The True Holocaust


IMG_2041This piece was subsequently
published in the March 2009 issue of The Four Marks. Please visit their home site: www.thefourmarks.com.

As a big fan of Bishop Williamson, I have thought it prudent to stay quiet about the excommunications, the gotcha journalism of the Swedish television reporter waiting three months to air an interview, and the ensuing apology that Bishop Williamson gave for causing a media ruckus. When all the world is howling, the last thing you want is to give them more to howl about.

However, the Vatican communique on Wednesday of this week really was the last straw for me. Now, for the first time since the Vatican prior to 1960, someone from the clergy is being told he won't be considered Catholic unless he recants something – but, get this – that something is how that clergyman thinks regarding a historical topic.

Mind you - this is not Hans Kung being asked to renounce his heresies, or someone like von Balthasar to renounce his idea of "razing the bastions" of the Catholic Church - this is Bishop Williamson being asked to revise his opinion of the Holocaust.

I was so stunned when I first heard this. The first place I looked was the rite of Baptism - the rite that all of us - young or old - had to pass through to become a Catholic. The rite reads:

"N., quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei?"
"Fidem."
"Fides, quid tibi praestat?"
"Si igitur vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex tota mente tua, et proximum tuum sicut teipsum."

We ask of the Church of God faith. No more, no less.

The Holocaust Question

We are Christians. We are Christians because we profess Christ. I don't presume to tell Jews about their religion. I cannot believe that Jewish leaders find themselves competent to tell us how to be Christians.

So, there is a litmus test for being integrated into Catholicism now - but it isn't the Oath against Modernism, or the repudiation of heresy by a Protestant. Nope, it's the recognition of some abstract understanding - notice the note from the Secretary of State is purposely vague - of a historical event. We all know Jews were killed in World War II. So were a lot of gypsies, and Poles, and Catholics, and priests. The whole world suffered. That is a fact, and not a matter of opinion. But in the rise and fall of history, where things get discovered and refuted as centuries go on and more history comes to light, isn’t it foolish to believe that 50 years after an event, we know absolutely everything about it? I certainly have not investigated the Holocaust thoroughly. It is certain that Jews were killed - how they were killed, I'm not sure - because I'm not willing to pronounce definitively on events in history I haven't studied well. The point here isn't whether Jews were killed - Bishop Williamson admitted that in the interview - he said that Jews died in concentration camps. The point is that recognizing "how many" Jews were killed and "how" is hardly a matter of the Catholic Faith. How can any reasonable person argue thus? By the way, no one is arguing that it isn’t lamentable that Jews were killed for being Jews. It was a sad, terrible travesty. Let no one think this is about celebrating Jewish death.

However, what use is speaking of the Shoah and invoking "never forget" if all that matters is Jewish blood? There is a scene in Steven Spielberg's Munich that reminds me precisely of this. A character says in response to the death of an innocent bystander: "the only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood." If the Jews want us to "never forget" then don't let us forget about those who are innocent who are being slaughtered. Start by immediately ceasing Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians under the guise of "collateral damage."

Those of us who have read history find enormous cognitive dissonance in the modern state of Israel. One may recall one of the powerful scenes from Schindler's List where Jews are being evicted from their homes and their belongings are being flung off balconies and out of windows. Jews should know what it's like to lose their homes and lose their loved ones. Yet, we see not one ounce of this recollection in the current manifestation of Israel's militancy against the Palestinians – murdering them in the streets and bulldozing their homes.

The Excommunication Question

Joan of Arc died excommunicated and she was later declared a saint. This is singular proof and precedent that excommunications can be in error. They are certainly not doctrinal pronouncements. The fact that the four bishops had their excommunications lifted, while nothing was said about the two consecrating bishops, is at best disingenuous and at worst an offense against justice. Was the Archbishop acting according to his conscience or not? Dare the Vatican of Assisi recognize this? The question of a “papal mandate” was never in question for Bishop de Castro Mayer, who told anyone who would hear him on June 30, 1988, that “we have no pope.”

If the excommunications were indeed automatic, what changed in order for the excommunications to be lifted? What is changing now? That leads us to the one non-negotiable truth of the Novus Ordo Church that runs in tandem with Holocaust Denial – Vatican II denial.

The Vatican II Question

I have always been troubled by the formula proposed by Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre: "Vatican II in the light of tradition." Here is the actual text from the May 1988 Protocol: "Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics" (Laisney 73).

But here's the reality, and part of why the Archbishop "unsigned" or "withdrew his signature" from this document:

Vatican II in the light of Tradition? This is not possible.

