Bishop WILLIAMSON : ON THE WAY TO UK

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Franc
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:29 am

Bishop WILLIAMSON : ON THE WAY TO UK

Postby Franc » 1 decade 9 months ago (Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:45 pm)

Holocaust-denying bishop 'on way to UK'

By Laura May, Press Association

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

REUTERS/Jens Falk/Files

A British-born Roman Catholic bishop asked to leave Argentina after "offensive" comments about the Holocaust is reportedly on his way back to Britain.

Richard Williamson boarded an international flight at Buenos Aires airport today, according to news agency reports.

The bishop has been resident in Argentina at the St Pius X seminary in Buenos Aires, but last week the government gave him 10 days to leave the country.

There is only one direct flight from Buenos Aires airport to London each day, a British Airways service that leaves at 14.15 local time and takes 15 hours to reach Heathrow airport.

A spokesman for British Airways refused to comment on the reports and no-one was available at the Argentinian seminary to confirm the bishop's departure or travel plans.


Image

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
Franc
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:29 am

Postby Franc » 1 decade 9 months ago (Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:29 am)

Image
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5800802.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Holocaust-denial Bishop Richard Williamson arrives in Britain
(Michael Crabtree/The Times)
Richard Williamson arrives at Heathrow this morning

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, and Chris Smyth at Heathrow
The English bishop whose excommunication was lifted by the Pope despite the cleric’s denial of the full extent of the Holocaust arrived in Heathrow this morning after being threatened with expulsion by Argentina.

Richard Williamson, who converted to Roman Catholicism as a young man, declined to answer questions from reporters amid a media scrum as he walked through the departure lounge.

He is believed to have contacted the revisionist historian David Irving, asking how to present his views on the Holocaust without arousing controversy, The Times has learnt.

Bishop Williamson, of the ultraconservative Society of St Pius X, scuffled with a reporter at Buenos Aires airport, raising his fist and apparently shoving him as he hurried to catch his British Airways flight for London.

The bishop was believed to have been met at Heathrow by the socialite Michele Renouf with a legal team. Ms Renouf, a former beauty queen, denies that she is anti-Semitic but has described Judaism as a “repugnant and hate-filled religion”.

She found lawyers to defend the Australian Frederick Toben after he was arrested at Heathrow last October at the request of the German authorities for publishing “anti-Semitic and/or revisionist” material on an internet site. He was released from Wandsworth prison after a British judge ruled that the arrest warrant was invalid.

Ms Renouf and Dr Toben were appointed to an “international fact-finding committee on the Holocaust” at the end of Iran’s Holocaust Denial Conference in December 2006, at which she was a speaker. Bishop Williamson was put in touch with Ms Renouf by Mr Irving.

Argentina has one of the largest Jewish populations in the world outside Israel and last Thursday its Government gave Bishop Williamson ten days to leave the country. It condemned his views on the Holocaust as “deeply offensive to Argentine society, the Jewish people and humanity”.

Mr Irving, who has served a prison sentence in Austria for “glorifying and identifying with the German Nazi Party” and who also lost a libel action against Penguin Books and the American historian Deborah Lipstadt after she accused him of Holocaust denial, said that he first met Bishop Williamson at a garden party at his house in Windsor last October. Photographs of the bishop at the party were removed from Mr Irving’s website at the bishop’s request, the historian said.

Mr Irving defended the bishop against the charge of Holocaust denial, saying: “He is not a Holocaust denier. Like me, he does not buy the whole package.” He said that they had been in e-mail contact. “About a week ago I sent him a lengthy e-mail telling him what he could safely say. He should not be quoted as saying things which are not tenable. I sent two pages telling him what is incontrovertible fact. I got a message back thanking me.”

They have also exchanged other e-mails about the difficulties Bishop Williamson is embroiled in.

Mr Irving said: “He is obviously a very intelligent man who did not realise the danger of talking to the press.”

Even in the Vatican the affair has exposed divisions among senior cardinals. The Times has learnt that Cardinal Battista Re, who heads the Holy See’s Congregation for Bishops and who opposed the lifting of the excommunications, “roared” with anger when he was presented with the document to sign as a fait accompli.

The interview for Swedish television was recorded in Bavaria and prosecutors are considering whether to press charges. Holocaust denial is a crime punishable by imprisonment in Germany. If charges are brought, Bishop Williamson could face extradition.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 9 months ago (Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:38 am)

Mr Irving defended the bishop against the charge of Holocaust denial, saying: “He is not a Holocaust denier. Like me, he does not buy the whole package.” He said that they had been in e-mail contact. “About a week ago I sent him a lengthy e-mail telling him what he could safely say.


