Oct 1 Bishop Williamson column
#61
(10-02-2011, 01:29 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 09:55 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 11:50 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Does this mean the movie E.T. is really about demon worship?

It's interesting that a movie about an ugly little alien isn't given a character with parallels to Moses or Abraham.  but he is given a "heartlight" (sacred heart) and a healing touch and of course has a death and resurrection.   

Are you saying Spielberg thinks the Catholic Church was founded by an alien? 

Who cares what he thinks? But, I thought that was one heck of an insight.

Let's carry it further, shall we?. The scientists who want to capture E.T. are the Scribes and Pharisees. And there is also an "ascension" as he returns home. Of course bratty little kids from California on BX's have to help save the day. You know how important children are these days. They're all very smart as well.

And of course ET is in contact with the "heavenly realm" by phone rather than prayer. Hey, it's a modern era, let your fingers do the walking. The only thing he did not do was create Reese's Pieces when they had run out at the Halloween Party.

One of my relatives once said about one of my children's toys, that he looked like E.T. He replied, "who's E.T.?" Relative could not believe I would not let my children watch it. Now I have more ammo if the question or disbelief ever occurs in the future.
Reply
#62
Wait, why is the fact that there might be some Christian themes in a popular movie a bad thing?
Reply
#63
(10-02-2011, 08:05 AM)archdiocesan Wrote: Right, so because I haven't taken the time to immerse myself in a nutball subculture, that means my acceptance of the mainstream historical narrative is unwarranted.

No. But don't kid yourself about the reality. Your acceptance of the mainstream narrative is based on faith and your condemnation of any alternative is based on ignorance. 

Quote:Do you take the same view with regard to "controversies" surrounding whether Elvis is still alive?

I don't really care about that in particular. So, I tend towards his having died back in the 70s. But I don't call people nutjobs when I haven't looked into it. 

Quote: Whether the Earth is hollow and contains Nazi flying saucers? Whether the Moon landings were faked?

Again, if I wanted to pursue an interest in any of those issues, I would since I have no firsthand knowledge of any of those events. Everything about them true or false is at least secondhand info. 

Quote: There will always be a minority whose appetite for the sensational exceeds their respect for the critical faculties God gave them.

That's a rather smug attitude when you base your beliefs not on your faculties but faith and ignorance. 

Quote: Yes, there are true conspiracies in history: the preparations for the Russian Revolution, and the plans laid down at the Wannsee Conference, offer two good examples of men organising in secret to bring about evil ends.

This ties into your tendency towards papalotry.  You only accept the possibility of a conspiracy after it has been historically claimed and mainstreamed.  As if the conspiracy didn't exist when it was being concocted.  That's like saying there's no problem in the Church unless the Pope says there is. 

Quote: How do we know about these conspiracies? Because the historical evidence is sufficient to warrant belief in them.

In other words, no conspiracies exist except in the past.  Somehow that allows you to smear and denigrate the process that uncovers an alternative view of history until there's  been a change in the mainstream. 

Quote: +Williamson's claims about 9/11 and the Holocaust are based on discredited theories and/or "findings" (the nanothermite claims, the Leuchter report), and depend on ignoring any evidence inconvenient to the conspiracist narrative.

Actually, it's the other way around. The fact that you stop at the first exchange doesn't mean you declare the winner.  That's Al Gore's trick with selling,(not proving) Global Warming. "There is no debate. Any credible scientist will say...."  You can read Popular Machanics "Debunking 911" and then read David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 911 Debunking" and we'll wait to see if Popular Mechanics addresses or corrects their original position.

But in either case, true or false, the tone and smearing is more evidence of a person unconfident in their position. Much like the anti-intellectual Atheists that consider a "rant" and "argument" and even when they present an argument, they fail to include pertinant data, they fail to present an accurate representation of the position they wish to debunk, and they avoid at all costs making an accounting of their own work. 


