2) Sungenis Sources: Racialists, Conspiracy Theorists and Historical Revisionists
3) Sungenis Quotes
Note: There are many "links" interspersed throughout these pages. By clicking on a link, you will be connected with background or source material regarding the text that directly precedes it. There are also many links that are underlined words, phrases or numbered footnotes.
Background
I was introduced to Bob Sungenis and Catholic Apologetics International (CAI) about 8 or 9 years ago. Bob and I soon developed a cordial “internet friendship” revolving around apologetics and a small email list arranged to discuss and debate a variety of issues. We occasionally called each other about various things related to the Catholic faith. In late 2001, he asked me to join his organization, Catholic Apologetics International, in an informal, volunteer apologetic capacity. I gratefully accepted his invitation, although I was only marginally and sporadically active there until a couple of years later. I primarily wrote about social or “pastoral” issues, with an emphasis on pro-life.
In September, 2002 Bob wrote an article entitled, Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary?? The Apocalyptic Ramifications of a Novel Teaching in response to the Reflections on Covenant and Mission document released by a committee of the USCCB [link]. In this article, he criticized RCM at length and expressed inflammatory and extremist conspiratorial views about Jews that created a firestorm of controversy. Unfortunately, he also took material without attribution from a few sources, some of which were extremely unsavory and highly prejudiced against Jews. This was documented by Dr. William Cork [link] although I did not examine Cork’s evidence at that time. (Note: Any reference to Dr. Cork here should in no way be construed as implying anything about other views Dr. Cork has expressed, including any other opinions on the RCM document and Bob’s criticism of it. However, in regard to his documentation of Bob’s verbatim, unacknowledged use of problematic sources for his article of 2002, his work is irrefutable and Bob has effectively admitted as much.) 1 , 2
To make a long story short, I privately defended Bob - largely due to personal conversations we had at the time wherein he promised that he would retract and apologize for any of the problematic material posted at CAI. But about two years later a situation arose that forced me to more thoroughly investigate exactly what had publicly transpired. This was no small task, as a great deal had been written. 3
When I searched at length for Bob’s promised public apology and retraction, I identified only an occasion on which Bob asserted that he had previously apologized. 4 Eventually, I encountered two statements by Bob that made everything quite plain:
(Sungenis): “The only reason it (the article of Sept 2002) went through some "revisions" is that when this whole thing first started I was trying to be accommodating to those who were levying their charges. I took off some material that some people found offensive, even though I still stood by the material (and no one has proven it wrong).” (emphasis added) [link 1 and link 2]
And:
(Sungenis): “I told whoever would listen that I would remove those sections in the interest of peace….Again, all the material that Mr. Cork is objecting to in this present article was removed from my website weeks ago in the interest of peace.” [link]
In these places, Bob made clear what his apology was and what it was not. He neither retracted nor apologized for any of the material. He merely apologized for upsetting “some” people because “some” of it was associated with scandalous organizations. He stood firmly by the material itself. He removed the most offensive and scandalous items only “in the interest of peace.”
This was not the apology that I believed he had offered. In truth, it was really no apology or retraction at all. Bob has referred others to this article even now and has repeated or expanded upon many of the views expressed in it. 5
Additionally, at about this time, a supporter of CAI wrote in and asked the following question, which I have excerpted below:
The Holocaust-Conspiracy Q and A In a message dated 2/14/2005 2:58:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, (email address omitted) writes: Hello Mr. Sungenis, I have a feeling I'm going to get you in hot water with this question, so if you don't want to answer it in public fashion I would understand. I can only imagine the extra work you may have to do to defend yourself. There are several parts to the question but anyway, here it goes: a. Did the holocaust of the Jews really happen as reported; 6 to 11 million or was it in the thousands? b. How many Jews were in Europe at the time anyway? c. Was there any kind of lie on the numbers so that Jews (speaking of Zionists) could get finacial reparations for each Jew killed which was then used to build the nation of Israel and for other greedy means?..... May God be with you! (Name Omitted)
The following section immediately grabbed my attention in Bob’s answer:
“R. Sungenis…. I have my doubts that it was 6 million, but even if it was 1 million, still, the point remains that they were a marked race by the Nazis. Hitler hated the Jews, not onlyfor what he saw as a youth, but because theJews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking familes actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished.” (End of correspondence)
While he at least indicated mild uncertainty about some of these views in this instance, I was dismayed that he would publicly express such questionable, ideologically extreme and inflammatory things at all after what happened in late 2002. Along with reiterating revisionist material about the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, his wording also implied his own agreement with the charge that, at least to a significant degree, the Jews of Europe brought it upon themselves because of “their stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years” and also “for what (Hitler) saw as a youth.”
Note, Bob did not write, “what Hitler believed or what Hitler thought he saw”, but “what he saw”, naturally implying that yes, indeed, Hitler correctly perceived things that understandably made him hate “the Jews.” Then by his favorable reiteration, he gave credence and support to the additional charge that Jews intentionally helped Hitler to exterminate other Jews in order to gain the land of Palestine. If he was not in support of this grave and scandalous contention, it is certainly at least odd (and irresponsible) to publicly reiterate it.
It struck me that the questioner’s own first sentence ought to have immediately raised a red flag, “I have a feeling I'm going to get you in hot water with this question, so if you don't want to answer it in public fashion I would understand.” But it seemed that Bob felt compelled to express his views, regardless.
He fully intended to post this Q & A at CAI until I happened upon it and objected. Eventually, he agreed not to post it to the site. However, I found that to be of little consolation and reassurance. If I had not happened upon it first, it would certainly have appeared. Furthermore, Bob made it very clear that he had only agreed not to post this Q & A as a personal accommodation to me, not because he actually agreed there was anything inappropriate about it.
I effectively lost confidence that he would not eventually post something else along these lines and reignite a new, damaging (and pointless) controversy all over again. It seemed increasingly plain that these issues involving Jews were buried deeply in his craw and he had no intention or desire to let them go (a conclusion that has been amply verified over the past year and a half).