Can anyboby redefine what "holocaust" means, because I cannot keep up with the juggling tricks?

The Bishop specifically stated that "no-one was gassed". So if no-one was gassed what are we defining as a "holocaust" now?

He should not be quoted as saying things which are not tenable. I sent two pages telling him what is incontrovertible fact. I got a message back thanking me.”


What ever this "incontrovertible fact" is, I would like to know, because this must be the newest definition of the nonsense.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3386
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Postby Hektor » 1 decade 9 months ago (Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:49 am)


Also note the comments made on the article. Does that look promising to you?

I'm relieved to find Britain still upholds freedom of speech, unlike Argentina. I find the bishop's comments about the holocaust without evidence, but that doesn't mean I wish to be ignorant of them. In fact, I'd like to hear his opinions in full, so I can see how ridiculous his theory may be.

Martin New, Basingstoke, UK

Kris from London. The facts relating to the holocaust are the absolute truth.

Alan, Norfolk, England

What proof does the bishop have of Mary ever existing?

Jo Ashley, sydney, Australia

Given that Williams' mantra is 'The evidence, the evidence' , shouldn't that be the main focus? I might be naive but can't see any other way forward.

Peter, Southampton, UK

Have we become so degenerate as to deny investigation of historical facts? Discovery Channel does it everyday. I applaud Bishop Williamson for his courage. If the Iranian Leader (Mamoud Ahmadinajed) questions the existence of Holocaust and get away why cannot Bishop Williamson express himself?

Jasmin, hawaii, USA

Just ignore him.

As long as we are debating who should and should not have free speech, instead of exercising our right to speak freely, we are playing into the hands of this totalitarian government and their European playmates.

Free speech - use it or lose it.

JUSTIN, London, UK

Deny history and you run the risk of it occuring again.

steve neerkin, london, england

Extremists and fundamentalists in any religion thrive on controversy. There will always be deniers of truth seeking publicity so why give it to them?

David Cotterell, Cheltenham, UK

Williamson should remember the 9th Commandment <<Thou shall not bear false witness>>. A relative of mine was at the liberation of one camp. He returned a broken man, who woke screaming at night seeing again the thousands of bodies in trenches. Some gassed, some machine gunned. Deny that if you can.

Dragon, Windsor, England

Everyone busy writing and rewriting 'history' to suit their version of the 'truth'. Seems like the MiniTruth in action.

Surely we need proper unbiased emperical research, undenialable evidence, open debate and open minds or is that heresy ?

Justin K, Edinburgh, Scotland

As I understand it, he is not in denial that European Jews were oppressed both before and and during WW2.

He asks the question of whether or not SIX MILLION people actually died.

This is not an unreasonab;e question and one I would like the answer to as well. How was this total arrived at?

Jon James, Pontypridd, UK

Not a fan of the guy myself but who are we to say what he should and shouldn't believe. This man isn't hurting or threatening anyone!

John, salford, england

It seems strange that this makes so much news.
A senior religious figure denying facts is nothing new.
The whole point of faith is to deny facts and believe what is convenient for you.

matt, antibes, france

How can you deny the extent of the Holocaust? The Historic evidence is overwhelming!!

Stephen , Woodstock , England

He does not look like a man of the cloth to me . I guess the church has been infiltrated.

D Case, Newquay,

Only recently we sent home Dutch MP Mr Wilders because his views were considered inflammatory.....is this double standards??

stephan, banbridge, down

Malcolm X put it so eloquently when he asked why people should cry for the Jews when they are themselves oppressed. Are Jews the only ones to have suffered on this planet? I say leave this Bishop alone! He is entitled to his opinion without being ridiculed!

Jimmy C, Letchworth Garden City, UK

The censorship that is aggressively applied to anyone who questions at least some element of the 'Holocaust' story suggests those doing the censoring are fearful. Fearful of what? If there is nothing to hide, then why fear academic investigation? And furthermore, who actually counted the 6-million?

Tod Benjamin, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

David Irving is not a historian in our sense of the understanding. He is not a taught and trained and should be referred to as a 'popular historian', if at all.

Filip, London, UK

These are two very well educated members of a country that encourage freedom of speach; what have they done wrong?
For world leaders to be so vocal about this I find as embarrasing as the prime minister getting dragged in to comment on Jade Goody's racism scandal; put it into perspective people!