We cannot view Vatican II in the light of tradition because Vatican II has nothing to do with Tradition. It has to do with Innovation. Innovation that at times directly contradicts previous papal teaching. How does the spirit and 40-years of proof and praxis of Sacrosanctum Concilium square with Pius XII's famous and forgotten Mediator Dei, in which the idea of archaism is repudiated: "Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical, would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of Divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstance and situation" (Pacelli 29). This is but one small example, but when a Novus Ordo document is compared to a papal encyclical, both ostensibly magisterial documents, and they are in opposition, what wins? The very fact that a Catholic has to ask such a question is an indication that things are gravely wrong.

Those of us who have studied this know that Vatican II cannot be simply swept under the rug and forgotten about. It happened. Fact. It issued teachings that contradicted previous Papal teachings and praxis. Fact. “What is truth” is no longer a question that Pilate asks alone – those of us who are not content with the simplistic often-used Traditionalist nostrum “it was just a pastoral council” must answer this question: How should a Catholic view Vatican II? The Vatican, which seems to take its cues from people like Angela Merkel these days, says that what is necessary is "the full acknowledgment of the Second Vatican Council."

Vatican II is the Trent of this generation and has been enforced ruthlessly, as perhaps Trent was. But Trent’s goals were to vivify the Faith and make it more relevant in the face of worldwide heresy. Vatican II’s goals were precisely to water down the Faith and make it less relevant – to devolve to a false Church where Scott Hahn would seek membership, and be told by a "Catholic priest" that he didn’t need to convert.

It is not my goal here, nor am I as competent as others, to offer a full-throated repudiation of Vatican II, but I often think of what another Society bishop answered me when I asked what we were supposed to do with Vatican II:

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: I will say, one day the Church should erase this Council. She will not speak of it anymore. She must forget it. The Church will be wise if she forgets this council.

Stephen Heiner: Let me read it back to you from my notes. The Church must erase this Council, not speak of it, forget it.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Forget it, yes. As a blank – tabula rasa.
(de Mallerais)

It seems to me that we are back to June 29, 1988, the day before the consecration of bishops. The Vatican doesn't see any way back to what was always done prior to the Council. Indeed, as the many "encyclicals" of JPII illustrate, there weren't really any councils or encyclicals before Vatican II, as he never quoted teachings from anything prior to it. Traditionalists, and one would hope, the SSPX, don't see any way forward with the way things have been. We have watched the destruction over the past 40 years and refuse to go along "with the program." We refuse Modernism, and all its works, and all its pomps.

We seek what any postulant does in the ancient rite of Baptism I quoted from above: "faith." If we cannot have that inside the "official" structures of the "Church" we will do what we have continued to - all of us, since we discovered the true Catholic Mass - cling to our religion. And our guns – literal and figurative – if we have them.

And we won't be lectured to by non-Christians on what it takes to be a Catholic. Now or ever. Indeed, we know that the true Holocaust was offered by Jesus Christ to His Father on the day He died for our sins. Let us “never forget” that or allow that to be denied.

Works Cited

De Mallerais, Bishop Bernard Tissier. Interviewed by Stephen Heiner. The Remnant. 30 April 2006.

Laisney, Francois. Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican. Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1999.

Pacelli, Pope Pius XII. Mediator Dei. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1947.

Photo was taken in 2006 in Tustin, California. His Excellency and I were working on the final draft of his first book. He was just starting to adjust to my taking lots of photos, so this is a hidden candid of him saying the rosary, amidst the bustle of Southern California.

Stephen Heiner

Stephen lives in Paris, France. He founded True Restoration in 2006.

You may also like...

34 Responses

  1. hosehead says:

    Many thanks for a timely and clearly written statement.

    We are in the presence of two deep and profound modern-day battle fronts (and I do not use this word lightly) in the 2,000-year culture war that from time to time must, necessarily, boil up to the surface. In essence these are that article of modern faith known as the ‘Holocaust’, and the inter-Catholic issue of Vatican II.

    As far as the Holocaust is concerned I think Christians would be well-advised to remember the words of Lanzmann, the Jewish director of the documentary ‘Shoa’ when he stated that one could be either believe in Jesus or in the Holocaust. These words hide a deep and profound truth that need to be meditated on at length. And, especially so in the light of why so many Christians ‘believe’ in the Holocaust. And, let’s face it, if we want to be honest with ourselves for once, it can only be a matter of belief, since how many people have actually studied the works of the revisionists? I myself, while preparing for my obligatory pilgrimage of Christian penitence to Auschwitz some years ago, read Jurgen Graf’s book ‘The Giant with Clay Feet’ for a simple question of intellectual honesty. I had heard about the ‘crazy’ deniers and, like the apple in Eden, could not resist taking a bite! Bishop Williamson is right.

    With regard to your ‘never forget’ spilled Jewish blood, I might quote Israel Shamir, in his brilliant article ‘Jaffa Lizards’ when he writes: “Jews are not so silly as to recognise THEIR guilt and apologize’. He goes on, later in the same article, “The late Pope opened the gates of hell when he travelled around the world and asked for forgiveness for deeds he did not do, from the Sack of Constantinople to starvation in Dachau.”

