More like this
How can an Oxbridge bishop deny the Holocaust?
Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust denial is a defence strategy whose target is his own weaknesses, says psychoanalyst Coline Covington
Bishop Richard Williamson, averting his eyes from his interviewer, solemnly claimed: "I believe there were no gas chambers."
How can a Cambridge-educated Bishop, conversant with the ways of the world, deny that Jews were killed in gas chambers during the Holocaust?
Bishop Richard Williamson, ex-communicated along with three other Roman Catholic bishops 20 years ago for belonging to the ultra-conservative Society of St. Pius X, which challenged the liberal reforms of the Second Vatican Council, did just this in an interview on Swedish television last month.
He also reduced the figure of six million Jews killed in the camps to "at most 300,000". It only takes a small amount of research to find out where the Bishop got his 'facts' from - countless fringe historians offer alternative Holocaust accounts on the internet. But what is puzzling is why a man in such a position would give precedence to these 'facts' when the overwhelming evidence tells a very different story.
Freud defines denial as "a mode of defence which consists in the subject's refusing to recognise the reality of a traumatic perception". In effect, the Bishop was saying: 'It wasn't as bad as the Jews have made it out to be.' He pours fuel on the fire by saying he has studied the evidence, emphasising: "I'm not going by emotion."
So, in Bishop Williamson's view, the Jews and their sympathisers are not only exaggerating, they are emotional and therefore cannot be trusted.
On the face of it, this is exactly the kind of statement that a bully or an abuser makes about his victim: 'Oh, I didn't hurt you, it wasn't that bad, stop being such a cry baby!' The bully despises weakness of any kind and projects his own failings and vulnerability onto others whom he can then hate and persecute.
The Bishop’s bugbear is “emotion” and the Jews are cursed with it
It's a divide-and-rule policy in which what is thought to be 'bad' is pushed into the 'other' so that it can be controlled and ultimately eradicated - at least, that's the idea. Hitler located his own inadequacies in the Jews - the 'foreigners' - and the disabled, and sought to purify himself by means of their extermination.
It is clear that the bugbear for the Bishop is "emotion" and the Jews seem to be the ones who are cursed with it. This may explain why the Bishop has a case of selective denial: he does not deny that Jews died in the camps, but his particular denial is aimed at accusing the Jews of being liars and being emotional. So the victims' stories are not to be trusted and the persecutors are not so bad after all. What's all the fuss about?
Bullies often become bullies because they have been bullied or abused themselves. This is called 'identification with the aggressor' and is a way of splitting off and denying a traumatic experience. The surest way to survive the Mafia, for example, is to become a member.
But bullies also tend to suffer from paranoia just like the Mafiosi and with good reason. The Bishop concludes his interview by saying: "There's certainly been a huge exploitation. Germany has paid out billions and billions of deutsche marks, and now euro, because the Germans have a guilt complex about their having gassed six million Jews.
"But I don't think six million Jews were gassed. Now be careful, I beg of you," looking the interviewer in the eye, "this [to deny the Holocaust] is against the law in Germany. If there were a German here," pointing over his shoulder, "you could have me thrown into prison before leaving Germany." Then, joking, "I hope that's not your intention!"
Is the bully Bishop showing signs of nervousness that his own internal Gestapo might turn the tables and he will become the one who is persecuted?
The real problem about denial is that because it requires the mind to split off bits of reality, there is a natural fault line that makes the whole system unstable. There are different ways out of this problem. Either the bully can have a psychotic breakdown, in which case reality goes out of the window, or the bully has to try to become even more powerful in order to keep his mental state intact.
It is the latter option that is the most dangerous. As Gregory H. Stanton, founder and president of Genocide Watch, warns us, "Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims."
Not only has Pope Benedict XVI recently rehabilitated Bishop Williamson back into the Vatican fold, but he has just promoted Austrian priest Father Gerhard Maria Wagner to bishop. Bishop Wagner is most well known for his declaration four years ago that Hurricane Katrina was God's "divine retribution" against the sexual permissiveness abounding in New Orleans.