Quote: People saying they saw an aeroplane hit the Pentagon? Bushite stooges! People saying they oversaw the operation of gas chambers? Allied propaganda! It's conspiracy all the way down.

Hitler's Pope was Pius XII.  The Inquisition killed 50 million people. The Pope wanted the Holy Lands for himself so he started the Crusades.  Christopher Columbus was told by "Catholic Spain" that if he went too far, he would sail off the edge of the world. (Because those oddball Medieval people were idiots who thought the world was flat.)  Evolution, Eugenics, Global Warming, and a whole host of bizarre theories in Quantum Mechanics are taken as gospel.

Quote: The fact that I can compose a counternarrative to what the overwhelming evidence shows with respect to, say, 9/11, or the Holocaust, does not make that counternarrative equally probable or valid.

You can just as easily claim evidence that doesn't exist.  For example the Inquistion Torture Chambers with the Iron Maiden, the pear, the Wheel, the Rack etc. "rebuilt" to suit the tourists and propagandize against the Church. It could be just like "rebuilt" gas chambers to claim crimes that didn't happen to victims that never existed with not a shred of evidence. 

But again, the fact that you smear in ignorance, not even as a propagandist who actually invents evidence where there is none is such an irrational approach along with being dishonest. 

Quote:To claim otherwise is to embrace the kind of relativism that +Williamson and his internet fanboys claim to reject.

You presuppose that a counternarrative or even a criticism of the inconsistencies of the popular narrative is automatically in error.  Not so. If the logic is sound and thorough and the criticism is valid, it can only lead one towards the truth whether it's leads to the counternarrative or the popular narrative or a blend or even a third alternative is what is denied by the irrational bashing. 


Quote: Since the Gospel has at its heart a series of historical claims, for Christians to be so casual with the claims of history is disgraceful. There are plenty of people out there who equate Catholicism with irrationality; we have an obligation to show them that they're wrong, not offer supporting evidence for their mistaken prejudices.

Maybe those who view Catholicism with irrationality are irrational themselves.  They are already disconnected from reality in a very real way by their criticism of and failure to belong to the Church.  Someone like Michael Shermer claims to be rational and he's not in the slightest way.  He composes narratives based on dubious psychology, half truths and bad philosophy to "debunk" everything he doesn't like from 9/11 doubters to the Catholic Church to God Himself.  I'll take Williamson seriously any day over a 'respected" charlatan like that.
Reply
#64
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, sited by Bp. Williamson in his Oct. 1 column, speaks in no uncertain terms when it comes to exposing the threats he sees eroding our civil liberties.  Here's his latest article which sounds very reasonable to me.

Is the War on Terror a Hoax?

Infowars.com
October 2, 2011

In the past decade, Washington has killed, maimed, dislocated, and made widows and orphans millions of Muslims in six countries, all in the name of the “war on terror.” Washington’s attacks on the countries constitute naked aggression and impact primarily civilian populations and infrastructure and, thereby, constitute war crimes under law. Nazis were executed precisely for what Washington is doing today.

Moreover the wars and military attacks have cost American taxpayers in out-of-pocket and already-incurred future costs at least $4,000 billion dollars – one third of the accumulated public debt – resulting in a US deficit crisis that threatens the social safety net, the value of the US dollar and its reserve currency role, while enriching beyond all previous history the military/security complex and its apologists.

Perhaps the highest cost of Washington’s “war on terror” has been paid by the US Constitution and civil liberties. Any US citizen that Washington accuses is deprived of all legal and constitutional rights. The Bush-Cheney-Obama regimes have overturned humanity’s greatest achievement – the accountability of government to law.

If we look around for the terror that the police state and a decade of war has allegedly protected us from, the terror is hard to find. Except for 9/11 itself, assuming we accept the government’s improbable conspiracy theory explanation, there have been no terror attacks on the US. Indeed, as RT pointed out on August 23, 2011, an investigative program at the University of California discovered that the domestic “terror plots” hyped in the media were plotted by FBI agents.

