesis.  Results included endless legal costs, a broken marriage and, in 2007, a two-year jail sentence.  In 1993, at the beginning of his legal difficulties, Rudolf received a phone call from Jean-Claude Pressac.  Pressac, the man who supposedly published the decisive refutation of all Auschwitz gas chamber denials, cautioned Rudolf against Rudolf’s openly and directly challenging the gas chamber dogma; instead, Pressac counseled, Rudolf needed to “attack it piecemeal, one aspect at a time.”

This statement shows what Pressac was attempting and why there exists a huge gap between what he claimed to be doing and what he actually did.  Convinced he could not defeat the widespread belief in the non-existent gas chambers via a direct and open assault, Pressac opted for a subtler approach.  He believed that to do as Leuchter had done and Rudolf was doing would permanently condemn one to outsider status, where one could accomplish nothing.  Pressac in effect attempted to become an insider, where he could patiently and slowly wean the Klarsfeld Foundation and the educated world from their belief, however sincere, in Auschwitz’s non-existent gas chambers.  

Pressac was too subtle by half.  Whatever one can say about the Klarsfeld Foundation, its directors are not dumb.  They realized what Pressac was doing; his research money began to dry up; his invitations to “h0Ɩ0cαųst” conferences steadily diminished.  In 1995, Pressac, no longer able to work from the inside, stated openly in an interview with Valerie Igounet: “The expression ‘genocide’ is no longer appropriate.  Every epochal change leads to a new evaluation of rigid canons of memory which we have heretofore been taught to regard as eternal.”  In 2003, Jean-Claude Pressac died in relative obscurity.  

Ironically, in 2009, Bishop Bernard Fellay “orders” Bishop Richard Williamson to read Pressac to learn the truth about Auschwitz.  In 2012, Dr. "He who shall remain nameless" stated that Jean-Claude Pressac had “look(ed) into the facts.”

Equivocation on behalf of truth is doomed to fail.

I will allow readers to determine what the above chronicle suggests about Bishop Fellay’s openness to an agreement with modernist Rome so the Society can effect change from the inside.