GB News and Christian-inanity [Inanity: 'Lack of intelligence or
imagination;senselessness
My page Church
Donations includes, in the third column of the page, a long section
'Some objections to Christianity'
In this
section:
GB News: banning, blocking and censorship
GB News: Christian religion
This section on GB News is a very new section of the page.
The material here will be revised and extended. The emphasis will be upon GB
News and Christian belief but the first item here is concerned with GB News
and the death penalty and what seems to me to have been a clear-cut case of
banning / blocking / censorship on the part of GB News. I'll be concentrating my attention on these GB News
people: Emma Webb, Calvin Robinson, Patrick Christys, Neil Oliver.
There'll also be material on guests appearing in GB News programmes.
There's already material on some of them,
Peter Hitchens
(the material on
Peter Hitchens is facetious, in part),
Tim Stanley , 'Fr' Daniel French,
Michael Phillips of the Christian Legal Centre.
There'll also be material on people linked with GB News in other
ways.
There will be supplementary material on people with an indirect
connection with GB News or relevant to the issues I discuss, such as
orthodox Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics. One reason for including such people. Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson sometimes claim, in
effect, that the Church of England has been taken over by 'woke' views. The
profiles of these people are a reminder that this amounts to falsification.
However, I intend to discuss some non-Christians who have an indirect
connection with GB News or are relevant to the issues I discuss.
I recognize that GB News does
have some strengths,
just as individuals I criticize may have strengths, and substantial
strengths.
GB News has this important difference from secular news outlets. Secular
news outlets never remind
their readers or viewers of the dread importance of their 'eternal destiny.'
Calvin Robinson has done just that. GB News regularly includes prayers in
its programmes.
The majority of GB News employees will be non-Christians, the majority of
GB News viewers will be non-Christians, despite what some of them may think -
the people who might describe themselves as 'C of E' but who have never
committed themselves to 'The Lord Jesus,' who 'died on the cross for our
sins.' Their eternal destiny, according to orthodox Christian theories of
redemption, will be with the devoted parents who cared for disabled
children, the Jews who died in the extermination camps, the troops who
liberated concentration camps or risked their lives on the Atlantic convoys
or the Arctic convoys or in North Africa, in all the theatres of war, in all
the villages, towns and cities of this country and any other country -
everyone sharing the same hideous fate, apart from the minority of true
believers, Emma Webb, Calvin Robinson and Father Daniel French, to name just
a few.
These are considerations which never arise in the case of secular or
semi-secular news organizations but which do arise in the case of GB News,
'God Squad News.' Its activities are wide-ranging and very varied, to name a
few, whipping up hysteria, reinforcing prejudices, using falsification by
generalization - but its activities are often informed by common sense and vigorous pursuit of fraudulent
thinking, most of the time oblivious to its own shortage of common sense and its own
fraudulent thinking.
I oppose their illusions and delusions as well as illusions and
delusions they oppose.
GBNews: banning, blocking and censorship
Copy of an email sent to GB News, 22/08/2023
I posted a comment on your Youtube page 'Death Penalty. Should the UK bring
back capital punishment?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3GS0nDWLK8&ab_channel=GBNews
It wasn't accepted. The comment is courteous and it contains relevant
information, surely. GB News should avoid banning, blocking and censorship
for no good reason. The fact that a comment is regarded as 'inconvenient'
isn't a good reason in the least. I tried again and it was rejected again.
It seems that I'll have to use the opportunities available to me to
publicize this issue, the issue of banning and blocking.
The rejected comment:
From the Website of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) in the
United States: 'Many people assume that the state saves money by employing
the death penalty since an executed person no longer requires confinement,
health care, and related expenses. But in the modern application of capital
punishment, that assumption has been proved wrong. The death penalty is far
more expensive than a system utilizing life-without-parole-sentences as an
alternative punishment.'
The DPIC page https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
gives detailed reasons why it's more expensive to execute than to
imprison for a whole life term. A summary of a recent cost study in the
United States: Death penalty case costs were counted through to
execution. Median cost: $1.26 million. Non-death penalty case costs were
counted through to the end of incarceration. Median cost: $740,000.
A very large amount of information from individual states is available,
to give just one example, a wide-ranging study from Oklahoma, which
found that 'seeking the death penalty in Oklahoma capital cases cost 3.2
times more than non-capital cases on average.' The researchers
concluded: 'It is a simple fact that seeking the death penalty is more
expensive. There is not one credible study, to our knowledge, that
presents evidence to the contrary.'