FBI undercover agents now number 15,000, ten times their number during the protests against the Vietnam war when protesters were suspected of communist sympathies. As there apparently are no real terror plots for this huge workforce to uncover, the FBI justifies its budget, terror alerts, and invasive searches of American citizens by thinking up “terror plots” and finding some deranged individuals to ensnare. For example, the Washington DC Metro bombing plot, the New York city subway plot, the plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago were all FBI brainchilds organized and managed by FBI agents.

RT reports that only three plots might have been independent of the FBI, but as none of the three worked they obviously were not the work of such a professional terror organization as Al Qaeda is purported to be. The Times Square car bomb didn’t blow up, and apparently could not have.

The latest FBI sting ensnared a Boston man, Rezwan Ferdaus, who is accused of planning to attack the Pentagon and US Capitol with model airplanes packed with C-4 explosives. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz assured Americans that they were never in danger, because the FBI’s undercover agents were in control of the plot.

Ferdaus’ FBI-organized plot to blow up the Pentagon and US Capitol with model airplanes has produced charges that he provided “material support to a terrorist organization” and plotted to destroy federal buildings – the most serious charge which carries 20 imprisoned years for each targeted building.

What is the terrorist organization that Ferdaus is serving? Surely not al Qaeda, which allegedly outwitted all 16 US intelligence services, all intelligence services of America’s NATO and Israeli allies, NORAD, the National Security Council, Air Traffic Control, Dick Cheney, and US airport security four times in one hour on the same morning. Such a highly capable terror organization would not be involved in such nonsense as a plot to blow up the Pentagon with a model airplane.

As an American who was in public service for a number of years and who has always stood up for the Constitution, a patriot’s duty, I must hope that the question has already popped into readers’ minds why we are expected to believe that a tiny model airplane is capable of blowing up the Pentagon when a 757 airliner loaded with jet fuel was incapable of doing the job, merely making a hole not big enough for an airliner.

When I observe the gullibility of my fellow citizens at the absurd “terror plots” that the US government manufactures, it causes me to realize that fear is the most powerful weapon any government has for advancing an undeclared agenda. If Ferdaus is brought to trial, no doubt a jury will convict him of a plot to blow up the Pentagon and US Capitol with model airplanes. Most likely he will be tortured or coerced into a plea bargain.

Apparently, Americans, or most of them, are so ruled by fear that they suffer no remorse from “their” government’s murder and dislocation of millions of innocent people. In the American mind, one billion “towel-heads” have been reduced to terrorists who deserve to be exterminated. The US is on its way to a holocaust that makes the terrors Jews faced from National Socialism into a mere precursor.

Think about this: Are not you amazed that after a decade (2.5 times the length of WW II) of killing Muslims and destroying families and their prospects in six countries there are no real terrorist events in the US?

Think for a minute how easy terrorism would be in the US if there were any terrorists. Would an Al Qaeda terrorist from the organization that allegedly pulled off 9/11 – the most humiliating defeat ever suffered by a Western power, much less “the world’s only superpower” – still in the face of all the screening be trying to hijack an airliner or to blow one up?

Surely not when there are so many totally soft targets. If America were really infected with a “terrorist threat,” a terrorist would merely get in the massive lines awaiting to clear airport “security” and set off his bomb. It would kill far more people than could be achieved by blowing up an airliner, and it would make it completely clear that “airport security” meant no one was safe.
It would be child’s pay for terrorists to blow up electric substations as no one is there, nothing but a chain link fence. It would be easy for terrorists to blow up shopping centers. It would be easy for terrorists to dump boxes of roofing nails on congested streets and freeways during rush hours, tying up main transportation arteries for days.

Before, dear reader, you accuse me of giving terrorists ideas, do you really think that these ideas would not already have occurred to terrorists capable of pulling off 9/11?