Does God really send down thunder bolts when we misbehave?
He pointed to the fact that the hurricane had targeted nightclubs, brothels and even abortion clinics as evidence that God was waging war against the sins of homosexuality, prostitution and abortion. What is so extraordinary about this appointment is that it reveals such a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of natural events and such an anthropomorphic view of God. Is God really like a Father in the sky, looking over us and occasionally sending down thunder bolts when we misbehave?
Apart from the obvious question as to what the Pope thinks he's doing by seemingly endorsing such a politically incorrect view of the world, we must also ask whether there is some strain of paranoia that has infected some in the Vatican.
As with the case of Bishop Williamson, there is a whiff of anxiety that is being projected onto the usual fall guys out there - for Williamson it is the Jews, for Wagner it is the promiscuous (and homosexuals in particular). The extreme clampdown and imagined Godly attack against homosexuality suggests that it is a matter of considerable fear, desire (repressed or otherwise) and guilt within the ranks of the Church.
For Bishop Wagner, God performs the role of a super-ego outraged - and threatened - by the idea of sexuality gone wild. This tells us quite a bit about the repressed unconscious of the Church today. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
This is an older article, but i had to leave a remark. Some of your comments are foolish, and extremely naive. The Jewish people have forever been persecuted, and targeted. The Holocaust DID happen, there hundreds of survivors with the same story, the same places, and the same treatment by the Germans. How could a people, in vast numbers, come together right after the war ended and come up with such a lie. That would me something amazing, and impossible! Units in the American Army saw first hand what the Germans did, and how the Jewish were treated. So those of you who say it is "over dramatized" by the Jewish community, are also saying the documents, and all the eye witness accounts by fellow Americans are lies also. There is too much irrefutable evidence suggesting that millions of Jewish, gypsies, homosexuals were slaughtered by the thousands in gas chambers (yes, they were real) gun shots, beatings, slave labor..ect...
And the reason it is illegal in Germany to deny this, is because it happened. If Germany, in fact had information stating that these massacres never happened, don't you think they would have brought that forward. It would have exonerated them, and they embarrassment, and the guilt they had, and still have to this day.
To say that these people lived through something that was not vile and disgusting is horrible. These people should forever be remembered! And to the resistance fighters, like the Bielski's and other partisans who helped the Jewish and others that were fleeing from the Germans should be thanked, and remembered with respect!
The evidence showing that the Holocaust is there from survivours who have numbers tatooed to their arms and can recite them at a drop of a hat in German to the still standing concentration camps, to documents from the regime (the Nazis had a policy of making copies of all official documents) and the confessions of the perpetrators. One cannot say that it did not happen. The only debate that can be made regarding the Holocaust is whether or not Germany intended to murder Jewish people and other 'undesirables' from the very beginning or if it happened as the result of a series of events (The Functionalist and Intentionalist debate). There is no room for denial of the Holocaust.
Should that lesson be taught by the killing of innocent civilians and the use of phosphorous shells then?
The Holocaust happened, period. For anyone to deny it happened is a tad stupid - all the evidence is there. Even if one Jew was killed because he was a Jew is a case of one too many, and this lesson should be taught to the originators of the Qassam rockets.
Interesting. And you can extrapolate the idea to basically all other conspiracy theories. See the comment at the top of the page from Gervas. It is the classic 'just asking questions' position of the antagonistic conspiracy theorist, who is aware there is a vast swathe of evidence for the 'official' position, but demands every item of evidence laid out, which will never happen, because the world is not like that. By taking such a position the conspiracy theorist can pick holes in the conventional wisdom ad infinitum without any fear of losing the argument. They are a strange lot, but I do think it comes down to psychology, as you suggest.
The usual pathetic defence of people like Covington is to say that those who dont agree with their version of social acceptability are somehow suffering from some form of psychosis or state of denial or some other pseudo scientific babble.