    Concerning Vatican II, ever since this Council the Church has been hollowed out by humanist thinking, or, as E. Michael Jones (‘The Jewish Revolutionary Sprit And Its Impact on World History’) would put it, by ‘Judaic’ pressures within the church. The ecumenic thrust has been a total betrayal of the Christian message and that does not make me a Traditionalist (I am one, btw) or a ‘reformer. It simply is so. Our Christian duty is to go out and convert, and that includes the Jews as well. Ecumenic dialogue is a contradiction in terms. Period.

    May the Lord guide Bishop Williamson in this difficult moment. The eyes of the world, both loving and hateful, are literally on him and the SSPX.

  2. Torquemada says:

    In the light of your post, I thought you and your readers might be interested in this piece of yet unanswered correspondence.

    “The Webmaster,
    SSPX (US District)

    Dear Sir,

    It appears that you have removed from your list of “articles that refute modern errors and reinforce Catholic principles” a number of articles that set out the Church’s understanding of the Jewish people. None of these articles, as far as I could see, could have attracted the allegations of “Holocaust Denial” or “Anti-Semitism”. Rather, the articles seem consistent with the Magisterium of the Church and reflect the teaching documents of many Popes.

    Why have you done this? Please assure me that it is not because of recent pressure from Modernists, Zionists and their collaborators in the secular media who have been whipping up a storm in recent days.

    I shudder to think that part of the next step in dialogue between the SSPX and Vatican authorities will include “going quiet” about some of the Church’s constant teachings to please the liberals and modernists within the Church as other “traditional” groups have been forced to do. Just at a time when Catholics, who want the whole truth of Catholic teaching to be given to them, are perhaps feeling inclined or free in conscience to begin approaching the SSPX for spiritual comfort, do they find themselves betrayed by yet another group within the Church that fears man rather than God and is prepared to go down the murky road of compromise and silence?

    Please have the courage to restore the aforementioned articles or at least give me some concrete reasons why, apart from political convenience, they have been removed.”

  3. Felipe says:

    Excellent article!

    Only a tiny glitch: it’s “De Castro Mayer”, with an A.

    Please keep up the good work!

    And as for Bishop Williamson:

    Ad multos annos!

  4. I can imagine how difficult this moment of trail must be for the SSPX and Bishop Williamson. The wolves can smell blood and the SSPX is the prey. However, the expulsion of Father Floriano Abrahamowicz promises no good and is, in my opinion, a grave mistake. A very critical article appeared on the truthisbeauty.com website about this episode (I see it has unfortunately been removed, but might hopefully be posted again).

    The reason given, i.e. that it, “… was rendered necessary to avoid the further distorting of the image of the Society of Saint Pius X and it work to serve the Church,” risks backfiring badly, as the distortion mentioned might very well result from the very expulsion, rather than from the non-expulsion of Father Floriano Abrahamowicz. By thinking that it will keep the wolves at bay (it won’t) the only result will be to alienate followers of the SSPX.

    The enemy is powerful, very powerful, but not omnipotent – only God is.

  5. Truth comes in many sauces.

    First of all the there are those that arise from doubt. Someone presents a claim and someone else questions it. Such truths rely on premise/conclusion relationships to guarantee their truth value. Under this group are classified deductive and inductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning the truth value of the conclusion is (and this is the good news) 100% certain, or, if you prefer, necessarily true. The bad news is, however, that the conclusion offers no new information, i.e. no information not already contained in the premises. If I were to say that 2 + 2 = 4, the 4 is already contained in the 2 + 2 and simply states it explicitly. The same goes for the fact that Socrates is rational, once we accept that all men are rational and that Socrates is a man. On the other hand, there are premise/conclusion patterns that do offer new information (and that’s the good news), but they do not, unfortunately offer truth that can ever be 100% certain (and that’s the bad news). These are the so-called inductive reasoning patterns. No matter how many times the sun has risen in the east, there can be no absolute guarantee that it will do so tomorrow. All we have with inductive reasoning are degrees of certainty. Sometimes the certainly is so great that it would be silly to doubt it, but that does not alter the fact that certainly is less than 100%.

    But these are not the only kinds of truths we live by. There are two others that come to mind and that are, I think, relevant to the Holocaust issue raised by Bishop Williamson in the widely circulating youtube video.

    The first of these are ‘self-evident truths’. These may be considered ‘pure truths’ as they combine the good news of both deductive and inductive reasoning; self-evident truths are both 100% certain and offer new information. Furthermore, they do not (and by definition, cannot) require any underlying premises either as premises derive from, as I pointed out above, a preceding doubt, an element excluded from the notion of self-evidence. Self-evident truths offer, as it were, the best of all both worlds: since no doubt is admitted they overcome the limitation of inductive reasoning by offering truth that is 100% certain, and since there are no underlying premises, self-evident truths overcome the ‘no new information’ limitation of deductive reasoning.