Steve Williamson, Manchester, England

If one cannot freely discuss, you risk having a situation where people will secretly have «illegal» opinions, discussing them only secretly with very close like-minded friends. Nobody will know for sure who think what, until the day where a lot of «criminals » will discover that they are a majority.

Corriveau, Quebec, CANADA

seize the Roman catholic churches assets ,why not?they do if its any other faith/cult spreading hate.it's all a con anyway.hypocrites the lot of 'em!

Dennis, Lacock, uk

I think what evr i like as long as i dont harm any one you cant force me to think what u like its History get over it.

Saeed_burco, London,

No Marcus.

What it means is that you accept the consequences for saying what you wish.

There are always consequences for what you say and do and those who give sucour to anti semites and nazi fellow travellers are not exempt.

Free speech is never absolute.

Pat, Brisbane, Australia

So why is it actually against the law to make historical investigations abut Holocaust? Does this mean we are presented with the ultimate absolute truth that can never be questioned even if new evidence appears? That looks like a dogma, protected by law

kris, london, uk

What's so incredible about all this is that anyone who questions any part of the official holocaust narrative can be subjected to this kind of hounding. There is something completely irksome about this and the Toben affair. I'm beginning to wonder who is afraid of what and why.

Stella P, Wocester, UK

Some questions for all the Holocaust deniers out there: Is it just the Jews you have a problem with or do you deny that the Nazis perpetrated genocide at all? What about the Soviet Gulag? What about Cambodia, Rwanda and the current situation in Sudan? Surely your position must extend to them too.

Gary, Berlin, Germany

So what we are saying is that it is illegal to have a opinion other than what is dictated to us and that free speech is not allowed.

marco tas, hull, england


User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 9 months ago (Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:31 am)

Franc wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5800802.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Holocaust-denial Bishop Richard Williamson arrives in Britain
(Michael Crabtree/The Times)
Richard Williamson arrives at Heathrow this morning
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, and Chris Smyth at Heathrow

[...]

Mr Irving defended the bishop against the charge of Holocaust denial, saying: “He is not a Holocaust denier. Like me, he does not buy the whole package.” He said that they had been in e-mail contact. “About a week ago I sent him a lengthy e-mail telling him what he could safely say. He should not be quoted as saying things which are not tenable. I sent two pages telling him what is incontrovertible fact. I got a message back thanking me.”



Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent for The Times, has been quoting, in her TimesOnLine blog, an on-going correspondence between Bishop Williamson and David Irving. This is perhaps unfortunate because Williamson may be getting less than good advice on some debated revisionist topics (like the Reinhardt camps).

From Ruth Gledhill's TimesOnLine blog:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/02/bishop-williamson-and-david-irving-party-together.html
February 24, 2009
Bishop Williamson and David Irving party together


[...]

The correspondence between Irving and Williamson includes the following note to Irving from Williamson:

'Dear Mr. Irving, Do you mind if come back to you, sooner than I expected, to ask you to read the attached letter from my German lawyer, defending me in Germany against State charges, but himself convinced, as you see in his letter, that the H was more or less for real.

'At the heart of this whole uproar is the objective truth about what happened in Auschwitz and other concentration camps. I must conform my mind to the truth. Please take no more time nor trouble than you care to take. I will be grateful for all and any help. Most sincerely yours +Richard Williamson.


Irving replied through an intermediary:

'I am keeping out of this. My advice, which you might like to pass to His Excellency, is to accept that there were organised mass killings from the spring of 1942 to October 1943 at Himmler's three sites on the Bug River -- Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec; there is much dispute over numbers and methods of killing, but he should not dispute that there were such killings.

'As for numbers, he might add that the Polish (Krakow) trial of the main Auschwitz officials, which concluded in December 1947, found in these words: "The defendants were German camp guards or members of the German camp administration staff. Unheard-of atrocities against the camp inmates, particularly against female prisoners, were proved against them. Altogether nearly 300,000 people from the most different nations died in the Auschwitz concentration camp. The court sentenced 23 of the accused to death...."

'You can see the newsreel in German reporting this on my website at "http://www.focal.org/wochenschau1948.avi". The text is at http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/con ... u1948.html

'In the so-called "Todesblock" (Block Smierci) of the Auschwitz-Stammlager, there is the following multilingual inscription:
http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Inschrift.jpg

"In der Zeit des Lagerbestehens ... kamen in Auschwitz und in anderen Lagern etwa 340 000 Personen ums Leben."