But nothing happens. So the FBI arrests a guy for planning to blow up America with a model airplane. It is really depressing how many Americans will believe this.

Consider also that American neoconservatives, who have orchestrated the “war on terror,” have no protection whatsoever and that the Secret Service protection of Bush and Cheney is minimal. If America really faced a terrorist threat, especially one so professional to have brought off 9/11, every neoconservative along with Bush and Cheney could be assassinated within one hour on one morning or one evening.

The fact that neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, William Kristol, Libby, Addington, et. al., live unprotected and free of fear is proof that America faces no terrorist threat.

Think now about the airliner shoe-bomb plot, the shampoo-bottled water plot, and the underwear-bomb plot. Experts, other than the whores hired by the US government, say that these plots are nonsensical. The “shoe bomb” and “underwear bomb” were colored fireworks powders incapable of blowing up a tin can. The liquid bomb, allegedly mixed up in an airliner toilet room, has been dismissed by experts as fantasy.

What is the purpose of these fake plots? And remember, all reports confirm that the “underwear bomber” was walked onto the airliner by an official, despite the fact that the “underwear bomber” had no passport. No investigation was ever conducted by the FBI, CIA, or anyone into why a passenger without a passport was allowed on an international flight.

The purpose of these make-believe plots is to raise the fear level and to create the opportunity for former Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff to make a fortune selling porno-scanners to the TSA.

The result of these hyped “terrorist plots” is that every American citizen, even those with high government positions and security clearances, cannot board a commercial airline flight without taking off his shoes, his jacket, his belt, submitting to a porno-scanner, or being sexually groped. Nothing could make it plainer that “airport security” cannot tell a Muslim terrorist from a gung-ho American patriot, a US Senator, a US Marine general, or a CIA operative.

If a passenger requires for health or other reasons quantities of liquids and cremes beyond the limits imposed on toothpaste, shampoo, food, or medications, the passenger must obtain prior approval from TSA, which seldom works. One of America’s finest moments is the case, documented on YouTube, of a dying woman in a wheelchair, who requires special food, having her food thrown away by the Gestapo TSA despite the written approval from the Transportation Safety Administration, her daughter arrested for protesting, and the dying woman in the wheelchair left alone in the airport.

This is Amerika today. These assaults on innocent citizens are justified by the mindless right-wing as “protecting us against terrorism,” a “threat” that all evidence shows is nonexistent.
No American is secure today. I am a former staff associate of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee. I required high security clearances as I had access to information pertaining to all US weapons programs. As chief economist of the House Budget Committee I had information pertaining to the US military and security budgets. As Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I was provided every morning with the CIA’s briefing of the President as well as with endless security information.

When I left the Treasury, President Reagan appointed me to a super-secret committee to investigate the CIA’s assessment of Soviet capability. Afterwards I was a consultant to the Pentagon. I had every kind of security clearance.

Despite my record of highest security clearances and US government confidence in me including confirmation by the US Senate in a presidential appointment, the airline police cannot tell me from a terrorist.

If I were into model airplanes or attending antiwar demonstrations, little doubt I, too, would be arrested.

After my public service in the last quarter of the 20th century, I experienced during the first decade of the 21st century all of America’s achievements, despite their blemishes, being erased. In their
place was erected a monstrous desire for hegemony and highly concentrated wealth. Most of my friends and my fellow citizens in general are incapable of recognizing America’s transformation into a warmonger police state that has the worst income distribution of any developed country.

It is extraordinary that so many Americans, citizens of the world’s only superpower, actually believe that they are threatened by Muslim peoples who have no unity, no navy, no air force, no nuclear weapons, no missiles capable of reaching across the oceans.

Indeed, large percentages of these “threat populations,” especially among the young, are enamored of the sexual freedom that exists in America. Even the Iranian dupes of the CIA-orchestrated “Green Revolution” have forgotten Washington’s overthrow of their elected government in the 1950s. Despite America’s decade-long abusive military actions against Muslim peoples, many Muslims still look to America for their salvation.