    From the above it follows that, if anyone, be it a political interest group, an advertising campaign or the voice of the devil himself, were to manage to impose a truth as self-evident, when it clearly is not, such a person, or organisation or diabolic entity would hold considerable power over those who accept, or are forced to accept it. Successful brain-washing, I believe, might be collocated in this category of truths.

    One of the most striking aspects of the Holocaust, as the current hysteria surrounding Bishop Williamson’s remarks show, is the curious issue surrounding the gagging of the contributions from the revisionists and ‘deniers’, whether by fines and prison sentences, expulsions or the pro-Holocaust lobby’s refusal to debate. It is especially this last aspect, the refusal to debate, that is of interest here. One of the most frequent reasons offered is that, since the Holocaust event, is ‘self-evident’, dialogue (i.e. doubt) really could not make any sense. Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust, argues that she refuses to dialogue with deniers as this would give the ‘deniers’ credibility, (she writes, “Refusal to debate the deniers thwarts their desire to enter the conversation as a legitimate point of view”),Yet, this is simply another way of saying they have no argument because there is nothing to argue about – the facts are self-evident. Yet, as we shall see, Lipstadt cannot resist the temptation!

    The tactic of refusing debate has worked remarkably well so far. In the comment section of a PressTV web page [1] (Ahmadinejad slams ban on Holocaust probe) a reader notes, for example, “Regarding the Holocaust, I dare say that I'm surprised to learn that it only has to be dogmatically accepted as something self-evident, without any questioning, without anything.” The message certainly was not lost on him.

    In a particularly curious bit of reasoning, (Proving the Holocaust. The Refutation of Revisionism & The Restoration of History – The Nizkor Project) [2], the author, one Michael Shermer, writes:

    Does the Holocaust need to be proven, as my title implies? On one level, no, because it has already been proved by historians over the past 50 years of archival research, oral histories, and physical site inspections. But on another level – a scientific one (and history can be a science) – every knowledge claim must be proved and improved. There are no self-evident truths in science, and no doctrines that should be taken on faith. The Holocaust, like evolution, is robustly supported and generally accepted by all but a fringe minority, but it must nevertheless be continually tested, regularly revised, and constantly improved.

    After reading and rereading this I still do not know if the Holocaust has been proven of not. It seems that, with regard to the ‘fringe minority’, it is proven (i.e. self-evident) and need not be discussed, while, with regard to those who do not doubt it, it may be discussed. This, in my book, is just sheer verbal nonsense.

    I can go on with other examples of the self-evidence of the historical fact of the Holocaust, but I imagine my point is clear. It seems however that, either due to excessive confidence, a desire for a moment of glory or perhaps an attack of nervousness, a crack has appeared in the refusal to discuss with the ‘fringe minority’. Deborah Lipstadt has posted on her blog what amounts to an invitation to debate [3] and [4] where she answers the good Bishop’s reservations about the Holocaust point by point. In other words, Lipstadt has, ‘demoted’ the Holocaust issue from its unassailable heights of self-evidence (when dealing with ‘deniers’, of course!) to that premise/conclusion argumentation – a form of truth seeking that has been valued by normal folks who discuss, doubt and convince since at least the days of Socrates.

    My own feeling is that this is a golden opportunity which should not be missed. Bishop Williamson has said he needed time to study the evidence. Well, he now even has a list of the points by which the Holocaust stands or falls, given to him by none other than Holocaust expert, Deborah Lipstadt herself!

    I urge the Bishop to use his time well. The evidence he seeks is all there. Lipstatd’s arguments have all been dealt with in detail by the revisionists. There is a lot at stake in this battle as a crack in the Holocaust myth is a crack in the armour of our enemies who have used this alleged event to cow and cajole us into submission and self-flagellating guilt for something we never did. If in the end, after studying the evidence, he does decide to speak out, he will be the first person on the side of the ‘good fight’ to have a universal audience, and will not be marginalised as all the other brave people who have done the work so far.

    Oh yes, I said there were four truths that come to mind but have only mentioned three so far. The fourth, the one that comes from Christ and only trough Christ, is Faith, a truth that is attacked on all sides by the forces of darkness as they advance in their plan to enslave all of humanity.

    [1] http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=83891&sectionid=351020101
    [2] http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-1.html
    [3] http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-letter-email-to-bishop-williamson.html
    [4] http

  6. traumerei says:

    Excellent post as usual Stephen. I just want to point out some mistakes in straightalkers post.

    “Truth comes in many sauces. First of all the there are those that arise from doubt … Under this group are classified deductive and inductive reasoning.”