Also around this time, I questioned Bob about his knowledge on various topics involving Jews. I called and asked him how many books he had read on issues relating to Jews, Judaism and Israel and eventually he responded that he had read “three or four”. When I asked him how many of these took a view that was even somewhat sympathetically disposed toward Jews, he laughed and said, “I know what you’re getting at. I’ve read pro-Jewish stuff” (this is very close to, if not precisely, verbatim).
So I asked him to give me the name of any book he had read from this viewpoint. He laughed again, but never provided a single title.
Then I asked him how much primary research he had done on these topics. He asked what I meant. I explained that I meant how much research had he done reviewing original documents and sources regarding the Holocaust, the Talmud, etc. He replied that the books he read had a great deal of primary research in them.
I asked what he would think if I said that I had done a great deal of primary Biblical research because I had read three or four books by James White (a Protestant apologist), which have many biblical quotes in them. He objected and said he didn’t think it was the same thing. I was so astonished by this conversation that I took notes immediately afterward and spoke with a confidant at length about it. 6
Some time later (in early 2005), after a few very difficult conversations and letters in which Bob made it plain that he had no intention of changing course in regard to Jewish issues, I left CAI and asked Bob to remove my articles. I did not visit the website for some time as I had little time or desire to follow what was happening there. The only thing I chose to write in regard to these issues was a somewhat circumspect article, "Family Dynamics". My intention was to make clear some of my own opinions and views on Jewish issues and also to indirectly distinguish some of them from those expressed at CAI in a way that wasn’t polemical or unduly contentious.
However, people eventually began to send me certain articles, Q & A’s and “features” from CAI about Jews. With very few exceptions, I said little or nothing as I simply wanted to move on. However, over time the increase in flow and intensity of posts regarding “Jewish issues” that were sent to me became impossible to ignore. It seemed that once I left, Bob and CAI began posting a relative flood of entries. I have chronicled a great deal of what CAI has posted that deals with Jewish issues and was surprised to discover a total rapidly approaching one hundred articles, features, “news alerts” and Q & A’s, almost all written relatively recently and the vast majority of decidedly negative character.7
As I have examined these articles, features, news alerts and Q & A’s, it has become clear that Bob has publicly and vigorously resumed and expanded upon previously expressed, derogatory views of various issues related to Jews. Based on what Bob has written, many of his views and theories about Jews are summarized thusly:
One of the gravest problems with U.S. society is Jewish influence and manipulation. The main problem with U.S. foreign policy is Jewish influence and manipulation. It is likely FDR and Paul VI were effectively Jewish agents, doing the bidding of Zionists. John Paul II’s blatant favoritism toward Jews is a key reason for the problems in the Middle East. Jews were behind the assassination of JFK. There is a place for Jews in prophecy, but only to bring the Antichrist into the world and to provide a few converts while almost all of them remain estranged from God to the very end. Catholics need to beware of dangerous Jewish converts to Catholicism who are effectively clandestine (and sometimes not so clandestine) Judaizers arrogantly intent upon pushing the re-establishment of Temple sacrifice and Jewish cultic practices within Catholicism. Almost all (95-99%) Jews despise Christ. Jews tend to be violent. Jews are “some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth.” He loves Jews as long as they “have enough sense to know their place.” Jews who follow Judaism loathe non-Jews and consider them less than animals. Judaism teaches that it’s okay to rape young boys. The Holocaust may have happened, but if it did, it most likely wasn’t nearly as bad as commonly accepted. Furthermore, the Jews of Europe rather brought the Holocaust upon themselves because of their selfish, manipulative ways. The charge of “anti-Semitism” is nothing but a clever ploy and even Albert Einstein knew it. And finally, Jews helped orchestrate the Holocaust in order to gain the land of Palestine.
If one were so inclined, wouldn’t it be quite possible to compile and “document” a long and ugly list of similar charges of varied validity to smear Protestants, Catholics or pretty much any group? Hitler was a baptized Catholic. Stalin was a seminarian. Witch-hunts were a Christian conspiracy against women. The Irish Potato Famine was a Protestant conspiracy to kill Catholics. The Crusaders were Catholic mass-murderers. The Inquisition was all about torturing and killing Jews. Catholics are to blame for the mass murder of unborn children. An Italian Catholic opened the door for all the smut in Hollywood by dismantling the Hays Production Code. The Catholic Church is a homosexual club. The Holocaust was a Christian conspiracy against Jews. Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII) signed a concordat with the Nazis. 95% of Christians despise Jews and consider them “Christ-killers”. Catholics are cannibals. The Pope is the Antichrist.
Yet, Jews alone are singled out for this type of sustained, expansive, illegitimate and offensive attack at CAI.
It seems clear that the over-arching message in Bob’s articles and posts is that the Jewish people are fundamentally evil as a whole, an absolute threat in all spheres of life and most definitely not to be trusted in anything, even when they become Catholic. Over time and through repetition, this kind of poisonous rhetoric creates fear that in turn breeds hatred and violence and it has no legitimate place anywhere, let alone in an apostolate that purports to be about Catholic apologetics.
Candidly, until it appeared that certain individuals and publications were beginning to accept and use Bob's opinions and reiterations of the work of others as authentic scholarship, I was inclined to remain silent. But I have become increasingly concerned about the serious damage this may inflict upon the Church, that it will unnecessarily exacerbate tensions between Jews and Christians and also give aid to those who hate the Jewish people.
Sungenis Sources:
Racialists, Conspiracy Theorists and Historical Revisionists
In CAI’s relatively recent multiplication of items about Jewish issues, the pattern of uncritically accepting and seeking out information from fringe extremists, conspiracy theorists, historical "revisionists" and other sources that are highly ideologically prejudiced has resumed. Below, I have listed many such sources and statements:
1) Michael Hoffman II
Hoffman, a self-admitted historical revisionist [links a, b, c] is a significant source of material for Bob’s article, Neo-cons and the Jewish Connection.
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia, but I highly recommend reading it in its entirety:
"Holocaust Denial (commonly called Holocaust revisionism by its supporters) is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection (of certain key elements of) the Holocaust… In addition, most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory… The term "denier" (also but less often in English "negationist") is objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who prefer "revisionist," though most scholars contend that the latter term is deliberately misleading…"
Among other things, Hoffman’s work is being used by extremist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to deny the Holocaust. He has written of the Holocaust as "a religious cult masquerading as history" and "a means for Judaizing the West" (January 24, 2006).