Their “leaders” are simply bought off with large sums of money.

With the “terrorist threat” and Al Qaeda deflated with President Obama’s alleged assassination of its leader, Osama bin Laden, who was left unprotected and unarmed by his “worldwide terrorist
organization,” Washington has come up with a new bogeyman – the Haqqanis.

John Glaser reports that, according to anonymous CIA officials, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen “exaggerated” the case against the Haqqani insurgent group when he claimed, setting up a US invasion of Pakistan, that the Haqqanis were an operating arm of the Pakistan government’s secret service, the ISI. Adm. Mullen is now running from his “exaggeration,” an euphemism for a lie. His aid Captain John Kirby said that Mullen’s “accusations were designed to influence the Pakistanis to crack down on the Haqqani Network.” In other words, the Pakistanis should kill more of their own people to save the Americans the trouble.

If you don’t know what the Haqqani Network is, don’t be surprised. You never heard of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. The US government creates whatever new bogeymen and incidents are necessary to further the neoconservative agenda of world hegemony and higher profits for the armaments industry.

For ten years, the “superpower” American population has sat there, being terrified by the government’s lies. While Americans sit in fear of nonexistent “terrorists” sucking their thumbs, millions of people in six countries have had their lives destroyed. As far as any evidence exists, the vast majority of Americans are unperturbed by the wanton murder of others in countries that they are incapable of locating on maps.

Truly, Amerika is a light unto the world, an example for all.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House.
Reply
#65
(09-30-2011, 11:38 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Whoever can't take his Excellency seriously, doesn't take the truth seriously.
Many of you here, already drank the cool-aid and 9/11. No one here is calling you nut jobs. Much less behind your backs.
If you were to face Monsgr Williamson and tell him personally that he is a nut job, I doubt you would do it. You probably could not hold a serious conversation with him. I think we all pale in comparison to him regarding education. The man is extremely well educated, well read, and unlike many of you, he calls out falsehoods.
If you disagree with his view, then just post it. But don't show your ignorance by posting that his Excellency is a "nut job."

For all you labeled "truthers", don't give in!

For the rest of you, then, keep posting about your favorite topics like: "How to be reverent while attending the NO mass" or something like that.

Excellent rebuttal
Reply
#66
(10-02-2011, 03:24 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 08:05 AM)archdiocesan Wrote: Right, so because I haven't taken the time to immerse myself in a nutball subculture, that means my acceptance of the mainstream historical narrative is unwarranted.

No. But don't kid yourself about the reality. Your acceptance of the mainstream narrative is based on faith and your condemnation of any alternative is based on ignorance. 

Quote:Do you take the same view with regard to "controversies" surrounding whether Elvis is still alive?

I don't really care about that in particular. So, I tend towards his having died back in the 70s. But I don't call people nutjobs when I haven't looked into it. 

Quote: Whether the Earth is hollow and contains Nazi flying saucers? Whether the Moon landings were faked?

Again, if I wanted to pursue an interest in any of those issues, I would since I have no firsthand knowledge of any of those events. Everything about them true or false is at least secondhand info. 

Quote: There will always be a minority whose appetite for the sensational exceeds their respect for the critical faculties God gave them.

That's a rather smug attitude when you base your beliefs not on your faculties but faith and ignorance. 

Quote: Yes, there are true conspiracies in history: the preparations for the Russian Revolution, and the plans laid down at the Wannsee Conference, offer two good examples of men organising in secret to bring about evil ends.

This ties into your tendency towards papalotry.  You only accept the possibility of a conspiracy after it has been historically claimed and mainstreamed.  As if the conspiracy didn't exist when it was being concocted.  That's like saying there's no problem in the Church unless the Pope says there is. 

Quote: How do we know about these conspiracies? Because the historical evidence is sufficient to warrant belief in them.