    That is a completely arbitrary categorization and just plain wrong since deductive and inductive reasoning encompass other truths besides those arising from doubt.

    “In deductive reasoning the truth value of the conclusion is (and this is the good news) 100% certain, or, if you prefer, necessarily true.”

    If deductive reasoning is done correctly, the conclusion is only at least valid independent of the truth of the premises.

    Only if the premises are true is the conclusion necessarily true/certain.

    “The bad news is, however, that the conclusion offers no new information, i.e. no information not already contained in the premises.”

    That said, though such a conclusion may not be new in itself for the thing concerned, the distinction must be made that the conclusion may be new for us e.g. mathematical proofs, which is, as far as we are concerned, what really matters and not bad news at all.

    “If I were to say that 2 + 2 = 4, the 4 is already contained in the 2 + 2 and simply states it explicitly.”

    Not really. There are a whole host of assumptions we make here as number theory or mathematical logic will attest.

    As well, an abstract system is quite different from talking about things like Socrates.

    “The same goes for the fact that Socrates is rational, once we accept that all men are rational and that Socrates is a man.”

    The definition of a man is, unlike a mathematical definition, rooted necessarily in reality. We can know things about reality only as much as we have experienced them (directly or indirectly) and as such all of that knowledge is inductive. So while the validity of the conclusion that Socrates is rational is guaranteed logically as a property of deduction, the truth is contingent on the inductive nature of those premises.

    “The first of these are ‘self-evident truths’. These may be considered ‘pure truths’ as they combine the good news of both deductive and inductive reasoning; self-evident truths are both 100% certain and offer new information.”

    A self-evident truth cannot offer any new information at least if you are talking about self-evidence as used in the context of your previous statements.

    While it is wrong to suggest the “official” account of the Holocaust to be epistemologically self-evident, you should be careful not to misrepresent logic while doing so.

  7. Travis says:

    Stephen, the major point of this post of yours is all wrongheaded. There is, in the note of the Secretariat of State of the Vatican, no “litmus test” for being Catholic. The note states that Bishop Williamson will have to distance himself from his statements, not in order to be admitted into communion with the Catholic Church but rather in order to be admitted to “episcopal functions” in the Church.”

    Quite a big difference, this — you can’t hold a public office of authority in the Church while maintaining these views, but that isn’t to say that you can’t be a Catholic and hold these views.

  8. Travis

    As usual you leave enough benefit of the doubt for a 747, but I don’t truly believe that parsing is in the spirit of the press release. Indeed, to follow your logic to your conclusion, to be admitted to “episcopal functions” would be to follow the new Vatican line on Judaism, which is that

    1. Jews may not be proselytized to.
    2. The Old Covenant is still in effect.

    However, these policies, directly tied into “episcopal function” – go against notions of Our Faith.

    Therefore, it would seem that to be a “functioning bishop” in the Conciliar Church, you would have to deny centuries of Church teaching about the new relationship of the Jews since Christ.

    I also want you to think clearly about the fact whether there should be a distinction between a clergy and a faithful in matters of belief. Therein lies a short route to chaos.

  9. TC says:

    Your characterization of the “Vatican line” on episcopal function is hardly defensible, especially as regards point #1. Point #2 is an oversimplification of a complex subject. Regardless, this part of your post is beside the point at hand.

    “I also want you to think clearly about the fact whether there should be a distinction between a clergy and a faithful in matters of belief. Therein lies a short route to chaos.”

    You’re not understanding me. It’s NOT a question of theological belief; it’s a question of SCANDAL. Bishop Williamson can deny the Holocaust and all the while be a Catholic, but he can’t deny the Holocaust publicly and remain a bishop (i.e., hold public office) in the Catholic Church. So, yes, of course clergy are held to a higher standard, not vis-a-vis theological belief but vis-a-vis public statements: they hold public offices in the Church and so scandal becomes an issue.

  10. I fear His Excellency has played/strayed into the web of the spider. The law, as I understand it is that it is against the law to deny the Holocaust…whether it’s true or not. As draconian and unbelievable as this may sound, that’s the law ( as I have understood it ).
    I pray His Excellency can leave Argentina and come to the U.S.A. Perhaps he can avoid incarceration…or worse!
    Forgive me if I sound overly worried…but I have learned to trust the dreams I have…when they come. This last one ( on New Year’s Eve, was most disheartening and may have something to do with Bishop Williamson’s future and safety.
    Someone should try to convince him to leave Argentina…if he can. May our Lady of the Rosary guide him and watch over him and I hope my dream was of Palestine and not His Excellency. I shall keep all of you in my prayers…Jesse

  11. Hans Lundahl says:

    As for forgiving magnanimity, the Nuremberg judges could learn something from Kampuchea right now. Only five chief ones (excepting Pol Pot, already deceased) on trial.