2) Michael Piper
Bob also repeats and highly recommends work by Michael Piper and his book “The New Jerusalem," including a reiteration of the charge that the Jews were behind the murder of JFK.
Michael Piper is as favorite of white supremacists/separatists. [link]
Note that he is recommended along with such work as Michael Hoffman II, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Two Babylons -- Is Roman Catholicism the revival of ancient Mystery Babylon? and Space Invaders—Mysterious Aliens] and the UFO End-Time Plot.
To learn a little more about Michael Piper, below is a review of his book. Please note that this individual is a supporter and admirer of Piper’s:
“Michael Collins Piper has done it again…he has now come out with a volume which fully documents the extent of Jewish power in America…. And the information is truly eye-opening, even for someone like me who has long been Jew-aware. After finishing The New Jerusalem, I concluded that, if anything, White Nationalists -- far from exaggerating Jewish power – in fact underestimate its pervasive extent.” “By the time I got through reading his list of these rich and powerful Jews and their various enterprises, I had the distinct feeling that just about every product I buy is produced or marketed by Jews.” “Unlike me, Piper and 'American Free Press' are writing for a mainstream audience, and as such tend to use such terms as 'Zionist' and 'corporate controlled media' rather than the J-word, which admittedly might tend to scare off the uninitiated.”
Note: When Bob first began addressing issues about Jews, Zionists, Israel, etc., I cautioned him to make consistent distinctions between all of these groups, and even to make distinctions between the religious affiliations of Jews (as a whole, the Orthodox are quite different than the atheists or the Reformed, for instance).
3) Counterpunch
“Counterpunch” is another source cited in Bob’s article, Neoconservatism and the Evangelical/Protestant Connection. [link]
This web site features such writers as Gilad Atzmon, another apologist for holocaust revisionism/denial. Also featured are Noam Chomsky and books like: 51 Documents: Zionist collaboration with the Nazis and articles like “the Rape of Palestine”. [links a , b , c]
4) Institute for Historical Review/Justin Raimondo
This article, originally entitled, The Israeli Lobby Now Being Challenged (News Alert), no longer appears at CAI, as they rotate “features’ and “news alerts” from time to time. But this was the original link.
This article Bob reprinted is featured at the Institute for Historical Review, written originally for www.antiwar.com by Justin Raimondo, an open practitioner and defender of homosexuality who has a strongly negative bias toward the Jews and Israel, among other things [links a , b]. There is an article on the author here, here and here, where the author makes the argument that the massacre of unarmed protesters at Tiananmen square in China is a myth made up by those who worship the “Goddess of Democracy”, that the Chinese government acted correctly, and that Chinese media is “relatively open.” Raimondo has also claimed that Israel may have been behind September 11th.
As documented further on, Bob has praised the Journal of Historical Review as being “a very credible source,” using its material without attribution in his original piece back in 2002. There is a large section on IHR/JHR in thisWikipedia article: link.
An excerpt is below, although I highly recommend reading the entire article:
In 1979 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded by Willis Carto as an organization dedicated to publicly challenging the "myth of the Holocaust." The IHR sought from the beginning to attempt to establish itself within the broad tradition of historical revisionism, by soliciting token supporters who were not from a neo-Nazi background…However, most of IHR's supporters were neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, and while IHR included token articles on other topics and sold some token books by mainstream historians in its book catalog, the vast majority of material published and distributed by IHR was devoted to questioning the facts surrounding the Holocaust. The IHR became one of the most important organizations devoted to Holocaust denial. In recent years the IHR underwent an internal power struggle which ousted Willis Carto. Under the subsequent leadership of Mark Weber, the IHR has taken on an even more explicit neo-Nazi orientation than it had under Carto. Carto went on to found the Barnes Review magazine after his ousting from IHR, a magazine which is also devoted to Holocaust denial. In recent published articles, volunteer organizations monitoring hate groups have stated that Holocaust denial groups, such as the IHR, have been having difficulty finding supporters (and especially financial sponsors) in the United States. As a result, spokespersons for the IHR and other denial groups have been traveling to the Middle East in an attempt to forge closer ties with extremist groups there. IHR spokespersons have been reported to have met with persons suspected of involvement with terrorist groups.
It may be worth visiting Fringewatcher to read a critique of “Israel Shamir”, a person recommended by Bob at the invitation of a CAI patron. Apparently “Israel Shamir” has operated under several other names as well and he’s a featured writer at the racialist website below.
6) National Vanguard
While CAI did not disclose it, the above article, originally entitled WFAX nixes Crowley for Criticizing Israel (News Alert), was written by Michael Piper and first published at, Americanfreepress and subsequently at NationalVanguard, rense and DavidDuke.
Visit all of them and look through the websites.
This “News Alert” has been circulated out at this point, as is the case with all such “News Alerts” at CAI. It appears likely that CAI copied this from the www.nationalvanguard.org site as they have used this site for other articles and because the other sites noted a particular “issue” number in the article, but National Vanguard did not, and the CAI version did not either.
Bob ran two articles that had been taken from the following white-separatist site: National Vanguard. This is in keeping with his article from late 2002 as documented at bulliesnbozos. There is at the least some “cross-pollination” going on with National Alliance going back some time. You can find books such as this, that mirror Bob’s thought.
