Number CCXCI (291)
    
9 February 2013

FOURTH TRIAL

A reader asks about my latest trial and condemnation for “h0Ɩ0cαųst denial” by the Regional Court of Regensburg in South Germany on January 16. Readers will remember that my original offence was on November 1, 2008, to have told a Swedish interviewer for Swedish TV in the privacy of the sacristy of the German Seminary of the Society of St Pius X, but on German soil, that I believed neither that “Six Million Jєωs” died under Hitler’s rule in the Second World War, nor that one single Jєω died in a “gas-chamber”.

For expressing these beliefs in Germany, where “h0Ɩ0cαųst denial” is a statutory crime, I was tried and condemned by the Regensburg Regional Court in 2010, and the punishment was to be a fine of €10,000. I appealed. The same Court condemned me again in 2011, but the fine was reduced to €6,500. I appealed again, so the case went higher, to the Provincial Court in Nuremberg, which I was told is less subject to outside pressure. And the three judges dismissed the case on procedural grounds, obliging the Bavarian State to pay my legal expenses, but also leaving it free to correct its procedural errors and start all over again.

Now not only does what is known as the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” serve as the secular religion of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr (Auschwitz replaces Calvary, the gas-chambers replace the Cross of Our Lord, and the Six Million play the part of the Redeemer), but also it seems to me that the post-World War II Germans have difficulty in respecting themselves unless they are beating their breast for the alleged crimes of the Third Reich. So they pursue “h0Ɩ0cαųst denial” with a vengeance, and on January 16 I was prosecuted for the third time in front of a lady judge of Regensburg.

Two German lawyers fought hard in my defence, but in vain - I was condemned again. However the lady judge did lessen the stigma attaching to the accusation, and out of compassion for my unemployed state she did reduce the fine to €1,600. No doubt the Bavarian State would be happy to be rid of the case, if only I would accept to pay the much reduced fine. A noble colleague in the SSPX begged for the privilege to pay it all by himself. But much more than just money is at stake. A great nation, the true religion and God’s World Order are all involved.

“Truth is mighty and will prevail”, said the Latins. So any nation, religion or World Order resting on untruths is fragile and will crumble in the end. Now truth lies in the matching of my mind to reality, and not to cravings for national self-respect, nor to felt needs of religion, nor to the demands of any godless World Order. And historical truth goes by evidence, the most reliable kind of which is the material relics of the past, because these are in principle quite independent of human emotions. “For this was I born, and for this I came into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth,” says Our Lord (Jn. XVIII, 37). What tranquillity in the divine words !

I kindly refused my colleague’s offer. I have appealed again.

Kyrie eleison.

 :applause:

Quote from: JMacQ

But much more than just money is at stake. A great nation, the true religion and God’s World Order are all involved.

I once asked him precisely how the "true religion" is involved in an historical deception of this kind - he didn't answer then and he doesn't answer now. I reminded him that Pius XII had once taught that the church's mission is not directly concerned with historical truth but revealed Truth. :detective:

Oh! but he does.  When the true revealed religion is being systematically and deliberately replaced by a false secular religion that severely impedes the mission of the Church.

curioustrad, your post makes no sense.

When Bishop Williamson speaks of the "ungodly World Order" he is talking about the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Surely you've heard of it, the one that is run by ʝʊdɛօ-Masons.

When he speaks of "God's World Order", he means the Social Kingship of Christ.

Is that what you don't understand, what he meant by "World Order"? And are you saying he's wrong to deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst?

curioustrad, your post makes no sense.

When Bishop Williamson speaks of the "ungodly World Order" he is talking about the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Surely you've heard of it, the one that is run by ʝʊdɛօ-Masons.

When he speaks of "God's World Order", he means the Social Kingship of Christ.

Is that what you don't understand, what he meant by "World Order"? And are you saying he's wrong to deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst?

No that's not what I mean at all and no that's not what he says here.

First, he fails to distinguish between the three orders and the 3 truths attached to each. He confuses historical truth with religious truth as he always has on this question to me privately.

Second, to affirm or deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst treats of historical truth (i.e. whether it is fact or fiction). The use of the term "truth" here is not meant to be taken that I believe it to be true but that others believe it to be true and advance it to be so as "truth" when a "truth" so advanced, may in point of fact, be a fiction, which it is here.

It is not per se religious except insofar as it has been dogmatized post factum by Zionism. In that sense it becomes "religious" but not as an historical event only per accidens by how it is hijacked by Zionists to advance their one world agenda.

I agree with Bishop Williamson 110% on the question of historicity - that's not what I'm talking about just whether it falls under the category of religious truth per se or per accidens and whether or not in adverting to the the event one dignifies the Zionist claims by wasting time talking about it.

Let me try to make it clearer: millions were killed in the Second World War. One unnecessary death is a heinous crime. Whether 6 million Jєωs died or 6 - 1 death is too many. But the focusing on the Jєωιѕн deaths alone has served the Zionist cause to effectively serve up a guilt trip on western nations and Germany in particular and enabled them to set up an atheistic state in the name of an ethnic group not for religious purposes. My question is whether it is worthwhile exposing the hoax as a hoax or whether in just discussing the question one dignifies the hoax ? Don't we in fact serve the Zionists by making ourselves look kookish over a question that in itself isn't religious but historico-political ?

So Bishop Williamson made himself look "kookish" by discussing it?

You know, curioustrad, I'm tired of you insulting the Resistance. First you grinded an axe against Fr. Pfeiffer and now you're going after Bishop Williamson, and to be honest, I'm still having a difficult time making heads or tails out of what you're saying. The only thing I managed to understand from your post is that somehow we "benefit" the Zionists by making ourselves look "kooky" when we discuss the "h0Ɩ0cαųst".

