|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 0:36:10 GMT
Let us decode Sceilg's views: (a) Any mistreatment Jews get they deserve. Jews should not be treated as equal citizens within a nation-state. I did not say that. This is misrepresentation. I was merely pointing out that there are reasons for European "anti-Semitism" other than pure dementia. I did not say that either. Did I say that Jews cannot be members of nation-states? Where exactly did I say that? Noam Chomsky is one of the world's finest academics, and he is Jewish. I would be proud to share borders with him. Daniel Barenboim is one of my favourite pianists, and he's probably more contemptuous of Israel than I am (if that's possible). Your stereotype of the one-dimensional Jew hater just doesn't hold any water. Where, pray tell, did I say that Jews cannot be part of any nation? Historically, they have been the outsiders in their respective homelands by their own choice. Three quarters of the Soviet administration of the 1920s/30s was comprised of Jews, and they oversaw some of the most vicious and anti-Christian slaughters the world has ever seen. They have settled on land stolen from Palestinians over the past sixty years, or have inherited land stolen from Palestinians. This is a continuing crime against humanity. I never used the word extermination, that's your weasel words. The state of Israel is a collective crime, not a crime exclusive to a few political leaders. For instance, if I were a Jewish settler who was about to have his house built on land stolen from Palestinians a couple of years ago, and I continue to build, how is that morally justifiable? How would I not be complicit in a crime against humanity, and why should I not be subject to the wrath of those whose property I now occupy? You have castigated Bishop Williamson for downgrading a crime against humanity, yet for you to so resolutely defend Israel's right to exist, is to support a continuing crime against humanity. Against Palestinian Catholics and Christians too, I might add. Firstly, point out to me where the "neo-nazi terrorists" are, and secondly, what difference might there be between armed police forces of the now and the armed forces of NKVD? So you are an intellectual coward? Since religious conversion is generally achieved after an intellectual exchange, how will you answer before God when called on Judgment Day? None of us are perfect, but I think you will find that there will be a special place in Hell reserved for those who led souls astray due to lies, sophistry and a lack of respect for other people's views and arguments.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 0:40:18 GMT
As he is so free with excommunication and has a blog of his own, may I suggest that the moderator keep a close watch on him and consider excommunicating him from this forum? Thank you for that. I disagree completely with Sceilg's opinions but I suppose he or she has the same rights here as one of our atheist members; i.e. they can post unwelcome opinions as long as they are not openly abusive or insulting to other members. Many thanks, Michael. Although I sense that endorsement for fair argument is poison-tipped (being categorised with atheists and communists is rather unfair), I am here only to argue a point, not to deal in insults and tirades. Shall I refer to the EU Commission's directives to see how "time-wasting nonsense" is defined?
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 6, 2009 5:09:41 GMT
If we can re-direct ourselves to a point, would it be a good summary to say: A certain category of Catholic traditionalist has appeared which has the following hall marks: 1. A love for the traditonal Mass with other traditional disciplines and a corresponding disdain for the modern Mass; 2. A believe in economic theories such as distributism and a yearning to go back to the land. Perhaps even a Luddite appreciation of newer technologies; 3. A tendency to blame the world's political, social and economic problems on a conspiracy of Free Masons and Jews; 4. Set beliefs about what constitutes modesty and decorum in woman's dress; 5. Set beliefs about the place of woman in society; 6. A tendency to reject mainstream education for children; 7. Distrust for secular institutions, whether governmental, academic or media This list is by no means exhaustive. 1. A love for the traditonal Mass with other traditional disciplines and a corresponding disdain for the modern Mass; Think this should be qualified more to say that they have an illogical love of the older liturgy which is only strong because they detest the new. There aren't any liturgists to speak of to be found among them.They are un-educated and given to reactions.They also sneer at the educated.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 6, 2009 7:27:27 GMT
As he is so free with excommunication and has a blog of his own, may I suggest that the moderator keep a close watch on him and consider excommunicating him from this forum? Thank you for that. I disagree completely with Sceilg's opinions but I suppose he or she has the same rights here as one of our atheist members; i.e. they can post unwelcome opinions as long as they are not openly abusive or insulting to other members. Notwithstanding that, I have banned members before for posting time-wasting nonsense and I will do it again if it is necessary. Surely. I suffer a lot from the posts of the Atheists. And yet, we don't have sede-vacantists.... who could be even worst ! God Bless .