The following may be found prominently at the National Vanguard website:
"We can have a clean, orderly, progressive, safe, and incomparably richer and more beautiful nation if it becomes a proud White nation again. To do that we must begin by restoring White community and White racial consciousness among our people. We at National Vanguard are doing that by building world-beating new media for Whites and by getting out on the street and meeting our neighbors and showing them what we're all about. We're going to help our people. We're going to educate our people. We're going to come up with creative ways to awaken our people. We're going to create publications that will be like nothing ever seen before in the cause of White awakening. We're going to do what it takes." (Note: This website has subsequently been shut down by the Commonwealth of Virginia)
Two recent feature stories, one on Jerry Falwell (in which the CAI title errantly indicated that Falwell said Jews don’t need Christ) and the other by a Reverend Ted Pike come from this site, but without attribution. CAI VP Ben Douglass verified this as the source (National Vanguard) to a CAI questioner. 8
Bob was notified by his current VP, Ben Douglass, about the seriously problematic, unsavory nature of the National Vanguard site, but he refused to take any action until Matthew Anger wrote an article in which he divulged CAI’s sources for these articles. The article quickly received considerable public attention. And after initially responding heatedly to Mr. Anger and asserting that he did not care from where the material emanated, eventually Bob quietly removed the material without public comment (approximately two weeks after having been first notified by Ben Douglass) 9
7) Reverend Ted Pike
Jewish Activist Hired By State Dept. Against Global Anti-Semitism (News Alert)
This “News Alert” was written by Protestant minister Ted Pike, the same individual who wrote an article CAI used from the racialist National Vanguard site back a few months ago. As with all “News Alerts”, this article will be circulated out shortly. It was on the website as of August 9th, 2006. Again, CAI does not cite the source at which it originally found the article. But it appears prominently at:
1) rense (a website filled with anti-Israel articles, articles that rewrite history in regard to WWII and articles about Big Foot, etc.) and
2) truthtellers, among others. The nature of the sites carrying this article is worth noting.
Many interesting articles about the Reverend Pike may be found via a simple google search. He is committed to energetically exposing what he considers to be vast Jewish conspiracies, including his piece that even claims the book The DaVinci Code is part of a Jewish conspiracy (featured at David Duke’s website among others, scroll down to June 3, 2006), also found at: truthtellers. The following video by Pike is also worth viewing, by the name of “The Other Israel: Jewish Conspiracy for World Control”: [link].
Some charges leveled by Bob are echoed in this video.
8) Kathleen Christison:
An article entitled: Former CAI analyst on Israel/Palestinian Conflict: "The Insane Brutality of the State of Israel" appeared at CAI as a “News Alert.” This feature, like all CAI features, will be circulated out shortly (by the time this is printed, it will undoubtedly be circulated out). As such one will not likely find it at CAI now. However, it appeared on or about July 30th, 2006.
It was first published at Counterpunch. As CAI has used this site as a source previously, it seems very likely this was the source again. The format/order of material CAI used closely matched that found at Counterpunch.org. However, as is so often the case, CAI did not disclose its source.
While the author of this piece is touted as a “former CIA analyst”, according to her biography, she was an English literature major who spent only half of her tenure at the CIA dealing with the Middle East in general. Since 1979 Ms. Christison has spent her time as a self-appointed commentator on the issue of the Palestinian conflict, from a consistently avid pro-Palestinian standpoint. Here is another article by her: link. Wikipedia has some basic information about the Christisons here. Here is an article from Frontpagemag.com that deals largely with the Christisons, detailing their extreme leftist background and their associations with anti-Jewish organizations: link. Apparently, both Christisons were members of the leftist group VIPS: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of purportedly disgruntled CIA employees who have spent considerable time attacking the CIA and America by spreading urban myths, etc. (documented by Frontpage.com and partially by Wikipedia.com).
The “historical revisionist” Institute of Historical Review regularly uses and praises the Christisons’ work and it can be found as well at Al Jazeerah, the “Liberty Forum” and “Stormfront”, white supremacists. The Christisons work also appears at Radio Islam along with articles by the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, among others: link.
Again, after reviewing all of these sources above (which do not even include the many similar ones used by Bob in late 2002) the logical questions are:
Why is Bob visiting these extremist, fringe sites in the first place? And why does he continue to use them as source material at CAI? There are two possibilities: a) He didn't take the time to examine these things because he found material he liked or b) He examined them and was unconcerned. Either possibility is evidence of a problem.
Sungenis Quotes:
Again, please keep in mind: What is the common thread running through all these charges?What does Bob intend to prove?What does he expect his readers to do with this information?
On occasion, Bob has claimed to only be against "Zionists", but examine the evidence:
A) Sungenis: "the figure of six million Jews dying under
Hitler's regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda."
(link)
Note:
Here, Bob went well beyond the “doubts” he expressed about the Holocaust
above. Here, he seems quite sure of himself that “the figure of six
million Jews dying” is “mere propaganda.” As “evidence”, he cited
thoroughly debunked “statistics” that purport to “prove” that “there was no
large difference between the number of Jews living [in Europe] in 1939 as there
were living in 1948.”
Even Christopher Ferrara, Bob’s Traditionalist
associate, later debunked these claims in an article about
Bishop Williamson of the the SSPX (click here). Ferrara had the following to say about the kind of “proof” Sungenis
proffers: “we confront what appears to be a lack of even cursory
research...Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the Eichmann trial knows
that he did not contest the evidence against him. His defense team did not even
cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, but merely raised the sole defense
that their client was 'following orders.' Eichmann’s estimate of six million
aside, consider only the numbers from Poland, where some 3.3 million Jews
resided when Hitler rose to power. Given the extermination of 91% of that
population by the SS as commonly estimated (including 850,000 victims at
Treblinka), in Poland alone roughly three million Jews were exterminated. It is
easy to see how Eichmann arrived at the number six million and why that number
is generally viewed as an accurate death toll.” (More information about
the number of Jews living in Europe before and after the Holocaust may be found
here)
Ferrara then
went on to conclude with a strong statement repudiating "Holocaust
revisionism, wacky conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense" and implored Bishop Williamson to "reconsider and personally repudiate the outrageous statements he has published
to the world.” Perhaps Bob will eventually follow Ferrara's sound advice.
B) Sungenis: "95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ.” [link]
Note: In conversations and emails with me, Bob has even gone so far as to claim that “99%” or “almost all” Jews hate Christ. I think he truly believes this, and perhaps this personal belief has played a significant role in coloring his response to them as a whole at CAI. Where he arrived at such figures is a mystery, as I am unaware of any polling data on the question.
