Judeomasons are at it again

The Polonophobic, anti-Christian affairs concerning Archbishop Wielgus of Warsaw and Father Henryk Jankowski still steaming, we have a new one: the “Polish” Catholic Church hierarchy has eliminated an outspoken, patriotic Father Dr. Piotr Natanek from public life, with methods that Stalin would be proud of. It seems that, similar to the banned Father Tadeusz Kiersztyn, Father Natanek’s transgression consists of insisting on recognizing Jesus Christ become the King of all the Poles’ hearts… A parliamentary resolution on this Throning was almost adopted in 2006. If only each nation did it, our troubles would be over.

Just to refresh with whom we are dealing again, here are several reviews by our American-Polish reviewer on Amazon.com.


Review of Ukrzyzowac Ksiedza Jankowskiego, by Jan Marszalek. (1998). 2 vols., POW (Polska Ofycyna Wydawnicza). Reviewer: Mr. Jan Peczkis

Father Henryk Jankowski: A Strong Defender of Poland and Polishness

Title: TO CRUCIFY FATHER JANKOWSKI. One doesn’t have to agree with everything that Father Jankowski has said to realize that he doesn’t fit our age of spineless, mealy-mouthed, and politically-correct religious and political leaders. Jankowski’s outspokenness has gotten him into a lot of trouble not only with Jews, but also with various Polish religious and political leaders. He has proven to be an equal-opportunity ruffler of feathers.

Marszalek’s work intersperses excerpts from some of Fr. Jankowski’s sermons with other content. Fr. Jankowski defended the family as the basic unit of society (Vol. 2, p. 49), opposed the atheization of Polish youth (Vol. 2, p. 76), and defended the presence of crosses in the classrooms. (Vol. 1, p. 142, 302).

The customary statements about clergy needing to stick to religion, and to avoid politics, came into play. Of course, if clergy take up liberal political issues, the liberals say nothing.

Anti-Semitism is a buzzword, and one that needs to be carefully defined. (Vol. 1, p. 228). Jankowski condemns hatred (Vol. 1, p. 32), and categorically denies being an anti-Semite. (Vol. 1, p. 272). Oddly enough, Jankowski’s criticism of Bronislaw Geremek had been twisted into an attack on all Jews. (Vol. 1, p. 121, 227, 302). Marszalek could’ve added that Fr. Jankowski had prayed with Jewish leaders at various Holocaust-related sites in Poland. He also could’ve added that Jankowski opposed the Judeocentric view of Nazi persecution because he doesn’t believe that any group has a right to tell Poles how to think or to impose a supremacist view of its suffering.

Despite the clarion calls of the modern age regarding “Tolerance”, “Inclusiveness”, and “Multiculturalism”, the strong desire to preserve one’s unique heritage should not be confused with intolerance towards other groups. Fr. Jankowski strongly condemned other nations meddling in Poland’s internal affairs, no matter how well intentioned they may seem. (Vol. 2, p. 143).  He is also a strong advocate of the premise that Roman Catholicism is a central feature of the very essence of Polishness. (e. g., Vol. 2, p. 208, 226, 243). His unfriendly attitude towards Jewish influence relative to Poles thus finds clarification.

Regardless of how one feels about Fr. Jankowski, one must recognize the unmentioned double standard that exists on outspoken personages. When Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan made statements regarded by many to be anti-Semitic, some American liberals said that we should overlook them because Farrakhan comes from a group that suffered a great deal. We were even told to “separate the message from the messenger.” No such leniency for Fr. Jankowski was ever forthcoming from either American or Polish liberals.

Marszalek’s discussion of the muzzling of Fr. Jankowski requires further development. Jewish groups had called on the Church to censure or remove Fr. Jankowski, and the Church partly obliged. But prominent Jews had also made objectionable remarks (such as Yitzhak Shamir’s statement on “Poles imbibing anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk”, which Marszalek called “primal racism”: Vol. 2, p. 237). No one, least of all among the Jews, had called on Shamir to be formally censured or removed from office.


Review of Ks. Jankowski Znow Atakuje, by Peter Raina (1998). Von Borowiecky, Warszawa. Reviewer: Mr. Jan Peczkis

Influential Jews and the Defense of Traditional Polishness and Polish National Interests

“FATHER JANKOWSKI IS ON THE ATTACK AGAIN” THE CONTROVERSY OVER HIS SERMON is the title of this book. The full text of the October 26, 1997 sermon is provided. He never mentioned Jews by name, but did criticize the naming of Bronislaw Geremek as the Minister of International Affairs (p. 10). Author Raina and various letter-writers in support of Jankowski have called Geremek, as well as Vice-Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs Leszek Balcerowicz, “retreads” from the previous Communist government (using American parlance)(p. 77), and inappropriate choices for the current one. They are accused of such things as belittling Poland abroad and enacting harmful policies. (p. 154, 162).