  12. Hans Lundahl says:

    Here is my French post on the subject

    For my part, I do not doubt that Jews have taken an unfair share in the reputation for suffering heroically and forgivingly under Nazis. Like the prayer found in Auschwitz at liberation: “Lord, when you return in glory, remember not only the men of good will …”

    It is we Christians who attribute to the Lord identity with a Messiah and to the latter two comings.

    As to the historic question, I think statistics are trickier than killing methods. One eye witness of one gassing in a chamber is presumable proof, as stands. One count together of all statistics to either 6 mill. or 300.000 begs the question of how the statistics were done.

  13. Hans Lundahl says:

    I am also reminded of Stephen Jay Gould being quoted in Le nouvel Observateur as saying that political movements for two versions on evolution/(recent-)creationism is as American as apple pie and Uncle Sam, since in any other Western country such people would immediately be exposed as a bunch of nut cases (“givrés” in the French of that newsmagazine).

    That is a very convenient way of silencing criticism, to stamp critics as nut cases. Under Lenin critics were threats to the revolution. Under Chrustchev … mental patients. God preserve us!

  14. john3265 says:

    Hi Stephen,

    You write : “But in the rise and fall of history, where things get discovered and refuted as centuries go on and more history comes to light, isn’t it foolish to believe that 50 years after an event, we know absolutely everything about it? I certainly have not investigated the Holocaust thoroughly. It is certain that Jews were killed – how they were killed, I’m not sure – because I’m not willing to pronounce definitively on events in history I haven’t studied well.”

    I studied history to honours level at Oxford University and have read half a dozen standard works on the Holocaust. These give the figure of about six million Jewish people murdered by the Nazis.

    I take your point that sometimes history is revised. You are right. But not always. Some things we just know. We know George Washington was the first president of America and John F Kennedy was murdered in Dallas in 1963.

    If you say the standard history is untrue you are saying that many professional historians at world class universities are wrong. I suppose this is possible, but I would have thought it is unlikely. You’d probably also have to argue there is a “conspiracy” amongst these historians to suppress the truth; again I think this is unlikely.

    Having read these histories I think there is overwhelming evidence supporting the standard history. I would be surprised if it is eventually proved to be untrue.

    I have given some lists of books of the standard history at the end of this comment. I particularly recommend Gilbert, Browning and Klemperer. My impression is that the Bishop has not read any standard histories. Given the sensitivity of the issue I would have thought it unwise for the Bishop to comment on this subject, only having read revisionists.

    I am an SSPX attendee in London. I have been to some of the Bishop’s conferences and consider him to be an interesting man of great faith.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Definitive-Holocaust-Study/lm/3D8THF41PNWLG

  15. Hans Lundahl says:

    I recommend the reading of a French work, prefaced by Abbé Rodhain, founder of Caritas France, written by a journalist probably Jewish:

    pie xii face aux nazis
    Charles Klein
    Éditions S. O. S. 1975

    read especially p. 213 – 214

  16. dolorosa says:

    john3265 said: You’d probably also have to argue there is a “conspiracy” amongst these historians to suppress the truth; again I think this is unlikely.

    It most certainly is NOT unlikely given the fact that those who support evolution do it and the media does it as well for money, big money. The history books are full of lies such as Hitler’s Pope about Pope Pius XII.

  17. john3265 says:

    Hi Dolorosa,

    For example, the standard histories give a figure of about 3 million Jews in Poland in 1939, but only 300,000 left in 1945. Surely this is good evidence for murder.

    These figures would be quite easy to check and quite hard to fiddle.

    I just think this is a case where the historians have got it right. They do sometimes!

    Read Martin Gilbert’s Holocaust. It does not look like he is lying to me.

  18. Gregory says:

    John3265:

    Martin Gilbert is a Jew. He is also a dedicated Zionist, and one whose works are often financed by various wealthy Zionist organisations (as he himself admits re. his Churchill biography, for example).

    Re. Census figures, Jewish populations in various countries before/after the war – you appear to have little or no idea what you are talking about. Has it occurred to you, for example, that the population of Israel increasing dramatically after the war might have something to do with the decrease in Europe? This is without even getting into what does or does not constitute a “Jew” on a census form, etc, or the alarming fact that Jewish authorities themselves could never agree on population figures for their own people…

    Clearly studying History at Oxford is no substitute for common sense.

  19. john3265 says:

    There is a brief discussion about the history of the six million figure in a recent issue of the London Times. Look at the end of the article. It is here :

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6346012.ece

  20. . says:

    straightalker said…"I can imagine how difficult this moment of trail must be for the SSPX and Bishop Williamson."….