I have had fairly significant religious interaction with Jews and this has not been my personal experience, however. I have found a surprising amount of openness and respect (generally somewhat less than what I have experienced with Evangelicals but generally more than what I have experienced with certain other groups). In fact, I have had the great pleasure of helping to bring a few Jewish people into the Catholic Church. Of course, this is not at all to suggest that no Jews have animosities toward Christ or that multitudes of Jews are on the verge of becoming Catholic.
C) Sungenis: “The charge of 'anti-Semitism' is nothing but a clever ploy…
Albert Einstein finally recognized after dealing with his own
people:
'Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced
in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has
thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met
in the world…the root cause is their use of enemies they create
to keep solidarity.'
(Albert Einstein, Collier’s Magazine, November 26, 1938).” [link]
Note: Bob seems enamored of this purported quote from Albert Einstein and has reiterated it as recently as July 2006: Question 26- Inquiry from Italy (Q & A) (July 2006)
I was able to track down this actual issue of Collier’s after contacting a few sources that carry such things. I now have an original in my possession, which you can view in the following pdf files: 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d. In short, it is obvious that Bob again found this quote from a secondary source, most likely with unsavory, anti-Semitic connections. A simple google search will reveal the kinds of people and organizations that repeat it uncritically.
Before addressing the accuracy of the quote (or more accurately, quotes), I find it remarkable that Bob continues to lean on the wisdom of Einstein in this one isolated case as he has expended a great deal of effort to broadly discredit and impugn him both personally and professionally (here and here for example). These articles are worth reading and there is considerable irony in at least one of the charges Bob levels against him. With that said, however, let’s examine this purported quote in detail and consider whether Bob would still credit Einstein with the same wisdom and truthfulness when what he wrote is more fully and accurately quoted.
Bob’s quote is partially fabricated, partially cobbled together and entirely misleading. It may be helpful to first know that the title on the front cover of this issue of Collier’s is “Einstein Comforts the Jews.” That alone ought to give some initial insight as to the fairness and accuracy of this purported quote used by Bob to prove that anti-Semitism is nothing but a “clever ploy” concocted by Jews and to claim that Einstein thought so as well. With that, below are some of the reasons why the use of this quote against Jews is indefensible.
a) This quote is actually a combination of 2 sentences separated by eight paragraphs (the first two sentences) and a final sentence that I can find nowhere in the article at all, let alone in the immediate context of either of the first two sentences (“the root cause is their use of enemies they create to keep solidarity.”)
b) Here is the first sentence of Bob’s quote from Einstein, in its actual, full context (with the sentence Bob used italicized):
“The formation of groups has an invigorating effect in all spheres of human striving, perhaps mostly due to the struggle between the convictions and aims represented by the different groups. The Jews too form such a group with a definite character of its own, and anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jews by the Jewish group. This is a normal social reaction. But for the political abuse resulting from it, it might never have been designated by a special name.”
Notice especially the last sentence. Here it is clear that Einstein saw anti-Semitism as something uniquely problematic because of the political manifestations and ramifications that flowed from it. As will become clearer later on, there is much more that Einstein had to say about the problem of anti-Semitism in this article that does not harmonize with Bob’s views. Directly before this sentence, Einstein described the general dynamics involved when any smaller group maintains a distinct identity within a larger group at length, including the following:
“A nation will never be free of friction while such groups continue to be distinguishable. In my belief, uniformity in a population would not be desirable, even if it were attainable. Common convictions and aims, similar interests, will in every society produce groups that, in a certain sense, act as units. There will always be friction between such groups-the same sort of aversion and rivalry that exists between individuals.”
So, we can see that it was certainly not Einstein’s intent to paint anti-Semitism as a “clever ploy” of the Jews, as Bob framed it. Here, he was merely making general sociological observations and applying them to Jews as well.
c) Here is the second sentence of Bob’s quote (italicized below) in its actual, immediate context, again a full eight paragraphs after the first sentence. Note that Bob’s quote portrays it as though it follows immediately after the first sentence, which is false:
“In the foregoing I have conceived of Judaism as a community of tradition… perhaps even more than on its own tradition, the Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world. Here undoubtedly lies one of the main reasons for its continued existence through so many thousands of years.”
Here, Einstein merely states something that may be said equally of Catholicism: it thrives rather than dies under oppression. And because of this critical ability, it survives over great periods of time. The full context makes it completely clear that he was not indicating that Jews somehow seek oppression and try to foster it, as Bob’s cobbled-together and fabricated quotes make it appear.
d) The last sentence, “the root cause is their use of enemies they create to keep solidarity” appears to be a complete fabrication. It appears nowhere in the article.
e) The following are some additional Einstein quotes from the article that should further put this issue to rest (all from page 10 or page 38 of Collier’s November 26, 1938):
“Why did the Jews so often happen to draw the hatred of the masses? Primarily because there are Jews among almost all nations and because they are everywhere too thinly scattered to defend themselves against violent attack.”
(Einstein then goes on to give examples in Russia and Germany).
“The crimes with which the Jews have been charged in the course of history-crimes which were to justify the atrocities perpetrated against them-have changed in rapid succession. They were supposed to have poisoned wells. They were said to have murdered children for ritual purposes. They were falsely charged with a systematic attempt at the economic domination and exploitation of all mankind…they were reputed to foment wars and revolutions for their own selfish purposes…. Almost beyond imagination were the charges brought against them, charges known to their instigators to be untrue all the while, but which time and again influenced the masses. In times of unrest and turmoil the masses are inclined to hatred and cruelty, whereas in times of peace these traits of human nature emerge but stealthily.”
Remarkably, Einstein would find some of these very same charges in Bob’s own writings. And once again we are faced with two possibilities: a) Bob didn't care to find out if this quote was valid because it supported his views so well or b) Bob knew it wasn't valid and didn't care. Either possibility is troubling. Most ironically, by reiterating this disinformation, Bob has effectively become part of the machine that creates such dangerous propaganda, “influencing the masses” as Einstein put it, above.
D) Sungenis: “As we have noted in previous articles, it is no secret to the
well-informed that it is the goal of world politics and finance,
which is run in large part by wealthy Jews behind the scenes,
to secure the Middle East for Israel.” [link]
E) Sungenis: “Other Catholic organizations are also becoming fronts for
Zionism. Catholic Answers in San Diego and the Eternal
World Television Network seem to be the two mainstays.