'His Excellency might add that the numbers involved are irrelevant: the killing of any innocent is a crime, in wartime or in peace. The real crime in WW2 and other wars is Innocenticide, killing innocents. The killing of Jews was a crime not because they were Jews, but because they were largely innocent Jews.

'The Jews do not like this argument, as it might divert and dilutes the cornucopia of global sympathy (and treasure) to the wrong victims, or to other victims than themselves. Though shalt have no other Holocaust than ours, that is their religion.

'He might remark on the weak tendency of modern historians to write history in vacuo, with no regard for the passage of time or the context of these tragedies: e.g., the rising climate of brutality which makes all manner of counter-brutality that much easier; and the fact that the propaganda machines of all the warring governments were equally guilty of stirring up hatred of entire enemy populations. Modern historians write as though none of these factors operated, and they are not unique to World War II.

'There is one real problem facing what Norman Finkelstein calls the Holocaust Industry. There is literally nothing to be seen at the three Bug river sites; they are on the far side of Poland, and there is nothing to build a tourist industry around (I have visited them all). That is why they have constantly hyped Auschwitz, which was in my view a glorified slave labour camp with a high mortality rate from all causes (including, it must be said, a comparatively lower number of systematic killings of Jews in small buildings outside the perimeter, known as the White House and the Red House. The official guides are very reluctant to show these two buildings' remains to tourists.

'These killings are documented to my satisfaction. The forensic tables exhibited to the much-maligned Leuchter Report were the product of a reputable New England laboratory, and they satisifed me that in the buildings analysed by Fred Leuchter in 1988 there was no systematic cyanide-killing of Jews: the New England laboratory found no significant trace of the poison in the buildings. That is still my view.

'The report was so devastating for the reputation of the money-spinning Auschwitz site that the crucifiction of Leuchter began the moment that his report was published in 1989. You see, unlike the Bug river sites, the so-called "Operation Reinhardt camps", at Auschwitz, there are buildings and relics and remains to show to tourists, who bring much treasure and business to the Krakow region.

'Auschwitz is not even mentioned in the well-known January 1943 Korherr statistical report to Himmler on the first ten years of the Final Solution; the Bug river camps are. The conformist Historians dare not say these things now, for reasons I have need to spell out to his Excellency.

'I have incidentally a copy of the very rare original Jean-Claude Pressac book here. It is very heavy and I can sell it to his Excellency's lawyers if it is needed.'

etc Irving


rg [Ruth Gledhill] concludes: Pressac was a revisionist who saw the light after studying historical evidence. What a glorious irony it would be were Bishop Richard Williamson also to change his mind as a result of reading material recommended by David Irving!


Looks like Irving is looking for credit for eventually bringing the bishop to repudiate his previous sinful pronouncements, while simultaneously supporting Irving's own -- very likely wrong -- position on topics like the alleged Reinhardt exterminations, the little White House and the little Red House...

Let's hope Williamson will be able to investigate further than "Irving's satisfaction"...

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 9 months ago (Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:56 pm)

Can someone tell me what Irving means by white house and red house? How credible is he here? What's the evidence?
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."

"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"

C.G. Jung

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 9 months ago (Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:10 am)

friedrich braun wrote:Can someone tell me what Irving means by white house and red house?


The function of the "white house" and the "red house" is simply to fool the ignorant public by allowing room for simulated ritual recantation, thus:

Revisionist: "The so-called homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz were in reality morgues, not gas chambers at all, and the alleged gassings are but a ridiculous tale."

The Judeo-Christian Establishment: "Okay. You said it and violated the Sacred Prohibition. Now you're going to pay: you'll lose your job, you'll be expelled, persecuted and vilified, you'll be hounded as far as the end of the world, your family will have to go into hiding, and we'll do our best to deprive you of any means of sustenance, and indeed your freedom if we manage to have you kidnapped and deported to our Central European Ruritanias. Now what have you got to say?"

Revisionist: "Er, I insist. The place where there were gassings at Auschwitz were, er, the white and the red houses. I really have a few doubts about the crematory morgues, but I'm terribly sorry if I gave the wrong impression that I was denying the gassings at Auschwitz. Please allow me back in the wonderful world of 'legitimate discourse' and its many joys."

The Judeo-Christian Establishment: "See? Even the worst sub-human revisionist in the world, richly deserving to expiate his discourse beyond the pale of legitimacy, has now confessed that the monstrous Auschwitz gassings were indeed an undeniable reality. But his abominations shall never be forgiven and he has to be careful in the future, because he'll be flirting with prison time whenever he opens his sinful mouth."