    Why must we assume that the good Bishop is experiencing a 'difficult' moment? He is a faithful follower of Christ so he is experiencing a 'difficult life', as well he should be; otherwise he wouldn't be a true follower. Imagine if you will – Christ at Gethsemane – . . . " Oh……this is such a 'difficult' moment. Please………..if your entire life as a Catholic isn't experienced as a 'difficult' one, then perhaps you should look more closely at the comforts you have accepted, and taken as your own; not just those provided by society, but by the Second Vatican Council.

  21. hmazal says:

    I refer to the comment made by one "hosehead" above:

    "…I think Christians would be well-advised to remember the words of Lanzmann, the Jewish director of the documentary ‘Shoa’ when he stated that one could be either believe in Jesus or in the Holocaust."

    I am not aware that Lanzmann had made such an irrational, insensitive, and illogical statement and would be grateful to "hosehead" for revealing the source of this statement.

    I would furthermore point out that whether Lanzmann uttered such nonsense, neither he nor anyone else speaks for all of the Jews in the world.

    The Holocaust was responsible for the death of not only six million Jews as well as a significant number of Gypsies and other minorities. The Nazis may have focused on the Jews, but they were bu no means restrained when it came to killing anyone else. Many of the Gypsies that were murdered by the Nazis were practicing Catholics. A Catholic nun, Edith Stein, was killed in the gas chambers in Auschwitz. A great many Catholic priests were imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the Nazis. Polish Catholics by the thousands were slaughtered by the Wehrmacht and the SS.

    It is irrelevant – in my eyes at least – what the ethnic or religious background of the victims was. Nobody had the right to deprive them of their liberty, their livelihood, their freedom or much less their lives. We must not allow any form of genocide or prejudicial murder to go unrecognized or unpunished. Otherwise we diminish the victims and encourage the victimizers.

    Harry W. Mazal OBE
    http://www.holocaust-history.org

  22. Mr Mazal

    Thank you for your comments. I wanted to write to you but your website doesn't offer a way to reach you. Might you email me and let me know? My email address in in my profile.

  23. john3265 says:

    Stephen,

    If you go to this link you will find Mr Mazal's address about half way down the page.

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/williamson/williamson.shtml

  24. It is one thing for a member of the National Alliance, or the Ku Klux Klan, or a neo-Nazi group, or any of the hate-mongering organizations, to hate the Jews and to deny the Holocaust. It is quite another for a Bishop of the highly regarded and respected Roman Catholic Church to endorse such hateful – and hate-filled – falsehoods.

    Mgr Williamson may have been taken in by the Leuchter report, and other writings, there is nothing in the interview that shows him as hateful.

    Mazal speaks of six million Jews perishing, some of which in gas chambers. The Yad Vashem site has a database of some more than three million names, some of which may be missing rather than killed.

    I do not know the exact circumstances in which Knesset voted the recent demand for more damages demanded from Germany, I do they were far from the first, and from the first they were asked in name of six million Jews perishing, and on top of getting Israel on Palestine territory, not as an alternative indemnity.

    One can argue that EITHER Germany ought to have paid very great indemnities OR Arabs to have paid the territory under Knesset administration in acknowledgement of gratitude to Germany (both imperial and Nazi) for weapons and finacing of rebellions against France. But why should Jews get BOTH kinds of indemnities?

    Ne bis in idem.

  25. Analysis: It comes as a surprise that a graduate from Cambridge University in Great Britain should be totally uninformed about the Gas Laws. In order to enter that prestigious university, students need to have a high score in their O-level and A-level examinations. These place great importance on, among other things, the knowledge of chemistry, physics, mathematics and history. Presumably Bishop Williamson has at least an O- level knowledge of these subjects.

    Mgr Williamson studied literature, and entry requirements for chemistry may have changed since his time – if even now students there in literature are required to know chemistry.

  26. Mr Mazal get into a red herring:

    From a purely ethical point of view, it is not whether three hundred thousand or six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, but rather whether the Nazis had the right to kill even a single person simply because of his/her ethnicity.

    Anyone presently alive disputing the answer is obvious and a clear NO? Certainly not Mgr Williamson.

    The obvious reason why Mgr Williamson does not adress THAT question is that:

    a) exactly no one disputes that the answer is no

    b) people who affirm that six millions perished and that it matters usually go far beyond the ethical question about whether a Nazi had a right to kill a single Jew and get into questions mixed up with fact statements, like how many nazis were guilty, like what is the responsability of Germany now towards Israel now, et c

    But by saying what he says, Mr Mazal insinuates, at least into some minds, the idea that he is clearer about this purely ethical question than Mgr Williamson. He is not.

  27. john3265 says:

    At the time Richard Williamson probably could have got into Cambridge without studying any science or history at all. He probably had to get maths O level, an exam you take at sixteen. Otherwise he could have got in by studying English literature, foreign languages, Latin, religious studies and art. Possibly he would not have got into such a pickle if he had studied something a bit more rigourous like chemistry or history.