They are enamored with Jewish converts, but do very little
to censor the erroneous theology being propagated by them.”
[link]
Note: Above, we see charges that are now echoed in a book written by Bob’s colleague, Chris Ferrara.
F) Sungenis: “In fact, the concentration camps and genocide instigated by
the Jewish communists in Russia against Christians and other
groups dwarf those against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Hitler
was merely modeling what was already practiced in Russia, a
fact ignored by such Jewish authors as Daniel Goldhagen.
Contrasted to the dozens of concentration camps in Hilter’s
regime, the Russian Jews had thousands of such camps…
but evidence of these camps have been systematically
destroyed and their existence denied by the Jewish controlled
media in Russia and the United States.” [link]
G) Sungenis: “A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was
demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation.
Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s
for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough,
Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.” [link]
H) Sungenis: “Often the Zionist agenda of Hollywood’s elite subtly but
effectively misdirects the public. Stephen Speilberg is one
such example. While inoculating movie-goers with fantasy
films such as Jurassic Park, E. T., Jaws and War of the
Worlds, at the same time Spielberg promotes his own
political sympathies, such as the four-hour long Shindler’s
List, which, among other things, depicts scenes of Jewish
people jammed in cattle cars. Spielberg would never consider
making a film of his ancestors from Russia packing millions of
Christians and Muslims in the same cattle cars which were
sent by Jewish communists to the Gulag, where most were
raped, tortured and killed. The “Holocaust” is all we are
allowed to see by the Jewish-controlled media.” [link]
Note: Bob, in a response to a CAI questioner: #16 from March 2006, points to Spielberg’s recent work to prove that even a Jew like him can see how terrible the Jews have been to the Palestinians. Yet, above, Bob identifies him as a devout Zionist conspirator. He has allowed both cases that use Spielberg in contradictory ways to stand unaltered.
I) Sungenis: “We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael
Collins Piper’s new 738- page book, Final Judgment, how
Bronfman (note: a Jew) is implicated in the assassination of
John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused
to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and
you can probably guess the rest of the story.” [link]
J) Sungenis: “Today we get deviant sexual advice from such Jewish matrons
as Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and questionable behavioral advice
from Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Ann Landers (formerly Esther
Friedman Lederer) and her sister Abigail van Buren (Pauline
Esther Friedman Phillips).” [link]
K) Below, note the manner in which Bob at least affirms his belief that it is likely FDR was effectively a Zionist agent who purposely allowed Pearl Harbor to occur (from his 2002 article and a subsequent article in response to Bill Cork): [link , link]
1) (Sungenis): “President Roosevelt had a part in (the Zionist
conspiracy) himself. Being of Jewish ancestry, he
was sympathetic to their cause....”
2) (Sungenis): “To him (Bill Cork) it doesn't matter whether Roosevelt
was hiding his possible Zionist ties or whether he had a
hand in Pearl Harbor.”
3) (Sungenis): “Roosevelt brought America into World War II by
allowing Pearl Harbor to take place, for he had known
way in advance that the Japanese were planning to
attack.”
4) (Sungenis): “It wasn't until he was cornered by a reporter from the
Detroit Jewish Chronicle that Roosevelt could not deny it
any longer. And why is that important? Because if Mr.
Roosevelt would conceal the possible Zionist influences in
his life from those voting for him, then he might also
conceal other things.”
However, compare what is above to what he wrote much later, in response to an individual who revisited his charges about FDR:
5) (Sungenis): "This has been answered so many times I almost laugh at
those who persist in advertising it. First of all, this material
was taken off our website two and a half years ago, yet
again, Mirus apparently doesn't mind continuing to engage
in his demagogic tactics. Regarding Franklin Roosevelt, it
has been established that he had Jewish ancestry. As far
as I'm concerned, he has a right to be proud of it, if he so
chooses. What I was objecting to in my article was that,
when he was interviewed about it, Roosevelt deliberately
hid that fact from the public prior to his election as
president. People have the right to know where one
stands in his affiliations and motivations, especially if he
is trying to hide it.
Note: Notice the much more lighthearted way that Bob reframed what he was asserting here, “I almost laugh”, “this was taken off our website two and a half years ago” and even saying “As far as I'm concerned, he has a right to be proud of it, if he so chooses.” This certainly is in significant contrast to the spirit in which he originally wrote. In this case, one almost gets the impression he would like to distance himself from this particular allegation, yet he cannot bring himself to do it entirely, returning at the end of his paragraph to the intention of placing FDR under heavy suspicion of effectively being a Zionist conspirator. Additionally, in other places Bob vehemently reaffirms that he does not retract a single charge. In the context of the original article and the follow up rebuttal of Bill Cork, the intent seems plain enough.
I would add, it strikes me that even if Bob’s claim is true about FDR’s ancestry and his reluctance to publicly reveal it, this certainly does not at all prove what he implies. In the years leading up to WWII, considerable American support for the Nazis is well-documented, including high profile figures like Charles Lindbergh. He and many other Americans at this time do not seem to have had a particularly positive view of Jews, either. [link, link]
As such, it does not strike me as especially surprising, or conspiratorial, that a person running for the presidency at that time wouldn’t feel inclined to trumpet a partial Jewish ancestry. In these days of scandal within the Church, it wouldn’t strike me as shocking and conspiratorial if certain people found themselves less likely to trumpet their Catholic background, either.
Of course, there is also evidence to the contrary of Bob’s implication as well. For instance: it appears to be well established that FDR refused to accept almost a thousand desperate Jewish refugees stuck on a boat off the coast of Florida into America in 1939. He also appointed an Assistant Secretary of State who was widely seen at the time as having anti-Jewish views and who strongly recommended that America not allow more Jews into America. These things are not readily harmonized with the belief that FDR was effectively in the hip pocket of Jews. link1 , link2, link3, link4
L) Sungenis: “I have many Jewish friends who think the Zionists are
absolutely insane. I'm not worried about them. They have
enough sense to know their place…”
Note: A long series of questions and answers between a CAI questioner, Stefan Trottel, Bob Sungenis and Ben Douglass is included in addendum #2. The entire discussion is very enlightening. Bob’s inclination to only sporadically make any distinctions between Jews of various stripes is clearly brought out in addition to a few other things, all of which further undermine his claim to merely be against Zionists.