In other words, no conspiracies exist except in the past.  Somehow that allows you to smear and denigrate the process that uncovers an alternative view of history until there's  been a change in the mainstream. 

Quote: +Williamson's claims about 9/11 and the Holocaust are based on discredited theories and/or "findings" (the nanothermite claims, the Leuchter report), and depend on ignoring any evidence inconvenient to the conspiracist narrative.

Actually, it's the other way around. The fact that you stop at the first exchange doesn't mean you declare the winner.  That's Al Gore's trick with selling,(not proving) Global Warming. "There is no debate. Any credible scientist will say...."  You can read Popular Machanics "Debunking 911" and then read David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 911 Debunking" and we'll wait to see if Popular Mechanics addresses or corrects their original position.

But in either case, true or false, the tone and smearing is more evidence of a person unconfident in their position. Much like the anti-intellectual Atheists that consider a "rant" and "argument" and even when they present an argument, they fail to include pertinant data, they fail to present an accurate representation of the position they wish to debunk, and they avoid at all costs making an accounting of their own work. 


Quote: People saying they saw an aeroplane hit the Pentagon? Bushite stooges! People saying they oversaw the operation of gas chambers? Allied propaganda! It's conspiracy all the way down.

Hitler's Pope was Pius XII.  The Inquisition killed 50 million people. The Pope wanted the Holy Lands for himself so he started the Crusades.  Christopher Columbus was told by "Catholic Spain" that if he went too far, he would sail off the edge of the world. (Because those oddball Medieval people were idiots who thought the world was flat.)  Evolution, Eugenics, Global Warming, and a whole host of bizarre theories in Quantum Mechanics are taken as gospel.

Quote: The fact that I can compose a counternarrative to what the overwhelming evidence shows with respect to, say, 9/11, or the Holocaust, does not make that counternarrative equally probable or valid.

You can just as easily claim evidence that doesn't exist.  For example the Inquistion Torture Chambers with the Iron Maiden, the pear, the Wheel, the Rack etc. "rebuilt" to suit the tourists and propagandize against the Church. It could be just like "rebuilt" gas chambers to claim crimes that didn't happen to victims that never existed with not a shred of evidence. 

But again, the fact that you smear in ignorance, not even as a propagandist who actually invents evidence where there is none is such an irrational approach along with being dishonest. 

Quote:To claim otherwise is to embrace the kind of relativism that +Williamson and his internet fanboys claim to reject.

You presuppose that a counternarrative or even a criticism of the inconsistencies of the popular narrative is automatically in error.  Not so. If the logic is sound and thorough and the criticism is valid, it can only lead one towards the truth whether it's leads to the counternarrative or the popular narrative or a blend or even a third alternative is what is denied by the irrational bashing. 


Quote: Since the Gospel has at its heart a series of historical claims, for Christians to be so casual with the claims of history is disgraceful. There are plenty of people out there who equate Catholicism with irrationality; we have an obligation to show them that they're wrong, not offer supporting evidence for their mistaken prejudices.

Maybe those who view Catholicism with irrationality are irrational themselves.  They are already disconnected from reality in a very real way by their criticism of and failure to belong to the Church.  Someone like Michael Shermer claims to be rational and he's not in the slightest way.  He composes narratives based on dubious psychology, half truths and bad philosophy to "debunk" everything he doesn't like from 9/11 doubters to the Catholic Church to God Himself.  I'll take Williamson seriously any day over a 'respected" charlatan like that.
These are some of the best arguments I have ever read onj the side the so-called "conspiracy theories". Just out of curiosity where do you read up on these various topics? I read Lew Rockwell and Infowars but at times am a little weary of Alex Jones.
Reply
#67
Obviously he reads a great deal, but everything in that exposition by Gerard comes out of logic and knowing how to think clearly.

At least that's how I see it.

Some people are climbing up the mountain, most are at the base camp arguing with the experts.

The PTB like when you hang out at the base camp and argue with the "experts".
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)