Boston Common
Fr. Feeney preached to thousands on Boston Common every Sunday for seven and a half years in the 1950s.

The growing popularity and use of the term “anti-Semitism” came to the fore after WWII. It is used as a weapon, which has now become enshrined in law in many jurisdictions, against anyone who would oppose their actions, no matter how immoral, criminal or truly evil. Feeney was one of the first to point this out. “The familiar cry of ‘anti-Semitism’,” Feeney argued, is the equivalent of the Jews proclaiming “‘Hands off!’ to any who would expose or thwart their endeavors.” (15)

The Point tells it like it is in analyzing the Jews’ outlook toward Christianity: “The great, essential fact about the Jews, patent not only in their everyday utterances and activities, but in their official documents as well, is that they are sworn enemies of Christianity, and are constantly driven with the wild, frenzied aim of destroying it.”

American Catholics have not been immune from these tactics, and remain mostly clueless about their objectives: “They [American Catholics] have fallen head over heels for those subterfuges by which the Jews shield themselves.” (16)

Feeney was not oblivious, as most Catholics were at the time, to this effect on American culture as almost every aspect of society was “becoming daily more foul and corrupt.” Take, for instance, fashion: “The clothes that Jews design, Catholics have accepted as being merely modern and American, not suspecting that these clothes have been foisted on the country for the purpose of demoralizing and degrading it.”

Of course, many knew, even at the time, that the entertainment industry was controlled by Jewish moguls: “The moving picture and television shows that the Jews present, Catholics have taken to be merely entertainment, not suspecting that these shows serve the purpose of indoctrination.”

The press, too, he said, was dominated by Jews: “The newspapers that the Jews control, Catholics have trusted to report the straight news, not suspecting that these newspapers slant the news in order to create the impressions and the interests and the attitudes that the Jews want created.” (17)

Once the idea of anti-Semitism was established in the public mindset, the Jews began to push other terms and concepts into the public discourse: intolerance, bigotry, prejudice etc. Anyone holding in the Jews’ eyes (and later those of the brainwashed Gentiles) such despicable attitudes or, heaven forbid, was caught practicing such abominations would face penalties all of which fell under the guise of “anti-discrimination” legislation.

Anti-discrimination edicts would eventually cover housing and hiring while those covered by the new statutes would expand beyond race to include women and, now, homosexuals. All of this was cleverly designed to shield their authors from their own nefarious activities:

[T]he Jewish slogan “regardless of race, color, or creed,” which implies that a man is no more 
responsible for the last item than for the first two, and which protects the Jews to practice their
hatred of Jesus without reproach. (18)

The post-WWII church adopted similar language and used it to attack Feeney and anyone who stood against the liberalization of Catholicism and the later reforms of Vatican II.

Like the church, one of the greatest failures of the conservative and libertarian movements was that they did not challenge the civil rights laws at their core which, in essence, were a massive assault on property rights, the freedom of association and, just as important, the right of disassociation or exclusion. Anti-discrimination measures were not confiscatory in nature as under Communist regimes, who used tactics such as seizing private property, the collectivization of farmland or the nationalization of industry. Rather, they were regulatory in scope— regulating what property owners could do or not do with their assets.

The lack of emphasis on the violation of property rights by conservatives and libertarians hindered the mobilization of popular opposition to these egregious edicts. The main reason why those on the right failed to take on the matter was that they feared being called “racist” or being sued if found in violation of these mandates.

Feeney turns the idea of anti-Semitism on its head in an article titled “The Anti-Semitism of the Jews.” (19) Since Christians believe and worship Christ as a king (after all, the description “King of the Jews” was placed on the crucifix), the Jews are, in fact, the real anti-Semites since they have persecuted Christians over the centuries.

“For 2,000 years now,” Fr. Feeney, states, “we Gentile[s] … have been eager subjects of the King of the Jews. We have enthroned Him in our chapels and cathedrals. We have sent our missionaries to remote Gentile lands so that the Kingdom of Jesus, King of the Jews, might cover the entire Earth.” (20)

While the Zionist conquest of Palestine had received little coverage from the Catholic press—and, for that matter, mainstream sources either, despite the fact that many thousands of Palestinian Christians had been murdered and displaced—Feeney’s newsletter, throughout its existence, continued to expose the genocide taking place in the Holy Land.