In one instance, the questioner queries Bob about these purported “many Jewish friends” who agree with his views and asks if any of them have written anything that one might read. No reply was given. Bob’s statement about Jews who “have enough sense to know their place” seems remarkable in and of itself.
M) Sungenis: “Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately,
Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all
non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this
precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.”
Note: as even Bob’s current VP has noted below in addendum #2, the charge that “real Judaism” considers non-Jews “goyim” and that this term means they are less than animals is specious. Bob’s serious charge that “real” Jews loathe and tend to be violent toward non-Jews is of course gratuitous and further evidence of his negative prejudice.
N) Jewish Scholars Claim They Found Christ's Bones (CAI "News Alert", posted early in 2007)
The problem with Sungenis' title is that the article itself says nothing about “Jewish Scholars.” In fact, the only scholars cited in the article belittled the claims. Additionally, James Cameron, a Christian, not a Jew, produced the movie: see here. Cameron hired a Jewish director to put the film together, Simcha Jacobovici. Is this the man on whom he would like to pin the blame? Breitbart entitled it: Scholars Criticize New Jesus Documentary. MSNBC entitled it: Claims about Jesus’ ‘lost tomb’ stir up tempest. Mercury News entitled it: Scholars, clergy slam Jesus documentary. The Boston Globe entitled it: Documentary Shows Possible Jesus Tomb. Read the article itself and it will become readily apparent that all the scholars cited belittled the claim. Yet, in Robert Sungenis' opinion, the best title is: Jewish Scholars Claim They Found Christ's Bones.
O) CAI Book Recos
CAI has a section for Book Recommendations: here. If one takes a moment to peruse the "reviews" (at least as of March 2007), one will notice that three of the first four books recommended and reviewed are critical of Jews: Jesus in The Talmud, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid and The Holocaust Industry. This in itself is not particularly surprising, of course. However, it is worth noting that Sungenis has apparently put up recommendations for books he didn't feel the need to read first. The first two reviews were copied and pasted from Amazon.com and the last from Barnes and Noble.com. (The first review seems to be no longer on the Amazon site, but Bob at least noted that this was his source on this occasion. The second review appears to have been copied and pasted from here, while the third appears to have been copied and pasted from here but without any attribution.) Perhaps this is simply the flip-side of what he did to Jewish convert Roy Schoeman: heavily criticizing him and calling his very honesty into question before even reading his book? If so, the question would seem to be: why were three unread books deemed worthy of automatic praise and recommendation while another unread book was deemed automatically worthy of heavy criticism, even going so far as to question the author's very honesty? It seems a fair question.
P) Sungenis:
"The Jews...do intend
to rule the world. And now the problem is that they
want to rule the Catholic Church, too."
"Are the Protocols (of
the Elders of Zion) forged? I don’t know. What I do know is that
there is a lot of reason to believe that there are certain
people, yes, the Jews, who would like us all to believe that they are
forged."
Here, Bob attempts to defend the veracity of the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion based on the fact that Jews vigorously oppose it.
R) Sungenis:
"as long as
[my critics] hold to the Jewish racist heresies of Roy Schoeman and refuse to
condemn the USCCB and other hierarchy for their capitulation to the
Jews, then they will never be my friends, they will be my enemies. God will be
the judge of who of us has been right."
"You know, the thing
about Bill Clinton was, you know, he tried to secure this peace accord
between Israel and the Arabs and wasn't successful with that, and he did
some other things that the Jews didn't like, because he got some power
under him and he thought he could, you know, do whatever he wanted and
then they, you know, they sent Monica Lewinski in there after him,
you know, and brought him down."
Caller: To take this slightly away from
religion, or, mostly away from religion for a little bit, I think the
whole thing can best be explained by Benjamin Franklin's statement to
the Continental Congress in 1789, when he warned
them, "Gentleman, if you let them in, in 200 years your children
- your descendants, they will be in the fields as slaves, while the ones
you let in" - and we know who
they're talking about - "will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands." That was Benjamin Franklin's statement,
and I think it explains the whole thing. Because the
man knew, he was a student of history - and
he wasn't the only one - but he was a student of history who knew - he knew what they'd done in Europe,
and all the countries in Europe that they'd been kicked out
of, over and over again, because it's the same game
plan for these people, no matter where they are, where they go, it's
always the same game plan - has been for 2,000
years. Bob: Yeah, as a matter of fact, just to add
to what you're saying - we've been quoting Benjamin Ginzberg a lot
on this program, and here's what
he says,along those same lines - he says, "to make matters worse, Jews often, secretly or not so secretly, conceive themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to
their neighbors. Indeed, Jews
are extremely successful outsiders who sometimes have the temerity to rub
it in." That comes from *The
Fatal Embrace*, page Roman numeral nine.
Now, and on the other side of this coin, you know, we've got to be very cautious, because these are human beings too. Jews
are human beings, and God loves them just like He loves you and I -- Caller: According to the Talmud, they are the
*only* human beings. The rest of us are cattle. Bob: Well, yeah, and that's where the
problem comes in. Caller: Absolutely, so that's exactly what
you're saying, but in a different way. Bob: Right, right, and what I
find in, especially today, is this idea that has been resurgent since
after World War II, and that is that the Jews are the Chosen People -
that this somehow has come to the fore again, that all of a sudden, 2,000 years has gone by and
God has resurrected them as the Chosen People above
everybody else - and this is where institutions like EWTN, or the
liberal Catholics, or the Zionists, or the Evangelical Protestants,
or whatever - this is all what they're feeding off of, that the Jews
are the Chosen People and now we have to restore them to their rightful
place - and it's causing a lot of problems, because once you do that,
you're gonna push other people out of the way!