That's the purpose of the little white and red houses: to make it appear you're legitimizing the tale of the Auschwitz gassings (and how in heaven are you going to prove that a few dozens were not gassed there?).

See, for example, what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say:

The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote:http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1020

"At age 70, David Irving, the world's most infamous and intransigent Holocaust denier, continues to flirt with more prison time in a series of European nations over his revisionist claims about World War II. And he is not alone."


The simple fact that Irving is referred to as no less than the "the world's most intransigent Holocaust denier" shows how fearful the cowardly Judeo-Christian establishment is of the real intransigent revisionists and their rational arguments.

They try to cast David Irving in the role of a Robert Faurisson at all costs, because that's the only way they have left to create the impression that they can confront the real "Holocaust" revisionists. Their nemesis is the truth and they know it well. Hence their constant need to falsify and misrepresent.

The Auschwitz "little houses" are simply the places of asylum they concede repentant half-baked revisionists -- who, by their own admission, never really studied, or were interested in, the "Holocaust" allegations -- in order to be able to carry on with the "Holocaust" farce.

MrNobody
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:54 am

Postby MrNobody » 1 decade 9 months ago (Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:18 am)

friedrich braun wrote:Can someone tell me what Irving means by white house and red house? How credible is he here? What's the evidence?


Who knows!

As usual the whole affair is fraught with outrageous claims & fraud

The official version states that the "Little Red House" was completely demolished & no trace remains today, whereas the "White House" may or may not exist!?!?!
Also note that none of these photos from any site show a trace of the Alleged White Plaster that should have adorned the "Little White House", which btw was either White or Yellow depending on whatever Alleged witness account is used.

On this page Irving notes regarding the alleged ruins of the "Little White House" :

location of the White House. Nobody else is there and here at last there are ruins to see, two or three layers of bricks above the ground level, revealing the plan of the building that once stood here -- I pace it off: nineteen paces long, ten paces wide, one big room roughly half its length, the other half divided into six smaller rooms.

There is a minor CSI-type problem. The bricks are clean, though broken or crumbling, and show no visible stain of blue (see our later visit to Majdanek in this respect, and the photos taken there). I ask again how they know this was the White House, adding this time that for decades the Polish museum authorities had denied knowing where it was.

Our Polish Guide remains mum. It is all very undesirable, embarrassing, awkward, and fraught with dangers for her. She is a schoolteacher, and part-time guide, and stands to lose both jobs if she departs from any official lines. I am not by any means sure that we have been shown the real locations; the building is isolated, in a clearing among the thin trees. Behind it in the field of about two or three acres there is however a depression, now water filled, which could indicate there had once been a pit there.


http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2007/040307.html


Where as this site : http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/perybroad.html claims the remains are those of the "Little Red House"
Image

However Scrapbook Pages claim regarding the Alleged Ruins of the "White House":

After the war, the former Polish residents of Birkenau came back to rebuild their homes that had been confiscated by the Nazis and torn down to build the barracks at Birkenau. They took the bricks from the destroyed gas chambers and used them to rebuild their houses. The bricks that can be seen today at the site of Bunker 2 might be a reconstruction, as the valuable original bricks were probably removed by the Polish residents sixty years ago

The photos on this page were taken in October 2005; when I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1998, my tour guide told me that the locations of the little white house and the little red house were unknown.

The ruins show bricks set directly on the ground, with no foundation, as can be seen in the photo below.

As the four photos above show, Bunker 2 was divided into four small rooms which had the capacity to kill 1,200 Jews at a time.

Image

However the Webmaster at Scrapbook Pages having recognized the possibility of the Fraudulent "Reconstruction" of the "Little White House", does a complete about face logic wise & shares this view :

Survivors say that the four small gas chambers in the little white house were disguised as shower rooms. This house was in a remote location and probably did not have running water, so the victims were not fooled by this ruse. The ruins of Bunker 2 do not show any signs of plumbing pipes or a floor drain connected to sewer pipes.


WELL OF COARSE THEY DON'T IT'S A BLOODY RECONSTRUCTION USING NON ORIGINAL BUILDING MATERIAL SITTING ON PATCH OF GROUND NOT RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED SITE!!!

Jesus, Joseph & Mary, talk about trying to drive Square Bungs into Round Holes!
Wir brauchen eine Bewegung, die Deutschland endlich aus der Kontrolle der Kräfte von Versailles und Jalta befreit, die uns schon ein ganzes Jahrhundert lang von einer Kastastrophe in die andere stürzt.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht, MSN [Bot] and 6 guests