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Feb 6, 2009 9:37:18 GMT
Thank you for that. I disagree completely with Sceilg's opinions but I suppose he or she has the same rights here as one of our atheist members; i.e. they can post unwelcome opinions as long as they are not openly abusive or insulting to other members. Notwithstanding that, I have banned members before for posting time-wasting nonsense and I will do it again if it is necessary. Surely. I suffer a lot from the posts of the Atheists. And yet, we don't have sede-vacantists.... who could be even worst ! God Bless . How have you "suffered" from the posts of the Athiests? Have their views shaken your faith in God?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 6, 2009 12:02:28 GMT
My objection to Sceilg is that he operates on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of systematic bad faith; no exchange is possible on these grounds. Some of the atheists who have posted here in the past took the same attitude, others were prepared to engage in some sort of reasonable argument. The former sort should in my opinion be banned, not the latter. I hope to respond to Sceilg more fully at some time in the future. In the meantime, as he asks who are the neo-nazi terrorists whom I had in mind, I direct anyone who has been watching this exchange to some examples. The last should be of particular interest, as the group generally believed to have carried it out are self-professed disciples of Julius Evola, for whom Sceilg expresses a qualified admiration on his blog en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copelanden.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(group)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_MacVeighen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacreHere is an outline and appraisal of Evola's ideas, written by an orthodox Catholic (though somewhat eccentric) commentator to whose work I have linked here before. Anyone who cares to follow it will see what Evola's beliefs actually were and can decide for themselves what sort of person expresses even qualified respect for them - it's like saying that you respect Antichrist because in certain respects he resembles Christ. As John Reilly concludes his analysis of the magnum opus "The sort of fixity of the will for which Evola evangelised has sometimes served as a definition of damnation." www.johnreilly.info/ramw1.htmwww.johnreilly.info/mar1.htm Sceilg threatens me with the Last Judgement. I will certainly face the Last Judgement with more confidence knowing that I have done what I could to oppose the perversions of Catholicism with which he and other like him try to lead the faithful astray. St. Maximilian Kolbe, I am sorry to say, fell victim to some of these errors during his ministry; but in the end he rose above them, and I ask his intercession, the intercession of Bl. Titus Brandsma and of all those martyred under Nazism.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 22:37:18 GMT
My objection to Sceilg is that he operates on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of systematic bad faith; no exchange is possible on these grounds. No, that's your assessment. You would accuse me of the same. This is not even about questions of faith; it's about factuality and objectivity, and if you fail at those hurdles... Hang on, you are the one who brought up banning, while refusing to debate me. If you feel I am accusing you of "systematic bad faith" - which I am not - it is up to you to correct me, not to cowardly hide behind banning measures, or some fanciful, philosophical reason for not debating with me. I'm sure that you know that there are ways to debate like a Catholic, and one of them is not to attack the person, but to attack their argument. The process of conversion is an intellectual exchange. I'll be waiting. This is all the stuff of logical fallacy. You are trying to link me (A) to B and C, while there is none. I passed remarks on Evola's work; does that make me a dedicated follower of Evola? I enjoy the music of Mozart, a Freemason, but does that make me a Freemason? Quite the contrary. Where you came up with the McVeigh and "The Order" links (I have never heard of the latter), I will never know. But re. Bologna, let me remind you that an Italian State investigation into that atrocity quashed the accusations against those Italians originally implicated in the bombing, and concluded that it was in fact carried out by elements loyal to the Propaganda Due (P2) Masonic lodge. Several libel cases have been won against people who have claimed otherwise; are you about to go down that road? I don't know what the point of that was. I do not endorse Evola, only a certain thread in his arguments. Only God can judge, I am just reminding you of what's ahead of us all. The same could be said about yourself. Might I remind you that we are not discussing something which is exclusively concerned with Catholic dogma, we are discussing politics and academic truth. I don't see what the point of this is either. None of us are condoning Nazism. There is no doubt about the extent to which Catholics suffered under pagan National Socialism, although this is rarely highlighted - and we know why.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 7, 2009 3:30:23 GMT
