Bishop Williamson to "reexamine" evidence of Holocaust
#11
Gerard Wrote:Does anyone know if the full hour video is available?  I'll bet it's dynamite. 

It's available here.  (I haven't watched it yet.)
Reply
#12
LaRoza Wrote:I would think the best course of action would be to not actually publish his new conclusion. Given the data he used, he can always find something to revise, so if he says "After further research, my original statements were false." and leaves it at that, he'll have done what is necessary. And furthermore, if he is asked what his opinion is, he can say he is not authorized to speak on that subject and it is not his area of expertise and any questioning will be an obvious attempt against him.

Interesting thought, but he'd look like he just kowtowed and is being disingenuous. He will probably cite certain facts (proving he's actually done more research) and then state something to the effect that "there is credible evidence" that there were in fact gas chambers for gassing prisoners, or something to that effect. He could cite strong evidence on the other side without completely stating he's changed his position. That will satisfy "distance". Or if he really does a 180 I think he would want to explain exactly why so he doesn't look like he's just lying out of weakness in order to get faculties.
Reply
#13
StevusMagnus Wrote:
LaRoza Wrote:I would think the best course of action would be to not actually publish his new conclusion. Given the data he used, he can always find something to revise, so if he says "After further research, my original statements were false." and leaves it at that, he'll have done what is necessary. And furthermore, if he is asked what his opinion is, he can say he is not authorized to speak on that subject and it is not his area of expertise and any questioning will be an obvious attempt against him.

Interesting thought, but he'd look like he just kowtowed and is being disingenuous. He will probably cite certain facts (proving he's actually done more research) and then state something to the effect that "there is credible evidence" that there were in fact gas chambers for gassing prisoners, or something to that effect. He could cite strong evidence on the other side without completely stating he's changed his position. That will satisfy "distance". Or if he really does a 180 I think he would want to explain exactly why so he doesn't look like he's just lying out of weakness in order to get faculties.

It may look that way, but the way I see it in my not so humble opinion:

* If he agrees with "mainstream", he will most likely be seen as lying to appease the masses. I don't think this will happen, which leads to:
* If he revises his stance, and it is still not the "mainstream" view, he will be equally crucified, as that is exactly what he did in the first place. He didn't deny the Holocaust, just the existance of gas chambers and the number of dead Jews. If he doesn't cite the same numbers, he'll be seen as a "denier" again anyway.
* If he keeps his opinion to himself, and only acknowledges that he was wrong (which, almost any subject given enough review will be revised) and it is not his area of expertise (which is why he relies on others opinions and research in the first place), he'll have appeased the critics on the face (though they'll want him to parrot him, as all fanatics) and will close the issue and anyone who asks him what his opinion is, obviously has an agenda (which would be obvious) because it is not his area of expertise.

The fourth option is to grow dreads and retire to the desert and slay heretics with a jaw bone of an ass.
Reply
#14
StevusMagnus Wrote:Interesting thought, but he'd look like he just kowtowed and is being disingenuous. He will probably cite certain facts (proving he's actually done more research) and then state something to the effect that "there is credible evidence" that there were in fact gas chambers for gassing prisoners, or something to that effect. He could cite strong evidence on the other side without completely stating he's changed his position. That will satisfy "distance". Or if he really does a 180 I think he would want to explain exactly why so he doesn't look like he's just lying out of weakness in order to get faculties.


I think we've reached the point of stand-off with this. 

Bishop Williamson has said "he needs time."  The media has a low attention span and the liberal Jewish groups do not want serious investigation of the holocaust  to be given attention.  I think they are going to drop it.  They've dragged it out and they are going to drop it and this will be one of those little mysteries that caused an uproar and will not be heard about again.

I think the Pope will say "enough" in his upcoming meetings with the ADL and all of the other insufferable liberals setting themselves up as representatives of all jews and all jewish interests.




Reply
#15
Of course he could always yank their chains and declare that his research indicated that it was 60 million killed and he could call the rest of them "deniers" and "anti-semites." 
Reply
#16
Marisa Wrote:
Gerard Wrote:Does anyone know if the full hour video is available?  I'll bet it's dynamite. 

It's available here.  (I haven't watched it yet.)


I'm about 2 minutes into it and the interviewer has already shown himself to be a total scumbag.
Reply
#17

Update:  I had actually hoped to see the whole hour of footage of Bishop Williamson.  The only part of that interview is what we've seen. 

The ironic part of this is that the interviewers biggest gripe is that the Church of Sweden allowed "these types of people" to use "our Churches."  The nerve.  Churches stolen from the Catholic Church and he acts like they are not stolen goods. 

Also, it's apparant that the people of Sweden are oppressed by liberalism.  They are afraid when they are on camera, the Swedish Protestants squirm and shake when confronted with agreeing or disagreeing with Bishop Williamson.

Also interesting was the diocesan priest who was sympathetic to the SSPX and wished to have his identity hidden. 

Meanwhile, they try to present the SSPX as a secret society undermining Swedish liberalism and they then say that the SSPX doesn't hide their agenda, "To make Sweden Catholic again."

Who is this guy who did this?  He needs to be interviewed by John Vennari or Michael Semin or some Trad reporter who can get the real deal. 




Reply
#18
The fact that the reporter is a complete weasel is obvious from the beginning. First he was dishonest and lied to Williamson that it would only be religious discussion. Then he blindsided him obviously trying to get him to admit on camera the holocaust never happened in Germany and that he was an anti-semite so he could be arrested. Then he sits on the footage and releases it days before the remitting of the ex-coms is to be announced to embarass the Pope. The guy was a B-rate interviewer. I wouldn't be surprised if he were just some liberal toady posing as a reporter. We already know that some high profile anti-Catholics and one Vatican mole were in on this. It's dispicable.
Reply
#19
Marisa Wrote:It's available here.  (I haven't watched it yet.)

It's very clear from the word 'go' that the whole documentary was designed to make the SSPX look like a bunch of kooks and "extremists" (the great bug-a-boo label, right after "anti-Semite"). It's a total hit piece. Woe to the interviewer on the Last Day.

On another note, judging by the tone of the documentary, it's sad to see how blind Europeans have become to the invasion of their lands by Mohammedans.
Reply
#20
I love the foreboding music in the background, as they distinguish the boy did not become Catholic but joined...."this group"...drum beat..eerie music.

I guess later on they play the Williamson piece to basically say that the SSPX is anti-semitic, Neo-Nazi, Holocaust denying cult.

It really is quite humorous to me who knows better, but the uninformed PC masses will probably eat this up & believe it.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)