The fact remains that the alleged holocaust remains such an emotive issue is that it is the only historical occurrence that is not allowed to be questioned in an objective way.
Covington cites in her words 'Countless fringe Historians' whom the bishop gets his information from. These 'Fringe' historians have put everything on the line for what they believe, their reputations, careers some have been jailed. It's an Historian duty to examine it. Science has also played its part in objectively examining the Holocaust but all alternative explanations are suppressed. I have read this alternative History and found it compelling and worthy of further investigation. The fact that there is no open fair debate insults academic and historical integrity. The revisionists should put up or shut up, but if thats even suppressed, then why do people find Bishop Williamsons views obnoxious? allow an open and free debate on it,its the only way its going to end.
Perhaps Covington could find a diagnosis for the mass hysteria that calls itself the Holocaust, or put it another way, the Holocaust Industry. Perhaps it is she who is part of a mass hysteria and she doesnt know about it yet?
1. Psychoanalysis ranks higher than Holocaust Denial in the list of myths in need of dispelling.
2. Why is the editor making space to build even further on the Himalayan body material foregrounding the suffering of the Jews, at a time when the self-declared Jewish state has escalated its efforts to inflict collective punishment on its neighbours?
What makes people angry is that, in view of the extent and frequency of Israel's abuses, there's *ever* a day when some poxy Bishop denying the gassing of Jews 60 years ago is bigger news than what Israel is doing to Palestinians *today*.
If the story of the suffering of European Jews in the 1930s and '40s starts to fade too soon in its impact, it will be the relentless appearance of that title-case word in conjunction with claims of a 'new anti-Semitism' at the same time that Israel is blockading, murdering and imprisoning Palestinians, or bulldozing their homes.
'Europes double standards'? Thats a bit of a generalisation to say the least.
I'm really surprised to see europe's double standards on freedom of speech. when a person humiliates Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him), its freedom of expression and if someone questions holocaust's reality n tells the truth, he is a sinner.. why ?
You will have to explain the relevance of 'bringing this Holocust denying idiocy to the fore'. Really, thats what is needed is it? What needs to be brought to the fore is that such atrocities are not repeated. There was an atrocity in Gaza quite recently, and the world stood idly by. What has been learned from the Holocaust? Is it merely to be used as a history lesson so we can rebuke those who don't get their facts right? Get real.
Saying the holocaust didn't happen is just code for saying "too bad the Nazis didn't finish the job."
Whether 6 hundred thousand or 6 million died is irrelevant. It was a systematic attempt to wipe a particular people off the face of the earth. One that failed in its ultimate goal.
An atrocity is an atrocity, the numbers involved make it no better or worse.
I'm not sure that Jungian analyses makes sense; however, a good article in so much that it brings this Holocaust denying idiocy to to the fore of public comment. And let me say that some of the comments here are disheartening (e.g., that Israel's so-called "recent atrocities" can be likened to the Holocaust).
This Catholic bishop is what Scripture terms as someone "who has a form of godliness" but is anything but. "Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of truth."
There was an speech given on the internet given by Rabbi Tovia Singer, that 2 days before his death, Adolf Eichmann, asked for a confessor, one was brought to him from the Netherlands and "he accepted Jesus, and confessed his sins."
According to the belief system of the fundamentalist Christian, Adolf Eichmann, at the time of his death believing in Jesus as his saviour went to his heavenly reward. While according to the
same belief system put forth by the majority of Far Right Wing Nut Chritians, those Jews who did not confess Jesus as their saviour went to hell.
I, believe that there is a disconnect between the systems of belief that are proposed in this article. Rather than have any sense of forgiveness for a group of men, who when they have taken power, slaughter not only 6 million of their fellow human beings who were Jewish, but another 4 million of their fellow human beings we all should remember that the people slaughtered by the Nazis were innocent of any crime and wanted nothing more than to live their lives in peace and harmony with each other.