My objection to Sceilg is that he operates on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of systematic bad faith; no exchange is possible on these grounds. No, that's your assessment. You would accuse me of the same. This is not even about questions of faith; it's about factuality and objectivity, and if you fail at those hurdles... Hang on, you are the one who brought up banning, while refusing to debate me. If you feel I am accusing you of "systematic bad faith" - which I am not - it is up to you to correct me, not to cowardly hide behind banning measures, or some fanciful, philosophical reason for not debating with me. I'm sure that you know that there are ways to debate like a Catholic, and one of them is not to attack the person, but to attack their argument. The process of conversion is an intellectual exchange. I'll be waiting. This is all the stuff of logical fallacy. You are trying to link me (A) to B and C, while there is none. I passed remarks on Evola's work; does that make me a dedicated follower of Evola? I enjoy the music of Mozart, a Freemason, but does that make me a Freemason? Quite the contrary. Where you came up with the McVeigh and "The Order" links (I have never heard of the latter), I will never know. But re. Bologna, let me remind you that an Italian State investigation into that atrocity quashed the accusations against those Italians originally implicated in the bombing, and concluded that it was in fact carried out by elements loyal to the Propaganda Due (P2) Masonic lodge. Several libel cases have been won against people who have claimed otherwise; are you about to go down that road? I don't know what the point of that was. I do not endorse Evola, only a certain thread in his arguments. Only God can judge, I am just reminding you of what's ahead of us all. The same could be said about yourself. Might I remind you that we are not discussing something which is exclusively concerned with Catholic dogma, we are discussing politics and academic truth. I don't see what the point of this is either. None of us are condoning Nazism. There is no doubt about the extent to which Catholics suffered under pagan National Socialism, although this is rarely highlighted - and we know why. I certainly wasn't aware that P2 had been implicated. As far as I'm aware it was a group connected with Roberto Fiore who is in exile in Britain but then again I could be wrong. It would strike me as incredible if P2 were involved considering their activities didnt descend to terrorism of this kind although without a doubt they had a hand in the hanging of Roberto Calvi under Blackfriars bridge in London in 1983.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 7, 2009 11:32:47 GMT
I certainly wasn't aware that P2 had been implicated. As far as I'm aware it was a group connected with Roberto Fiore who is in exile in Britain but then again I could be wrong. That was the original accusation, but it has since been quashed. If Hibernicus read his own Wikipedia article, he will have seen this. They're Freemasons, so their behaviour doesn't surprise me. And when you consider that the current Italian PM, Silvio Berlusconi was outed as P2 and yet still managed to remain in the halls of power, this is how deep-rooted Masonic influence is in Italy. And yet, when all of this is considered, some Catholics still like to throw mud at certain characters to advance their defence of the existing capitalist system, which is intimately related to Freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2009 12:05:58 GMT
Those who care to visit Sceilg's blog, which misuses the name THE IRISH BULLETIN (the name of the official news bulletin published by the Dail government during the War of Independence) will see that he eulogises Vladimir Putin at every opportunity as the ideal Nationalist leader. This is the same Vladimir Putin who built his career by crushing Chechnya with massive and indiscriminate armed force and turning the Chechen capital Grozny into an array of holes in the ground. Russian journalists who exposed some of these crimes have been assassinated. Putin has now installed a puppet regime run by collaborators who work with him either because they see this as the only way to achieve anything in the face of overwhelming Russian power, or because they are self-serving gangsters (the former being vastly outnumbered by the latter). This is sadly reminiscent of the treatment the Palestinians have received from the Israelis, except that it has involved