- Status
M
maurin
Guest
using the media as examples–probably not going to convince too many people.
what else you got?
E
Ella
Guest
Ah, I see your point. Sorry.
Bishop Williamson wrote:
“by the media, which are tightly controlled by a handful of Judeo-masons, the people who also control finance and the governments.”
Does this mean Bishop Williamson believes the “Judeo-masons” control not only media but finance and ‘the governments’?
Is that an anti-semitic belief?
Bishop Williamson wrote:
“by the media, which are tightly controlled by a handful of Judeo-masons, the people who also control finance and the governments.”
Does this mean Bishop Williamson believes the “Judeo-masons” control not only media but finance and ‘the governments’?
Is that an anti-semitic belief?
E
Ella
Guest
One more: stas.org/publications/letter/2001/October/October.shtml
“In the Catholic Middle Ages the Jews were relatively impotent to harm Christendom, but as Catholics have grown over the centuries since then weaker and weaker in the faith, especially since Vatican II, so the Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion.”
It appears that Bishop Williamson believes that the Jews have a goal of achieving “world dominion”. This is consistent with his endorsement of the “Protocols of Zion” and is indeed anti-semitic.
“In the Catholic Middle Ages the Jews were relatively impotent to harm Christendom, but as Catholics have grown over the centuries since then weaker and weaker in the faith, especially since Vatican II, so the Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion.”
It appears that Bishop Williamson believes that the Jews have a goal of achieving “world dominion”. This is consistent with his endorsement of the “Protocols of Zion” and is indeed anti-semitic.
P
pnewton
Guest
Surely you are not endorsing Satan’s tactics of making lies mixed with truth acceptable are you? You know there was a reason that a prophet was rejected and stoned for even once speaking lies. Trying to see truth in something founded on a lie is absurdly short-sighted.
M
maurin
Guest
If the premise is false, then yes, I would consider it an anti-semitic belief.
But if it is True, then no, I would not consider it in that light, coupled with, and in the light of, the Talmudic labeling of Our Lady and Our Lord as ‘whore’ and ‘bastard.’
pnewton,
no, I think you are confusing–or I haven’t made myself clear–what I’m trying to say.
the liberal’s tactics are no different than–at the very least, similar to-- the tactics used by the anti-Catholics who inhabit the ‘apologetics’ fora of this and many other Catholic sites.
I am willing to admit that the Bishop’s allusion to the Protocols in the link that Ella provided is at least unfortunate, at most ridiculous. However, is the Bishop endorsing the ridiculous notion that the Jews used the blood of Christian infants in the making of the Passover bread? I doubt that. Do you?
This is why I am saying that the liberal’s tactics are similar to the anti-Catholics’: our veneration of Mary has been manipulated by them as the worship of Mary, Our Beloved Mother.
The Bishop’s unfortunate allusion to the Protocol’s–and an allusion is all that has been made, not qualified by him in the links provided by others (for which I thank them, as I have said and now repeat, I’m paying attention and listening and willing to listen to more)–does not make him automatically an anti-semite.
The proof so far has me listening, but has not yet caused me to change my overall opinion of the Bishop.
I am, however, interested in the Truth of the matter. If a Bishop of the Church is an anti-semite in a similar vein as the neo-nazi groups are anti-semite, then of course I would agree that he has no business being a Bishop of the Church. But noone has convinced me as yet by the evidence provided that this is the case of Bishop Williamson.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think I agree with this. I at least understand the neccissity to treat him with a little more even-handedness. I find my self very much in the middle of this issue, despising the treatment from the media and response of the Jewish community, while at the same time I see the need for the Church make its postition clearly opposed to all hatred. I also do not like to see support for the Bishop from his fans that are blind to the problems this intervies has called.
Ideally, some time in a monastery until this blows over would be the best for all.
R
Rogerteder
Guest
Well given the fact that there are some Jews themselves, who question the number of Jews killed in the holocaust, I believe,it is not necessarily ant-semitic to question the numbers. Don’t you?