The arguments against the death penalty go far beyond the economic
arguments. I attended an event where there were three men who had been
sentenced to death in California. They had been released from death row
after it was found that they were innocent. In the last 50 years, more
than 190 people who had been sentenced to death in the United States
have been found to be innocent and released from death row.
The notion that the death penalty is 'a vital weapon in the hands of the
justice system ... ' is very wide of the mark. In the United States, the
fact that there are executing states and non-executing states makes
available a very large amount of comparative evidence. Just one aspect
of a very big issue: A survey by the New York Times found that states
without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the
death penalty. ' ... During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in
states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states
with the death penalty.' From the page
The death penalty won't be restored in this
country. GB News is wasting its time and encouraging hysterical
reactions by treating restoration of the death penalty as a realistic
possibility. Any of your pro-death-penalty followers who don't know
about the case of Timothy Evans, hanged on 9 March 1950 after being
wrongfully convicted, would benefit by finding out more. This was one of
the cases which played a major part in the abolition of capital
punishment for murder in this country 1965. Capital punishment was later
abolished for all crimes. This country won't be joining the diminishing
list of executing countries.
GBNews and Christian religion
Here, I intend to give
argument and evidence to substantiate my view that GBNews is very misguided
in its general support for Christian belief. I intend to criticize in
particular Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson and, also, another presenter who so
far as I know is not a Christian believer but someone whose views and
approach have, I think, unexpected linkages with Christianity or relevance
to the general GB approach to Christianity: Neil Oliver. I also intend to comment
briefly on some Christians who have appeared in GB
News programmes, such as Fr Daniel French of Holy Trinity Church,
Salcombe. Like Calvin Robinson, he would describe himself as an 'evangelical (Anglo) Catholic.'
There's already some critical comment on Emma Webb in the section in the
column to the left
The New Culture Forum and Emma Webb).
I've generally added comments to You Tube videos and other sites every few months and
every few years, although recently, I've posted comments more often - I
intend to revert to commenting much less often. I'm not in the least a prolific commenter on any sites,
apart from this site, of course. I don't add comments to
You Tube video pages or other sites with the objective of including the
comments on a page of this site. Most of the comments I've added haven't
been included on this site, but from time to time, I do include some,
as now.
Another comment I added to a GB News You Tube video, originally posted on the page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXDmj8c3y_c&ab_channel=GBNews
I'll quote the comment now, in full. It will introduce a few of the
issues I intend to discuss later. It's followed by 'Matters arising' (which
will be revised and extended.) To skip the Comment and go to the Matters
arising, please click on a link:
Matters Arising 1
Matters Arising 2
Matters Arising 3
Matters Arising 4
Matters Arising 5
Matters Arising 6
Matters Arising 7
GB News is a liability, an
embarrassment, even. I take the view that the good work of GB News people is
undermined and damaged by the work of the orthodox Christian believers
amongst your staff. I recognize, of course, that orthodox Christian
believers can talk and write good sense on matters unrelated to their faith.
'The Church of England can either push woke agendas or defend the faith ...'
Can Calvin Robinson and Emma Webb defend their faith? No, not at all, I
think. It's certainly not at all likely. Here's a selection of questions. I
don't expect answers to these questions in a future GB News production, that
would be asking too much - it would obviously be asking the impossible - but
perhaps some of the secularist staff of GB News could do a little probing
and elicit some information from the orthodox Christians, informally.
On the evidence available to me, Calvin Robinson combines evangelical
beliefs with Anglo-Catholic beliefs. Presumably, then, he believes in
justification by faith: he believes that acceptance of Christ as personal
Lord and Saviour is essential for salvation. Does he believe that 'good
works' are not enough for salvation? Does he believe that sin doesn't
preclude salvation, provided that the person has accepted Christ as saviour?
Does he believe in the reality of hell? Does he believe that orthodox
Christians who have been guilty of gross sexual abuse - John Smyth is one of
many examples - spend eternity in union with Christ? Does he believe that
the destiny of non-believers amongst GB News staff, and supporters of GB
News, is very different - eternal separation? Does he believe that loving
parents of disabled children - and the disabled children themselves - go to
hell if they never accept Christ as Lord and Saviour? I asked an evangelical
Christian if he could cite any 'age limit' for salvation - below that age,
there would be no condemnation to eternal separation, or, in the colourful
language of orthodox Christianity, to hellfire. I asked this evangelical, do
you have a view of this? Do you believe that a ten year old or a five year
old can go to hell? He said that he knew of no such exemption. Can Calvin
Robinson or Emma Webb outline the orthodox view and their own view? They may
not be the same in this case.Can they offer any 'Biblical evidence' or
'Biblical proofs' or quotations from the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas
or the early Church fathers, anything at all which they think may be
helpful?