much more intensive force. Of course the Chechens are to some extent to blame for what has happened (the late President Maskhadov failed to institute effective governance when he had the chance and could not control the Islamist militants who started using Chechnya to mount attacks elsewhere) and nothing could possibly justify such crimes as the Beslan school massacre, but by the standards he applies to Israel Sceilg ought to condemn Putin and the Russians who elect him as well. Do I detect a double standard governing his crocodile tears? Perhaps he thinks the Chechens are run by Mossad, as he said of the Ukrainian "Orange Revolution". Does he think the Russian population in Eastern Ukraine should have no rights because many of them are descended from those whose settlement was encouraged by Stalin to weaken Ukrainian nationalism, and accompanied by the mass starvation of Ukrainian peasants? I believe they are nonetheless entitled to the same rights as other citizens of Ukraine (and the same goes for the Russians in the Baltic States, who have been abominably treated). Sceilg is silent on this because he doesn't hate Russians as he hates Jews and because he believes autarkic dictatorships are preferable to international capitalism. A couple of other points: I never said anything about the Koran here, so I don't know why Sceilg raised it; I believe it is the composition of Mohammed, a human being who started out as a genuine moral reformer and was corrupted by the pursuit of power and the belief that whatever he wanted was what God wanted. It has its faults and virtues; I don't want any truck with the sort of people who think it was composed by the devil, any more than I want any truck with the sort of people who believe Jews as a collective body are the agents of Antichrist. The Jews who committed mass murder in the KGB/NKVD in the 1930s are answerable for their own crimes, but they are not representative of all Jews any more than Feliks Dzerzhinsky was representative of all Poles (there is a famous Polish joke that he was the greatest Pole who ever lived because he killed the most Russians) or Stalin of all Georgians, or the Latvian mercenaries whom Lenin used to suppress the Constituent assembly of all Latvians. Quite a few of the Bolsheviks' Menshevik opponents were also Jews (so much so that some of the gentile Bolsheviks joked they should start a pogrom) - and surely the way Jews were treated (or rather mistreated) by the Tsarist regime had something to do with their overrepresentation among the revolutionary parties? So Sceilg admires Noam Chomsky - a great linguist, but also a man who defended the Khmer Rouge and denies that being a Holocaust denier makes you an anti-semite. Frederick Soddy was a great chemist who deserved his Nobel Prize; that didn't mean his crank currency theories and belief in Jewish conspiracies deserve respect. Daniel Barenboim has been very critical of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and has been involved in commendable work for reconciliation through the East-West Divan orchestra, but I never heard he denies the right of Israel to exist as Sceilg does. Mozart's music exists independently of his Masonry in a way that Evola's theorising does not exist independently of his pagan nazism. Praising Evola in any context is like praising Hitler because he put on some impressive theatrical displays.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 9, 2009 13:09:18 GMT
Those who care to visit Sceilg's blog, which misuses the name THE IRISH BULLETIN (the name of the official news bulletin published by the Dail government durig the War of Independence) will see that he eulogises Vladimir Putin at every opportunity as the ideal Nationalist leader. This is the same Vladimir Putin who built his career by crushing Chechnya with massive and indiscriminate armed force and turning the Chechen capital Grozny into an array of holes in the ground. Russian journalists who exposed some of these crimes have been assassinated. Putin has now installed a puppet regime run by collaborators who work with him either because they see this as the only way to achieve anything in the face of overwhelming Russian power, or because they are self-serving gangsters (the former being vastly outnumbered by the latter). This is sadly reminiscent of the treatment the Palestinians have received from the Israelis, except that it has involved much more intensive force. Of course the Chechens are to some extent to blame for what has happened (the late President MAskhadov failed to institute effective governance when he had the chance and could not control the Islamist militants who started using Chechnya to mount attacks elsewhere) and nothing could possibly justify such crimes as the Beslan school massacre, but by the standards he applies to Israel Sceilg ought to condemn Putin and the Russians who elect him as well. Do I detect a double