The Jewishness of the foregoing personages came up, and Raina commented: “Many Poles suspect, or are convinced of the fact, that persons from a Jewish background do not satisfactorily defend Polish national interests.” (p. 78). There have always been Jews among the most ardent Polish patriots, yet in general, at least according to the opinions of many of the letter-writers of this book, modern influential Polish Jews, notwithstanding their complete cultural assimilation, tend to think of themselves primarily as Europeans and internationalists rather than Poles, and to use their influence accordingly.

Polish Jew Sigmund Nissenbaum, who recounted how he had Father Jankowski over as a guest at his nephew’s Bar Mitzvah, wrote to Fr. Jankowski about the pain and anger he felt at his “sowing of racial and religious hatreds”, to which Fr. Jankowski replied that such accusations are devices to silence the truth, and added: “Do you really believe that I am an enemy of the Jews? …creating taboo topics, nations that are exempt from any criticism, and sacred cows—this will never destroy anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism…It is certainly not my fault that those men, who did and continue to do the most damage to Poland, who destroy our national identity and serve foreign interests, are in most cases of Jewish background…” (p. 27).

The reader must remember that the Poles, with their long history of dominance by foreigners, are sensitive to even the appearance of exploitation. Also, Poland has always been confessedly an ethnic Polish and Catholic one, and, unlike the US, never professed to be a pluralistic society. To many Poles, objecting to Jews in the Polish government is no different from objecting to British or Russians in the Polish government. One of them even asked how many Polish gentiles can be found in the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament).

Raina rejects the “anti-Semitism without Jews” slogan, pointing out that the relevant factor is not the rarity of Jews in the Polish general population (0.1%), but their high frequency in positions of influence. It takes no more than a handful of individuals placed in key positions in the government, commerce, and cultural life of a nation to steer its course. As an example, he claims that the widely-read GAZETA WYBORCZA, NIE, WPROST, POLITYKA, and TRYBUNA are noticeably Jewish-influenced, and promoters of cosmopolitanism, including at Poland’s expense. (p. 79). But Raina never scapegoats Jews as responsible for all of Poland’s problems. To the contrary: He also criticizes “Catholic” newspapers such as TYGODNIK POWSZECHNY, WIEZ, and ZNAK, written by “progressives”, some of whom come from a Communist background. (pp. 22-23).

Various historical tidbits are included in the book. One of the letter-writers was an eyewitness to local Jews shooting at Poles, in Grodno, during the Soviet conquest of eastern Poland in 1939. (p. 130). Raina is of the opinion that many Jews left Poland in 1968 not, as they claim, because they suffered from anti-Semitism, but because they had lost their positions of influence and power. (p. 71). Raina suggests that some of them are slowly returning to Poland in order to re-acquire these positions.


Review of Ks. Jankowski nie ma za co przepraszac, by Peter Raina (1995). Wydawnictwo “Ksiazka Polska”, Warsaw. Reviewer: Mr. Jan Peczkis

Father Jankowski Never Equated the Swastika With the Star of David

FATHER HENRYK JANKOWSKI HAS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR is the title of this book. To begin with, the priest’s actual view of Jews is a balanced one, recognizing both good and bad deeds by Jews. (p. 86).

As for the June 11, 1995 sermon, here’s what correspondent Jaroslaw Popek of the leftist and Judeocentric GAZETA WYBORCZA wrote that Father Jankowski said (p. 80):

“We cannot tolerate any longer the rule of those who haven’t declared whether they come from Moscow or Israel.”

Here’s what Fr. Jankowski actually said: “The representatives you elected…ostensibly Poles, but who had declared their origins from Israel or from Moscow”.

Popek also quoted Jankowski as saying: “I did not include the Star of David because it is already embodied in the symbols of the Swastika and the Hammer and Sickle.”

Now here’s what Fr. Jankowski actually said: “…the sign of David is subsumed under these two symbols and for this reason I have no need to include it.”

This can be interpreted in various ways, as there were many different symbols present at that re-creation of the Good Friday grave of Christ which doubled as a symbol of the death of patriotic Poland—see p. 75. Ironically, the presence of many symbols of Polish loss itself refutes the premise that Fr. Jankowski is singling out Jews as scapegoats.

The “Jews rule” and “Swastika=Star” are words put into Fr. Jankowski’s mouth by Popek, perhaps deliberately to discredit him. Clearly, Fr. Jankowski is only driving home the point that he objects to foreigners deciding Poland’s fate, regardless of their origins. He is in no way implying that Nazis, Communists, and Jews are equivalent to each other! [In another context, Cardinal Glemp had been misrepresented as saying that Jews control the western press. Actually, he said that Jews have considerable sympathetic access to the press.]

Author Raina explains why he considers Jews in influential positions not only incompatible with traditional Polishness, but also hostile to the same: “They [influential Jews and former Communists] act according to three slogans: cosmopolitanism, “Europeanism”, and anti-clericalism. Whoever does not adhere to one of these three is labeled an unenlightened fool.” (pp. 70-71). Such concerns must also be placed in the broader context of objectionable xenocracy, as Jerzy Pelc put it. (p. 129).