The pro-Jewish press, especially The New York Times, was at its hypocritical best in its non-coverage of the atrocities. While the Times routinely criticized nascent populist movements across the globe, it loudly praised the Israeli gangsters and thugs who terrorized the Palestinians as “freedom-loving democrats” whose main goal was to spread prosperity and progress to the backward land.

“Jewish nationalism (the Zionist plan for the rape of the Holy Land),” The Point asserted, “comes off in the Times as a lofty and laudable venture— one which the paper, in its measured fashion, has been only too happy to promote.” (21)

A Times editorial claimed that the Arabs were hostile to the “democratic and economic features of Israel. These groups simply do not want an efficient Western-style economy in Arabia.” The editors of The Point accurately countered the sophistry of the Times, giving a true depiction of the Arabs’ opposition to their Israeli overlords: “The ‘Western-style economy’ that is currently driving the Arabs mad is, of course, the one which the Jews have already set up—on Arab-owned farms and in Arab-owned towns—and out of which the ‘efficient’ Israelis have already expelled over 900,000 rightful Arab residents.”22

Feeney chastised his fellow Christians for allowing the takeover of Palestine and reminded them that their ancestors in the First Crusade had courageously responded to Pope Urban II’s appeal and liberated, for a time, the Holy Land:

But this time there will be no talk of “snatching” the Holy Land. Indeed, we have been quite content,
of late, to settle back and watch someone else grab it up. Nor have we been even slightly jarred from
our lethargy by the fact that the Holy Land’s new occupants make Pope Urban’s “abominable”
Mohammedans almost bearable by contrast. [ Emphasis in original—Ed.] (23)

Due to Israeli desecrations of churches and sacred sites, as well as attacks upon followers of Jesus, Feeney suggested extreme action:

That the state of Israel is now a reality, that the Holy Land has fallen into the hands of the Jews, that
the crucifiers of Christ have been restored with honor to the scene of their crime, should be provocation
 enough for all of Christendom to descend in battle array and obliterate the cursed invaders. But
nothing happens. In fact, this tragic betrayal of the holy places has been allowed to develop far beyond
the mere physical presence of Jews in Palestine. (24)

Worse is the fact that, now, Christians, in a number of countries, pay taxes that go to support Israel, with the United States being the biggest contributor, demonstrating the power and control that world Jewry possesses. Yet, this would not be possible either today or in Feeney’s time had it not been for the pusillanimous attitude of Christians. While the laity may get a pass, the Christian leadership, whose position it is to know better, have ignored the matter or justified the Jews’ atrocious behavior.

The driving force that created the state of Israel was, of course, Zionism. Zionism and Communism, two of the great ideologies of the 20th century, were of Jewish origin. The September 1958 issue of The Point correctly saw the relationship and pointed out that both ideologies and movements received tremendous impetus from the world wars.

The Bolshevik version of Communism would have never come to power had Russia remained out of World War I. Zionism, too, profited mightily from the war with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration that set in motion the eventuality of a Jewish state in Palestine.

World War II was, in essence, a victory for Josef Stalin and world Communism. One half of Europe fell under the Soviet yoke and would remain subjugated for nearly a half century, while in the Far East, with the defeat of Japan, a power vacuum was left which was ruthlessly filled by the Communist Chinese. The Zionist cause gained mightily from the war for it provided a justification for its conquest of Palestine. The Holocaust myth was employed by propagandists to play on Gentile sympathies that an exclusive homeland would be available for persecuted Jews the world over.

The Point did not mince words about the forces behind these two evils: “That both movements are avowedly anti-Christian, and that both are in origin and direction Jewish is a matter of record.” While conservatives and Catholics at the time would continue to warn about the “Communist threat,” less and less was heard from either group about the horrific crimes that were taking place in the newly established state of Israel