    I heard him speak a few times in London. In my opinion he could be pompous, arrogant and foolish. However I thought he had a deep understanding of the fall from Catholicism to materialism In Europe over the past seven centuries.

  28. Harry says:

    Mr. Hans-Georg Lundahl comments on information that appears in my email:

    "Mazal speaks of six million Jews perishing, … Yad Vashem site has a database of some more than three million names, some of which may be missing rather than killed."

    Is it acceptable for the Nazis to have killed three million innocent people? I believe that nobody has the right to kill another human being, let alone oneor six million. Are the Nazis absolved because Yad Vashem has only been able to identify three million? Even accepting that some may have gone "missing" the numbers are grotesque.

    I am amazed that Yad Vashem should have been able to assemble a list of three million names. Kindly read Volumes IV (The Einzatzgruppen case) and Volumes X-II (The High Command case)or, barring that at least:

    _War of Extermination:
    The German Military in World War II 1941-1944_
    Hannes Heer & Klaus Naumann (Editors)
    c. 2004, Berghahn Books
    99-043734
    (Translated from the German)

    to discover the immense difficulties that exist in trying to produce a list of the names of the victims. When the Einsatzgruppen or Wehrmacht units went into a town or village they would take all of the Jews, men, women, children and babes in arms, to a remote place where they would proceed to shoot and bury them.

    The only records that they kept were of the number of people (often by gender and age group) that were killed by shooting squads. Documentation exists in exquisite detail on these operations, responsible for the death of around 1.5 million people.

    Who took the names of the victims? Nobody. The killers took their lives and the villagers plundered their belongings. The massacre took place in Eastern Europe where there was little if census information.

    The only organized census was and is done by each Jewish community. Every year they report the number of births, deaths and living members of their community. These reports are sent to a Jewish agency that assembles the numbers and publishes them in annual reports. The most reliable report is in the "American Jewish Year Book", published every year since since 1896.

    They publishe statistics on the number of Jews in the world by area, continent, country, etc. These statistics are reliable as they are used to assess dues from each community that will be used for charitable purposes.

    I note that the writer calling himself " hosehead" has not elaborated on my comment regarding
    Lanzmann:

    "I am not aware that Lanzmann had made such an irrational, insensitive, and illogical statement and would be grateful to "hosehead" for revealing the source of this statement."

    Finally, Mr. Lundahl states:

    "But by saying what he says, Mr Mazal insinuates, at least into some minds, the idea that he is clearer about this purely ethical question than Mgr Williamson. He is not."

    I insinuate nothing. I simply state that killing human beings, whether one at a time or by the millions, goes against the most precious and fundamental of all human rules. I have never stated or implied that I am clearer about purely ethical questions than is Bishop Williamson. My criticism of his words is limited exclusively his public remarks concerning the Holocaust. Kindly read my assessment of the Bishop's words at:

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/williamson/williamson.shtml

    Please point out which, if any, of the purely technical and scientific points that I make are wrong, distorted or tendentious.
    I am happy to discuss these points with anybody.

    Thank you for your attention.

    Harry W. Mazal OBE

  29. BIG RED HERRING:

    Is it acceptable for the Nazis to have killed three million innocent people? I believe that nobody has the right to kill another human being, let alone oneor six million. Are the Nazis absolved because Yad Vashem has only been able to identify three million? Even accepting that some may have gone "missing" the numbers are grotesque.

    NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY is claiming what the Nazis did to those Jews, whatever their number or method of killing or humiliation was OK or acceptable.

    It is a very mean thing to suggest Revisionists are out there to absolve Nazism. Some were, those allied to Neonazism. It does not mean the others were or are, it does not mean Mgr Williamson was or is.

    What IS an issue, is the number of payments to be furnished. And whether the territory now known as Israel was fairly or unfairly included.

    German Nazis killed six million Jews, so Arabs have to give Jews a country? Why? Are Arabs paying for Germans? Is that because Germans furnished weapons to Arab insurrections in French and Spanish colonies of N. Africa?

    Even if numbers are six million, it does not make sense. Let alone if they are fewer.

    I can testify that back twenty years ago, I had considered Palestinian cause merely leftist fad, until I stumbled over Revisionism, as did indeed Mgr Williamson a few years before me.

    To me, even if numbers are three million and nobody just missing, the Knesset administration does not make much sense as far as international justice is concerned. For that I thank sincerely Faurisson, who was certainly not pro-Nazi (he was/is rather anarchist, he was published by anrachist publishers), whatever his merits and demerits as an historian.

    Other, related issue: now that Jews have taken control over that territory, why is that not enough damage payment?

  30. YOU do the mathematics.

    Some technical response to Mr Harry Mazal.