No, we benefit the Zionists when we don't speak the truth. The "h0Ɩ0cαųst" is nothing more than a replacement of the Crucifixion, and serves no purpose other than to give Jєωs more power by labeling anyone who criticizes them or denies the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" as some "anti-semetic".

Quote

no that's not what he says here.

What does he say, then?

May I begin by pointing out that the moniker at the top of this page says: "A place for SSPX and other Traditional Catholics to discuss matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith". If Matthew (the moderator) has changed this then let him remind me and all of us of this so that I can be clear on the matter. I believe (but I may be wrong) that this forum is open to all Trad. Catholics - I have not seen any qualifications. Thus I do not believe this forum espouses the resistance or rejects those who hold with the SSPX. If it has become a pro-resistance forum - then a clear statement of that should be made so I and others can know this.

Thus if it is not - then this is a place for discussion and discussion involves ideas not polemics, character assassination and other tactics of harassment. As I have stated before - we all have a vested interest in this and people have a right to air their views provided toes are not tread upon and a minimal amount of Catholic charity is shown to all.

You know I do not make an issue of people but of ideas. Others choose to make an issue of me not my ideas.

Where can it be said that I have attacked Bishop Williamson ? Where did I call him a kook ? He is the sanest man on the planet ! To him I owe everything as to the ability to see reality and the crisis of everything from Faith through culture and back again. Look again - the only thing I question is methodology not the message. Perhaps I should have declared a 120 % loyalty to his position not 110 % ?

Certainly the world believes him to be a kook, because the world has painted anybody who believes as he does to be a kook - so be it, but the appearance of kookishness is not what we are after but that Truth - JESUS CHRIST - should reign everywhere as King of hearts, souls and society. Truth is reasonable, divisive, but above all right. Truth is never stupid nor seeks to be stupid, nor surrenders to its enemies. Have you forgotten that Truth told Pilate that his power was not his but given to him from above ?

If a small group of people believe the world to be flat not round and it is in fact flat then they are correct and not the majority that believes it to be round. If the world is in fact round and a large group believes it to be flat then the world is round and the small group right and the large group kooky. If the large group convinces almost everybody that the small group is kooky - then right they are but kooky they appear to be.

The h0Ɩ0cαųst is a replacement - but apparently "kooky" (as the world labels it) denial does not refute it. As I told the bishop 2 or 3 years ago there are much bigger battles to fight than this and one of them is on Trads' doorsteps: a deal with Rome. While +W is busy fighting windmills - +F is free and busy selling the storefront. Result - +W "sidelines" himself and a credible Trad resistance and +F sells SSPX to modernism. Now the h0Ɩ0cαųst and the fight for Tradition are both important but are they equally important ? I think not - that was all that I was saying - see the proportion of the picture.

Next, where have I attacked Fr. Pfeiffer ? The reference to "Calamity Joe" I made was naturally suggested by the thread name and tenor of posts that referred readers to the musical "Calamity Jane" and the corresponding comic juxtaposition between Deadwood and Pfeifferville that others evoked not I.

However, did I not ask for a statement of principles ? Did he not provide them after his meeting in Brazil ? Did I not praise those principles ? By all means !

I have questioned the wisdom and merit of proceeding with rapid consecrations since the Bishop carries a huge influence in the SSPX. I have said that to proceed precipitously would be to waste a lot of capital. I have stated that in the eventuality of consecration(s) in the choice of candidates I would recommend Fr. Hewko over Fr. Pfeiffer but that only because Fr. Hewko commands respect among his peers in the SSPX because his expulsion was treated differently by the SSPX hierarchs.

May I ask if the resistance is an end in itself or a means to an end ? Are resistance members preparing for a permanent mental siege or was it to stop the SSPX selling out to modernist rome ? As long as they do not has not the resistance achieved its goal ? Is there a desire to create a parallel church ? If this is the case then certain resisters are definitely not in the mode of the Archbishop:

"There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals… It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought of separating ourselves from Rome!"

1988 Sermon at the Consecrations

... resistance ...  was it to stop the SSPX selling out to modernist rome ? As long as they do not has not the resistance achieved its goal ?

It was not just to try to stop a formal "deal" but to fight the modernism & liberalism which they are less and less able to fight from within the SSPX.  +F is suppressing strong preaching against modernism, particularly when the errors come straight from Rome, but in many other ways too.  Listen to Fr. Pfeiffer's conferences in Brazil to get a better idea.  SSPX priests were ordained to fight against liberalism.  Not only are they not allowed to preach like they used to against the liberalism outside the SSPX, but the liberalism is infecting the SSPX itself.  They can't just sit silently and watch it take over within the SSPX.  

Is there a desire to create a parallel church ? If this is the case then certain resisters are definitely not in the mode of the Archbishop:

"There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals… It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought of separating ourselves from Rome!"

Obviously there is no desire to create a parallel church, as they want to adhere to what +AL taught.  They are just continuing the work they were ordained to do, which +F is no longer letting them do.  

The Archbishop taught nothing - he handed on what he received...

 :confused1:

Definition of Teach

teach
 verb ˈtēch
taught teach·ing

Definition of TEACH

transitive verb


1

a: to cause to know something <taught them a trade>

b: to cause to know how <is teaching me to drive>

2:  to guide the studies of


3: to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra>


4
a: to instruct by precept, example, or experience

b: to make known and accepted <experience teaches us our limitations>

5: to conduct instruction regularly in <teach school>

"Handing on what he received" sounds like teaching to me.