Double standards are a constant. Poles are free to criticize other Poles, Russians, Germans, “those greedy Americans”, etc., but not Jews–lest they get labeled anti-Semites. If anti-Semitism is uncivilized and a sin, why isn’t anti-Polonism? Poles tell themselves, and are told by others, that Fr. Jankowski’s remarks are an embarrassment to Poland and to the Church, but no one, Pole or Jew, suggests that, for example, Yitzhak Shamir’s “Poles drink anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk” remark is an embarrassment to Jews, Judaism, and Israel.  President Lech Walesa was told that his scheduled meeting with President Clinton was off until he denounced Fr. Jankowski, but who ever heard of a comparable development in reverse? (p. 92). Polish Catholic spokesmen denounce Father Jankowski, yet are deafeningly silent about such things as Rabbi Weiss’ profanation of the crosses during the Carmelite controversy, and former Jewish Communist Jerzy Urban’s constant scurrilous attacks on Pope John Paul II and the Church. (p. 87).  In fact, Urbach/Urban’s vulgar anti-Catholic cartoons bear an eerie resemblance to Goebbels’s and Streicher’s anti-Semitic ones in DER EWIGE JUDE and DER STUERMER. (p. 74; see photos after p. 256).


Review of Ksiadz Henryk Jankowski Walczy o Prawde, by Peter Raina (1999). Von Borowiecki, Warszawa. Reviewer: Mr. Jan Peczkis

An Encyclopedic Account of Father Jankowski’s Work

Title: FATHER JANKOWSKI FIGHTS FOR THE TRUTH. Raina summarizes and extends his earlier works [links]. This book has an extensive photo and document collection (including that of President Reagan’s visit: p. 346), a table of churches the priest had planted all over Poland and further east (p. 332), and another table of Father Jankowski’s many achievements and awards. (pp. 333-335). Agree with him or nor, but recognize that Fr. Jankowski is no lightweight!

Even during the days preceding Solidarity and Martial Law, Fr. Jankowski had already been a thorn on the side of the authorities. St. Brygida’s Church itself had existed for centuries, and was a central point of Polish-ness during the prewar days of the Free City of Danzig. It survived WWII combat, only to be torched by the Soviets upon their taking of the city in March 1945, and wasn’t rebuilt for 25 years for political reasons.

Procurator Grazyna Wawryniuk believed that Fr. Jankowski had implied some kind of association between the Star and Swastika, but admitted that he had never actually verbalized any such connection (p. 260), and that the whole thing had basically been taken out of context. (p. 261). Later, Father Jankowski received death threats (p. 264). He asked why nothing is ever said against Jews who equate the Cross with the Swastika. (p. 223). (To say nothing about a more respectable form of the same, wherein academics blame Christianity for the Holocaust, even though Nazism was not a Christian movement—to the contrary, an anti-Christian one that viewed Christianity as an effeminate, Jewish invention). Interestingly, in another context, Rabbi Renee-Samuel Sirat was quoted as saying that Jews need to acknowledge and apologize for their misdeeds. (p. 310).

Considering such things as the friendships that Fr. Jankowski has had with Jews over the years, his work in ecumenism, and his education, it is almost impossible to suppose that he actually believes that Jews are equivalent to Nazis. But how could Jews and Nazi Germany even be ostensibly alluded to in the same sentence other than in a victim-victimizer relationship? Father Jankowski grieved over the Holocaust, but also asserted that Jews paved the way for Hitler to come to power. (p. 222). He was apparently alluding to the central role influential German Jews had in such things as making Germany an industrial power–which of course made WII German conquests possible. [This fact is corroborated by none other than Albert Speer, who knew more about German arms manufacture than anyone else: see the Peczkis review of INSIDE THE THIRD REICH [link]]. The reader must also understand Fr. Jankowski’s views in their Polonocentric context: Throughout much of pre-Nazi recent history, there existed a German-Jewish symbiosis, and Jews and Germans were on the same side against Poland. Ferocious German anti-Semitism was a relatively recent development.

Charges of inciting violence are a common left-wing technique used to silence speech. A local Jewish teenager had been beaten by a thug, and the charge was made that Fr. Jankowski’s sermons had incited the violence. Wouldn’t you know it—it turned out that the assailant had never heard the priest’s sermons. (p. 316).

In his sermon of January 10, 1999, Fr. Jankowski said: “…I remind you that the Church cannot and never has looked with indifference upon Poland’s fate…We cannot applaud the ideologues who are animated by the atheization of society, and the promotion of materialism and consumerism, liberalism and moral relativism, and the discarding of the Gospel…You can go ahead and call me an anti-Semite, a dolt, or whatever other absurd epithet you can think of, to put me into some media-invented category…none of this will alter my support for our Nation… I warn all of you who are so passionate about attaching labels such as anti-Semitism, fascism, intolerance, and xenophobia to those who disagree with you—unless you are capable to deep thinking and the building of bridges to those of other viewpoints—you have no understanding of what democracy is about, let alone Christianity.” (pp. 327-329)

By piotrbein