Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Dutch bishops calls remarks of Williamson as idiotic

Dutch bishops have distanced themselves from comments made by British Bishop Richard Williamson on the persecution of the Jews. Last week, the British bishop denied the existence of the gas chambers in German concentration camps during the Second World War. He also said only 300,000 Jews died in the camps, not 6 million. The Dutch bishops call the remarks "disrespectful and idiotic". Catholic leaders in Germany have also distanced themselves from Williamson's opinions.
The bishop was reinstated into the Catholic Church with three other bishops by Pope Benedict the Sixteenth last weekend. The four bishops are supporters of the ultraconservative French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died in 1991.
Williamson is member of the ultra-conservative religious group St. Pius X, and I am not surprised by his remarks; he has done it before.
The SSPX was born out of opposition to the actual or perceived changes in Catholic teaching and practice that followed the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). The founder and central figure of the society was the above mentioned French prelate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
A statement made by one of the clerics of SSPX shows how conservative they are: "You cannot read Vatican II as a Catholic work. It is based on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. ...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."

On Conspiracy Theories...

I want to thank everybody for the comments they leave here. Sites like this are ultimately for the exchange of ideas rather than oratory.

One recent comment caught my eye... Valerie's comment about "conspiracy theories", a few posts back. Its good to address this from time to time, and it certainly has a place these days.

Most dictionaries describe "conspiracy" as a secretive agreement made by two or more people to perform some misdeed upon others, more or less. And yes, there is some validity to this definition, though we can dissect it many ways through deconstruction of terms like "secretive" and/or "misdeed".

For example... Some of those radical "conspiracy theorists" believe that wealthy European bankers have a plot to take over the world and create a one-world government under their own rule. Most people will tell you that such things sound kind of outrageous and quickly drop the idea into their conspiracy file (the intellectual trash bin) where it belongs. Or does it?

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
–James Paul Warburg 1950 to the U.S. Senate

Does this sound like a conspiracy? It wasn't exactly secretive, but if you do your homework on the background of the Warburg family it does seem to fit the "wealthy bankers" aspect of the "conspiracy theory". Is there any evidence that this vision of 50-odd years ago is being pursued?

Let's move forward 41 years...

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government."
- David Rockefeller, 1991 Bilderberg Meeting, Baden, Germany

And it wasn't so long ago that the mere existence of the Bilderberg group was the subject of "conspiracy theorists", but today their meetings sites, dates and lists of attendees are published.

So what do we see today? Contrary to popular belief, there is no longer any Germany or Denmark or Italy, other than what people personally identify with. There are 26 members of the EU, the body that centrally plans the economies, the markets and politics of its member "nations". The EU citizens have no vote in deciding who runs the EU, and few know the names of its key decison makers on policy points, and there's no real mechanism for dissent. There is talk of formalizing a North American Union (Canada, the U.S., Mexico), an Asian Union, an African Union. And for all the arguments on why this may be good, it not only reflects Warburg's and Rockefeller's statement above, it also appears to validate the "conspiracy theory".

So... What is a conspiracy theory after all?

Let me suggest this definition... "Whatever is happening in the world, but doesn't make the television news headlines."

One last example... Georgia and Russia.

When the brief battle began, headlines around the western world cried "Russia Attacks Georgia!", and the political commentary across Europe and the U.S. was that Russia's aggression must be stopped. Independent news sources were reporting almost immediately that, no, it was Georgia who launched the attack on the civlians in Ossetia, where Russia has had peace keepers since granting Georgia's independence. Anyone who suggested that Georgia was the aggressor was met with cries of "conspiracy theory". It took about 2 months before the EU finally admitted that Georgia began the aggression. About a month later, Saakashvilli even admitted he launched the war.

Still, if you polled EU citizens, probably 40% still think Russia was the aggressor. In the U.S., its probably more like 2 of 3. Conspiracy? Whatever.

I'll stick with my definition of conspiracy... What is happening in the world that doesn't make the headlines in your town.

Probably better if we drop such sachma (bullshit) terms, and inform ourselves a little better to what's going on in the world.

Your comments are appreciated...

Rock on...

~ Alias

Day opening - January 27


The wine urges me on,
the bewitching wine,
which sets even a wise man to singing and to laughing gently,
and rouses him up to dance
and brings forth words
which were better unspoken.