Bishop Williamson, rather than looking dispassionately at the facts, has chosen an odd way of looking at the evidence, that is a slanted and warped view of how many died and how these innocent people were put to death without trial and without recourse to the legal system.
Of course one would expect that from a member of the Society of Saint Pope Pius X, this is one of the most egregious examples of reactionary thinking that can be found within the bounds of the Roman Catholic Church. This group is known for their hatred of the Jewish race and their abominable views of Vatican II.
Bishop Williamson is now faced with an obvious quandary. He must to complete his reinstatement to full fellowship with the Vatican, renounce his belief system and accept in front of the Holy Father all of the tenets that he and the SSPX have roundly denied and called heresy.
The Plague, Black death,Diptheria,TB ,Aids,Foot and Mouth,Bird Flu,and the like,are all Terrible diseases,let us hope we NEVER have any Pandemics,again.
"As Gregory H. Stanton, founder and president of Genocide Watch, warns us, 'Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide... [snip] ... try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims.' "
..... Hmmmm, doesn't this sound familiar, like say, the Israelis and their victims, the Palestinians.
This article purported to explain how an Oxbridge bishop could deny the Holocaust. I don't deny the Holocaust, but the article failed to do what it said it would, in my humble opinion at least. Some facile little arguments don't cut it. It then extrapolates the view of the Catholic Church from this mans beliefs (which I only get from the media, and are generally biased towards the view of any given reporter). It appears to me that the real point of this article was to attack the Catholic Church. Maybe that is appropriate, maybe it isn't. But don't treat me like a fool and make things out to be different. It is interesting that this article comes at a time that Israel is under so much criticism for its recent atrocities (for that is what they are) in Gaza, any link there I wonder. The Holocaust victims must be turning in their graves.
I loved the article. I want to see intelligent creeps talked about and examined freely and openly. The very regime this creep defends utilized The Big Lie like all dictatorships have. He is just continuing it's demonic technique. Mounds of human remains didn't greet Allies in the camps. Train loads of bodies and slave laborers never rolled across The Fatherland and Poland. The bodies of children weren't smashed against brick walls.
Gervas and Fair Play seem to be equally in denial; the pedantic nit picking that denies "conclusive historical evidence" (despite all the photographic and skeletal evidence, let alone everything else; paper records of births of jews, their transport...)
There is no point in compiling evidence if Gervase and Fair Play (let alone the Bish) have already made up their minds that Hitler was an alright kind of guy and the Jews have created a conspiracy of victimhood. Frankly any denier stinks and, if there were a God, which given the holocaust and all other logical evidence is at best unlikely, that deity would cast deniers into a fiery pit.
I'm not jewish - or religious. Strange how religion warps people, isn't it?
There is so much evidence of the Holocaust, be it verbal, or physical, it exists, there are still survivors, there are those who perpetrated these evil crimes still alive, such an abundance of evidence, it makes a mockery of any denier, to deny the Holocaust is like saying the earth is flat. This Priest is hate filled, that the Pope in his so called wisdom reinstates him into his church, in so many words condones his opinions, it seems that the Catholic Church takes one step forward and TWO steps back.
What's wrong with ad hominem attacks on old men in frocks? I'm all for it, including the pope who thinks global warming isn't backed up by science [he's a great one for respecting science isn't he?] and that we shouldn't put other species above humans, who, as we know, these old fantasists think are ever so precious and made in the image of 'god'. If this professional virgin is so concerned about the human species dying out, he should surely be against celibacy.
As for the holocaust, doubtless some Jews have over-egged it since it's their major moral blackmail card, played whenever Israel is criticised. But that millions died isn't in doubt, any more than it's in doubt that the same policy was used against gypsies, who don't have the clout of organised Jewry.
I agree with the above two comments. Is it not possible to have a breakdown of the so-called 6 million by origin (i.e. the countries from which they came?) Is it possible that the gypsies and homosexuals have been included? I have been trying to find an answer to this question these last 50 years. No luck
Coline Covington is another product of production line journalism with unquestioned views that the Holocaust was real, a product of her own biased socialisation. There are reams of very good evidence to suggest that if the Holocaust happened at all it has been historically blown out of proportion by those with 'certain agendas'.