Calvin Robinson has an orthodox view of the sacraments, I presume.
Would he share my view that 'Saint' Augustine's view of the 'sacrament' of
infant baptism is hideous and barbaric? Augustine believed that babies and
infants who died unbaptized spend eternity in hell. Do Calvin Robinson and
Emma Webb take a 'common sense' view of the issues? Is a common sense view
possible? What view do they take? Can Calvin Robinson explain his view of
the 'real presence'? Does he believe in transubstantiation, the view that
the bread and wine of Holy Communion / Mass become the actual body and blood
of Christ, that this is not just a matter of symbolism? My view is that his
Catholic beliefs, like his evangelical beliefs, far surpass Woke views in
their stupidity.
I think that Calvin Robinson and Emma Webb should do some explaining,
although, as I've mentioned, I don't think they would be willing to do it in
a GB News video. There are a very large number of other objections I could
make but this will have to do. Already, you've received comments from a
large number of orthodox Christians. Any chance of a comment on objections
to orthodox Christianity, or would that be too much trouble? Are your
orthodox Christian commenters ready and willing to 'defend the faith?' I
have to say that, based on long experience of orthodox Christians, I have
very low expectations of such people. I don't think there will be many, if
any, who will be willing to defend Christian orthodoxy. Too much like hard
work.
Matters arising:
Matters Arising 1.
Emma Webb used 'Biblical Proof' or 'God's Word' in the form of quotations
from the Gospels to corroborate her claim that Jesus had predicted the kind
of problems faced by Christians today. She quoted the texts out of context.
She ignored the ignorance and dark implications of the context. She showed
not the least understanding of a very different kind of problem faced by
Christians now - making sense of the chaotic, contradictory Biblical
'evidence,' its remoteness from humane values.
Amongst the texts she quoted is this, from Matthew 10:22. She used the
English Standard Version. Below, I quote this extract and some other
extracts from Matthew 10, using the 'Good News Translation.'
1.
Jesus called his twelve disciples together and gave them authority to drive
out evil spirits and to heal every disease and every sickness.
14.
And if some home or town will not welcome you or listen to you, then leave
that place and shake the dust off your feet. 15 I
assure you that on the Judgment Day God will show more mercy to the people
of Sodom and Gomorrah than to the people of that town!
22.
Everyone will hate you because of me....
28.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather
be afraid of God, who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
Comments:
1. She may believe that the disciples could 'heal every disease and every
sickness.' For many, many centuries, Christians believed that curing disease
was a theological matter, not a matter to do with patient research, the
development of techniques, all the complex knowledge which makes up the
astonishing achievement of modern medicine. As a result, Christian
communities were devastated periodically by plague and other diseases.
The New Testament has many references to driving out demons. Present day
Christians often believe in demons and some of them try to drive out demons.
In a Church not far from here, there was an attempt to drive out 'demons'
from a person in an attempt to 'cure' this man's homosexuality. The case is
being investigated by Barnardo's.
A concise summary of some events in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were
supposedly 'wicked.' Traditionally, the wickedness involved homoexual acts.
In modern times, the wickedness has been claimed to be of a different kind,
simple lack of hospitality. God rains down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, yet
another instance of mass murder on the part of God, the killing of men and
women, children and babies. Angels make a crowd blind. Lot's wife
looks back, despite being warned by angels, and is turned into a pillar of
salt.
Is Emma Webb convinced that God and his helpers, the angels, actually
carried out these acts?
28. Hellfire - but New Testament references to hell are full of
difficulties. In the Bible, 'Hell' is translated by different words.
Christian believers again and again overlook the fact that when they quote
Biblical verses in the King James version or others, they are using
translations. They overlook the pitfalls of translation. This is the New
Testament original of 'rather
be afraid of God, who can destroy both body and soul in hell.'
μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ
The last word here
'γεέννῃ'
is 'Gehenna,' a valley in Jerusalem, very different in its
associations from 'hell' but an analogue of the Lake of Fire in Jewish and
Christian tradition. Some scholars have suggested that Gehenna many not be
synonymous with the lake of fire but a prophetic metaphor for the fate that
awaited the civilians killed in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The
word is used 13 times in 11 different verses of the King James Bible.
Whatever her view of Sodom and Gomorrah, demons and evil spirits, cures by
faith healing rather than modern medicine, heaven and hellfire, what is GB
News playing at by giving her the opportunity to preach to its viewers and
by giving Calvin Robinson the opportunity to preach online?
Matters Arising 2.
Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson, GB News as a whole, concentrate
their attention on 'Woke' views in the Church of England and claim that this
is evidence that the Church of England is finished, that it has been overrun
by Woke propagandists. This is to ignore completely the fact that orthodox
Christian faith is represented in the majority of dioceses and parishes.
Conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have far more power within the
Church of England than the Wokeists.
Matters Arising 3.
Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson, GB News as a whole ignore almost
completely one massive problem, the very large number of cases of sexual and
other abuse in the Church of England, as well as the Roman Catholic Church.
My page Abuse, safeguarding, faith:
The Churches and their failures can only touch upon some of the
grim cases. Whenever I read about cases of abuse in the Churches and can
obtain information about the beliefs of the abusers, I find that the abusers
seem to have orthodox Christian beliefs. Abuse in the churches is a failure
of orthodoxy, not of liberal or woke forms of Christianity, which have their
own defects, but very different ones.
Again and again, Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson, attempt to reinforce the
view that abuse in the Churches is not an important issue, or not an issue
which they need to publicize. GB News as a whole is reinforcing the same
view. They are making the same mistakes - very bad mistakes - outlined in
reports of
the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. An extract:
The
Inquiry identified a number of concerns regarding the culture of the Church.
4.1. Clericalism: Power was vested chiefly in the clergy,
without accountability to external or independent agencies or individuals. A
culture of clericalism existed in which the moral authority of clergy was
widely perceived as beyond reproach. They benefited from deferential
treatment so that their conduct was not questioned, enabling some to abuse
children and vulnerable adults. In the third public hearing Bishop Hancock
(then Lead Bishop on Safeguarding) agreed that “issues
of clericalism and deference have allowed abuse to be covered up and the
voices of the vulnerable to be silenced”. In his view, “the
abuse of power has been perhaps the most significant reason why abuse has
been allowed to foster” in the Church of England.
4.2. Tribalism: Within the Church, there
was disproportionate loyalty to members of one’s own ‘tribe’ (a group within
an institution, based upon close personal ties and shared beliefs). This
extended inappropriately to safeguarding practice, with the protection of
some accused of child sexual abuse. Perpetrators were defended by their
peers, who also sought to reintegrate them into Church life without
consideration of the welfare or protection of children and vulnerable
adults. Contributors to the Inquiry’s Truth Project, who described their
abuse in religious contexts, said that they were “disbelieved,
discredited and not supported after disclosing their experiences of sexual
abuse”.
4.3. Naivety: There was and is a view amongst some
parishioners and clergy that their religious practices and adherence to a
moral code made sexual abuse of children very unlikely or indeed impossible.
Reports of abuse were on occasions dismissed without investigation. There
are some within the Church exploring how to respond to these attitudes
through academic research.
4.4. Reputation: The primary concern of many senior clergy
was to uphold the Church’s reputation, which was prioritised over victims
and survivors. Senior clergy often declined to report allegations to
statutory agencies, preferring to manage those accused internally for as
long as possible. This hindered criminal investigations and enabled some
abusers to escape justice. In her review of the Peter Ball case, Dame Moira
Gibb concluded that senior clergy placed more emphasis on the Church’s high
standing than on the welfare of victims and survivors.Church
leaders sought to keep allegations out of the public domain and the
resulting lack of engagement with external agencies helped to create a
culture of “almost
unchallengeable authority” in the Church.
4.5. Sexuality: There was a culture of fear and secrecy
within the Church about sexuality. Some members of the Church also wrongly
conflated homosexuality with the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable
adults. There was a lack of transparency, open dialogue and candour
about sexual matters, together with an awkwardness about investigating such
matters. This made it difficult to challenge sexual behaviour. Mr Colin
Perkins, diocesan safeguarding adviser (DSA) for the Diocese of Chichester,
told us that homosexual clergy may have found themselves inadvertently “under
the same cloak” as child sexual abusers, who sought to mask their
behaviour “in
the same cultural hiding place”.
5. In
May 2019, the Inquiry published its thematic report Child
Sexual Abuse in the Context of Religious Institutions, which
included accounts from those abused by individuals within the Church of
England. Many contributors saw their perpetrators as prominent members of
society, with “privilege,
respect and reverence” by virtue of their influential positions;
their actions were “never
questioned” and their ability to abuse was “never
contemplated”.The report stated that the “particularly
high regard and trust placed in religious institutions” amongst
other factors facilitated abuse and discouraged appropriate responses to
allegations in the Church.
Matters Arising 4.