standard governing his crocodile tears? Perhaps he thinks the Chechens are run by Mossad, as he said of the Ukrainian "Orange Revolution". Does he think the Russian population in Eastern Ukraine should have no rights because many of them are descended from those whose settlement was encouraged by Stalin to weaken Ukrainian nationalism, and accompanied by the mass starvation of Ukrainian peasants? I believe they are nonetheless entitled to the same rights as other citizens of Ukraine (and the same goes for the Russians in the Baltic States, who have been abominably treated). Sceilg is silent on this because he doesn't hate Russians as he hates Jews and because he believes autarkic dictatorships are preferable to international capitalism. A couple of other points: I never said anything about the Koran here, so I don't know why Sceilg raised it; I believe it is the composition of Mohammed, a human being who started out as a genuine moral reformer and was corrupted by the pursuit of power and the belief that whatever he wanted was what God wanted. It has its faults and virtues; I don't want any truck with the sort of people who think it was composed by the devil, any more than I want any truck with the sort of people who believe Jews as a collective body are the agents of Antichrist. The Jews who committed mass murder in the KGB/NKVD in the 1930s are answerable for theior own crimes, but they are not representative of all Jews any more than Feliks Dzerzhinsky was representative of all Poles (there is a famous Polish joke that he was the greatest Pole who ever lived because he killed the most Russians) or Stalin of all Georgians, or the Latvian mercenaries whom Lenin used to suppress the Constituent assembly of all Latvians. Quite a few of the Bolsheviks' Menshevik opponents were also Jews (so much so that some of the gentile Bolsheviks joked they should start a pogrom) - and surely the way Jews were treated (or rather mistreated) by the Tsarist regime had something to do with their overrepresentation among the revolutionary parties? So Sceilg admires Noam Chomsky - a great linguist, but also a man who defended the Khmer Rouge and denies that being a Holocaust denier makes you an anti-semite. Frederick Soddy was a great chemist who deserved his Nobel Prize; that didn't mean his crank currency theories and belief in Jewish conspiracies deserve respect. Daniel Barenboim has been very critical of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and has been involved in commendable work for reconciliation through the East-West Divan orchestra, but I never heard he denies the right of Israel to exist as Sceilg does. Mozart's music exists independently of his Masonry in a way that Evola's theorising does not exist independently of his pagan nazism. Praising Evola in any context is like praising Hitler because he put on some impressive theatrical displays. I visited the blog : theirishbulletin.blogspot.com/But this is mostly politic orientated blog. Not spiritual. Like this thread and comments from you. Obviously the Willy's issue is a mix of politic-history and little of religion. Let's back to religion and leave politic to another forum.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2009 14:43:28 GMT
Dear Guillaume, I would gladly leave Sceilg to his own devices, but unfortunately he presents his wretched political ravings as part and parcel of Catholic doctrine and when he does that, we need to dissociate ourselves from him before God and men. We have already seen the harm Bishop Williamson has done to our Holy Father by giving ammunition to his other enemies. By the way I see from Rorate Caeli that Fr. Floriano Abramowicz, who backed up Bishop Williamson over the gas chambers issue, has now been expelled from the SSPX after declaring himself a sedevacantist. (Before Sceilg points it out, I will note that Fr. Abramowicz's father was Jewish, which does not make his holocaust denial any less disgraceful.)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 12, 2009 13:43:09 GMT
Three quarters of the Soviet administration of the 1920s/30s was comprised of Jews, and they oversaw some of the most vicious and anti-Christian slaughters the world has ever seen. This only feeds our atheist friends' contention that secularists don't persecute religious people.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 12, 2009 13:45:42 GMT
(Before Sceilg points it out, I will note that Fr. Abramowicz's father was Jewish, whihc does not make his holocaust denial any less disgraceful.) Fr Abramowicz' father was of Jewish extraction - clear by the name - but he wasn't either religiously nor completely ethnically a Jew. My impression is the Jewish ancestry is more remote than that.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 13, 2009 14:30:12 GMT
According to wikipedia, Father Abrahomowicz' father was a protestant minister with a Jewish background.
|
|