(Use same links to radio interview in item "Q", directly above)
Also, as Sungenis has done with fraudulent quotes (attributed to Albert Einstein, Roy Schoeman and others), his "caller" attributed a fraudulent quote to Benjamin Franklin which Bob accepted without question.
U) Sungenis:
"James Petras gives us the full
blown story that you won’t hear on ABC News, CNN or
in the Washington Post, dominated as they are by
the Jewish-owned media conglomerates."
"The Jews are godless and getting
more ungodly with each passing day."
1) Sungenis: “I am merely doing the same thing Jesus did when he
confronted the sins of the Jews…Unfortunately, the Jews haven’t
changed in our day. They are still the same godless racists they
were in Jesus’ day. Few of them have repented of their sins.”
(page 10)
2) Sungenis: “The nation of Israel has control of AMDOCS, the central
telephone operation in the United States. It's one way the Mossad
spies on American citizens, including you and those you talk to."
(page 30)
3) Sungenis: “Do I need to say more? I have the whole history of
Catholicism behind me, and these Fathers, Doctors, Saints and
the God-Man himself said much worse things about the Jews than I
ever have. What is really happening today folks is that we have been
taken over by Jewish propaganda, and there are a few Catholic/Jewish
ideologues…Many of them are paid handsomely by Zionist groups to
say whatever they can to silence people like me. They are bent on
promoting the godless state of Israel for some pie-in-the-sky dream they
have, even against their own Catholic religion (at least that’s the religion
they claim to have), and they will smear anyone who gets in their way.
The Jews have done this for centuries against good people, and it
continues today.” (page 19)
"the Jewish element
has so infected our Catholic Church today that they have turned Catholics into Jewish apologists. The infection of Judaism and Zionism
has become the number one
enemy for us."
The goals [of the] Christ Crucifiers
has [sic] been for hundreds of years 1) Get the deicide crime abolished.
2) Get the Old Covenant to be still valid for them by the Vatican. 3) Get the
Noahide Laws established worldwide by placing 5th columns in the 5 great
religions of the world.
Sungenis response to patron above:
And that’s why we are here to preach
the true Gospel of Jesus Christ- in order to rebut these false ideas.
"The whole
tenor of the New Testament is that God is finally rejecting the
Jews (except for a remnant)...God is giving up on the Jews. In
the language of John 6:44, God is no longer going to draw them to Jesus.
In fact, God will become active in keeping them in unbelief by
blinding them to the truth (Romans 11:8). That is the kind of God we have;
a very dynamic God...and the Jews will die in their unbelief."
"How is it that the Jews have garnered such a market on suffering
that Bishop Rhoades finds it necessary to pay homage to them? Is it
because they own the mortgages on the Catholic buildings erected in his
and other dioceses?"
Sungenis:
"It’s time for people to wake up and stop being corralled by the Jewish slave masters."
Sungenis:“every
place that [the Jews] have beeen throughout history, they have been
excised.Because they do the same
thing every time they go in there, they try to take over places that they go
to!And every time they do, people
get wise to it, just we’re doing now, and they get themselves in trouble.And then they wonder why they’re so
persecuted, and vagabonds across the face of the earth for the last 2,000 years
– well this is why!”
CC) Sungenis: "One example of this evidence is the fact that the worldwide Jewish population from 1940 to 1948 did not decrease by even a half million, much less six million....But the international population records show that the numbers of Jews after World War II were virtually the same as before the war." (October, 2009)
(Click here to see a refutation of this claim - described by Sungenis as a "fact" - often made by Holocaust deniers and revisionists.)
DD) Sungenis: "The documented records of the International Red Cross show that there were less than a few hundred thousand Jews who died in Nazi camps, and that most of those were from disease." (October, 2009)
(Click here to see a refutation of this claim often made by Holocaust deniers and "revisionists". According to the International Committee of the Red Cross itself, this is notwhat these records "show.")
EE) Sungenis: "I suggest you read the unsanitized accounts of what really happened [in the Holocaust]. When the Jews and Jewish sympathizers start showing proof that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews by gassing them, instead of jailing people for even bringing up the question, then you you can talk about Nazis and I'll listen." (Note how Sungenis here describes the "revisionist" version of the Holocaust as "unsanitized accounts of what really happened.")
FF) Sungenis: "The Red Cross documents in verifiable records at anyone's disposal that there were only a few hundred thousand Jews who lost their lives in the German camps, and most of those were due to disease." (Click here to see a refutation of this claim often made by Holocaust deniers and "revisionists.")
GG) Sungenis: "I suggest you stop blaming it on the nation who excised [the Jews] and start looking at what the Jewish people do to get themselves excised."
HH) Sungenis: "As for Germany's relationship with the Jews, well, the Germans treated the Jews very nicely when the Jews were excised out of Russia and migrated to Germany. Then the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else." (Q and A #173)
II) Sungenis: “when (Jews) come into power…they can
be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the
earth."
Note: And what of Hindus? Muslims? Italians? Why does the negative focus seem to be so consistently on Jews? And why does Bob so often fail to make fair and accurate distinctions, opting instead to heavily broad-brush and stereotype Jews? As the questioner rightly pointed out, he had asked questions about Judaism and Bob responded with dubious charges about Leon Trostky, who was only ethnically Jewish, and Vladimir Lenin, who had only a very partial Jewish ancestry. Neither of these men were practitioners of Judaism. Stalin, an example Bob has previously given of evil Jews, was even a baptized, Christian seminarian: link1, link2, link2.
This seems to follow the same line he has taken in regard to FDR and his purportedly partial Jewish heritage. To Bob and those who think like him, even having a possible small genetic connection to the Jewish people is enough to place one under deep suspicion. As a friend recently commented to me, this smacks of bygone days in America when a man might be smeared by inferring he had black ancestry somewhere hidden in his past...as if that alone was enough to discredit him.
The depth and breadth of Bob’s reflexive negativity toward issues related to Jews is clear. It is also clear that he is highly motivated to convince others to hold these inflammatory, prejudiced views. What is not so clear is exactly what Bob expects his readers to do should they come into agreement with him.
Copyright 2006 MIchael Forrest. All rights reserved.