Orthodox historians would not put even a little credence to revisionism as it would certainly lead to a loss of career, castigation,and exile from the 'Respectable Circles'. ie left wing liberals, Without an open and objective debate about the Holocaust we just cant tell either way and to derile a persons views who does not believe is nothing more than intelectual totalitarianism. While the Holocaust industry continues real humanitarian disaters continue.
However why are revisionists jailed, and laws against denial imposed so forcefully in Europe toward the great myth? Is it because perhaps they know there is some truth in the denial claims? Coline Covington can assume all she likes with her psuedo-scientific theories.
Oh dear, has no one read to the end of this article.
Gervas Douglas wants "conclusive historical evidence", what planet is Gervas Douglas on? We have a mountain of "conclusive historical evidence" that people like Bishop Williamson wilfully ignore.
Fair Play wanted a point-by-point dismissal of Bishop Williamson's points, but that would only have given far more power to his "argument", to actually valid it.
Coline Covington took the right approach; she has skilfully examined Bishop Williamson's motives, his bully tactics. Because this is bullying, emotional bullying, for a political aim. We should be taking close notice of the activities of this very power hungry leadership in the Catholic Church. This is only the start of something very dangerous.
But what responses do we get? Two people picking away at tiny points, I wonder if either of them read the whole article. Because all evil needs to gain power is for us to do... nothing...
There is no need for Coline Covington to demolish the so-called evidence referred to by the rather foolish Bishop Williamson. It was thoroughly debunked 20 years ago and the "expert" in question was a shyster called Fred Leuchter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter) who despite having no relevant training or expertise, was paid $35,000 to find evidence to help defend a man accused of holocaust denial in Canada in 1988. In his own rather nauseating account of researching the physical evidence (http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/inside.shtml) the man talks as much about the bad food in Poland as his experimental methods, which were completely inappropriate and flawed. A thoroughly unpleasant and stupid man whose idiotic report has been held up and paraded around by the foolish ever since.
"But I don't think six million Jews were gassed."
Well, that's true, up to a point. Some Jews were gassed, some used as slave labour, some shot, some used in medical experiments, etc. Six million killed in all, though.
"Fine, but can you prove the conventional history of the Holocaust?"
Yes. When the allied soldiers overran the Third Reich, the government offices were found to be carpeted in paperwork. The Nazis documented the Holocaust in what can only be described as nauseating detail. There is far more evidence for the Holocaust than for many other events in history, which are taken as fact, such as 1066 and all that.
The film footage taken of Bergen Belsen by the British Army in 1945 should give pause for thought, if nothing else.
"One of his points was that it would have been technically impossible to use the chambers as the guards operating them would have been gased as well. I've no idea if this is utter nonsense..."
Yes, it is utter nonsense.
The original plaque at Auschwitz stated the number of victims was four million. This was replaced by a plaque stating the number was one and a half million.
To question the number of victims is not Holocaust denial, but an attempt to determine an accurate figure.
The Bishop's statement that Israel exploits the Nazi genocide of the Jews certainly is true. But his denial that it happened ranks with Israeli President Shimon Peres' denial of the Armenian Holocaust as inane.
Regardless of ones postion on Holocaust Denial, one would have thought that making it a criminal offense is a teensy weensy a bit like bullying.
I have viewed the video clip of the Bishop justifying his beliefs vis a vis the gas chambers. One of his points was that it would have been technically impossible to use the chambers as the guards operating them would have been gased as well. I've no idea if this is utter nonsense (he does however back his point up with a quotation from an 'expert').
I would have preferred to see your article demolish the Bishop's evidence rather than being an ad hominem attack on him as a bully.
Fine, but can you prove the conventional history of the Holocaust? Let us cut out the personal stuff and produce conclusive historical evidence either way, something which is unfortunately rare in this debate.