R
Rogerteder
Guest
For example, here is a quote from a paper in Switzerland that questioned the number (6 million) of Jews Killed. I dont see this as anti-semitic at all.
Six Million?
“There is no real evidence for the incessantly repeated claim that the German exterminated six million Jews. It is clear, though, that millions of Jews “survived” German rule during the Second World War, including many who were interned in Auschwitz and other so-called “extermination camps.” This fact alone should raise serious doubts about the extermination story. A leading newspaper of neutral Switzerland, the daily “Baseler Nachrichten”, carefully estimated in June 1946 that no more than 1.5 million European Jews could have perished under German rule during the war (“Baseler Nachrichten”, June 13, 1946, p.2).”
Others who deny six million–
quote
“Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.”
quotes from some Jewish historians–are these people anti-semetic or are they just trying to be objective?
"Auschwitz
So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be “denial.” But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History: “…From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz , but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural’ causes than by ‘unnatural’ ones." [9]
Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz – allegedly the main extermination center – are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. [10] Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: “Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945.” [11]
Is it “Holocaust denial” to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]
Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote: 14}
Gas Chambers
What about denying the existence of extermination “gas chambers”? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that “most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” 15}
Again, I dont think it is anti semitic to question some “facts” about the holocaust.
Six Million?
“There is no real evidence for the incessantly repeated claim that the German exterminated six million Jews. It is clear, though, that millions of Jews “survived” German rule during the Second World War, including many who were interned in Auschwitz and other so-called “extermination camps.” This fact alone should raise serious doubts about the extermination story. A leading newspaper of neutral Switzerland, the daily “Baseler Nachrichten”, carefully estimated in June 1946 that no more than 1.5 million European Jews could have perished under German rule during the war (“Baseler Nachrichten”, June 13, 1946, p.2).”
Others who deny six million–
quote
“Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.”
quotes from some Jewish historians–are these people anti-semetic or are they just trying to be objective?
"Auschwitz
So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be “denial.” But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History: “…From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz , but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural’ causes than by ‘unnatural’ ones." [9]
Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz – allegedly the main extermination center – are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. [10] Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: “Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945.” [11]
Is it “Holocaust denial” to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]
Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote: 14}
Code:
“… Many questions remain open ... All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a 'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time.”What about denying the existence of extermination “gas chambers”? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that “most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” 15}
Again, I dont think it is anti semitic to question some “facts” about the holocaust.
M
malphono
Guest
Uh … I never said that was “anti-semitic” in and of itself. OTOH, the agenda that drives most such groups, and the people in them, clearly is. And the ethic and/or religious affiliation of the group(s) (and members thereof) is of no consequence.
The main point, though, is that denial of history (or “revising history”) does not change history. The facts remain the facts, in spite of any particular agenda.
Quote all the revisionists you please. While you’re at it, why not quote the revisionist view of the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottomans? Or that of the Tutsi in Rwanda? Or the Janjawid’s actions in Darfur? Or Stalin’s treatment of Ukraine as well as the suppression of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church? It’s all out there. A revisionist theory for everything.
Anyway, here ends my participation in this discussion. This is nothing but a carousel going endlessly round and round.
L
Lujack
Guest
Besides, 1.1 million dead at Auschwitz alone is still several times more than Williamson’s numbers. Figuring in the other death camps, you still get close to the commonly accepted floor of 4 million.
I
I_Believe
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
Simply that almost every thread that goes very long seems to include him. The incident of Athanasius and Arianism is way over-used as a reason for defying the Holy Father at every turn by some, even though this was 1600 years ago, a singular exceptional case and the issue at hand was far more critical.Please explain
I apologize for dropping it on your post. Believe me, I know that you do not over use the example of St. Athanasius, as other have.
This is Godwin’s law:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
R
Rogerteder
Guest
I didnt quote revisionists I quoted independent sources. Some that were/are Jewsish themselves.
- Status