The policies and practice of Emma Webb, Calvin Robinson and others at GB
News are actively harmful. GB News is a distorting, self-censoring
news organization in these aspects of its work. Neil Oliver is a gloomy
presence whose (relative) popularity depends upon his telling a section of
the GB News public just what they want to hear. His sober demeanour, gross
generalizations, simplifications and exaggerations are successful in
whipping up a degree of frenzy and hysteria. Some others at GB News do the
same or try to do the same, but the long-term reputation of GB News won't
survive these trashy efforts. GB News has to do far more than this if it
wants to become far more than a footnote in the history of media.
Matters Arising 5.
Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson have agendas - not hidden agendas, of course,
but public agendas - which include evangelism, conversion. People with
religious or ideological agendas who work in supposedly general media
organizations have to be very careful. The media organizations which employ
them have to be very careful. GB News hasn't been at all careful. GB News
has been negligent and reckless but throughout, it has at least supported
the principle of freedom of expression, in the comments sections of
its You Tube videos and is many of its programmes.
Matters Arising 6.
Calvin Robinson
underestimates the difficulties and complications of the Anglo-Catholic and
Roman Catholic sacraments.
Understanding the invalid baptism controversy: a guide for catholics
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/03/08/
invalid-baptism-catholic-242466
In February, the Diocese of Phoenix announced
that thousands of infant baptisms that had been performed by
a local pastor were in fact invalid as a result of one incorrect word. In
the official rite of baptism, the baptizing priest is required to say, “I
baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But in
Phoenix, the priest had instead been using the first person plural pronoun,
“we,” seemingly to indicate that the priest was baptizing the child on
behalf of the entire Catholic community.
The announcement, along with the pastor’s resignation, devastated
many in his parish and clearly confused Catholics everywhere else, as they
wondered what exactly this meant for them and the church. Could their own
baptisms or weddings suddenly someday be declared invalid in this way?
Yes.
In 2020, the Rev. Matthew Hood, a priest in Michigan, discovered while
watching a home video that his own baptism had been done using an invalid
formula, which meant not only that his own baptism and ordination were
invalid but also that all of the baptisms, weddings and other sacraments
that he had ever performed as a priest were invalid.
If Calvin Robinson is ordained, according to the Roman Catholic Church,
his ordination will be invalid. It would be invalid if the ordination were
performed by the Church of England, not the much, much smaller Free Church
of England which made him a Deacon.
The Church of England recognizes the orders of the Free Church of
England. Not so the Roman Catholic Church. It recognizes the orders of
neither church. All the people ordained by these churches are invalidly
ordained, according to the Roman Catholic Church.
Pope Leo XIII issued an apostolic letter in 1896 called Apostolicae curae
which declared that all Anglican ordinations are 'absolutely null and
utterly void.' This applies to the consecration of Anglican priests and
bishops: invalid since the 16th century. Anglo-Catholic priests and bishops
who imagine that during Communion they are converting the bread and wine
into the actual body and blood of Christ are mistaken, according to this
pronouncement of the Pope (who was speaking ex cathedra, a guarantee of
infallibility according to Roman Catholic doctrine.) Ex cathedra
pronouncements are supposedly infallible when the subject is a matter of
'morals' as well as 'faith.'
Glimpses into the madhouse of Roman Catholicism. Non-Roman Catholics have
their own versions.
Matters Arising 7
A claim made in the text which accompanies the video: 'The Church of
England can either push woke political agendas or defend the faith. It can't
do both.'
Alan Billings, the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, has
been doing both.
Police and Crime Commissioners are supposed to be impartial. Since he was
appointed Police and Crime Commissioner, Alan Billings has been promoting
Christian belief whenever he can. He included a text from the Old Testament,
Jeremiah 29:7, or an extract from the text which distorted its meaning, in
his 'Keeping Safe,' 'The Police and Crime Plan for South Yorkshire 2017 -
2021.
At the same time, he has promoted vigorous action against 'Hate Crime' on
the part of South Yorkshire Police.'
From various pieces of evidence, it's obvious to me that his faith is
orthodox Christian faith, but he combines it with woke views. An extract
from an astonishing article he wrote which was published in 'The Yorkshire
Post.' (16 December, 2022.)
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/
columnists/police-forces-should-be-woke-as-it-helps-them-understand-the-communities-they-serve-alan-billings-3954584
'Police forces should be 'woke' as it helps them understand the
communities they serve - Alan Billings.'
'Watch, therefore, for you know neither the
day nor the hour (Matt 25.13). That verse sums up the Church’s
pre-Christmas season of Advent: it is all about being alert and awake.
We could say being ‘woke’.'
His use of Matthew 25:13 is grotesque. He seems unaware of the fact
that this isn't in the least a general recommendation to be vigilant but
a specific order which concerns the so-called 'Second Coming' of Jesus,
which was to be expected by his listeners but which never took
place - a doctrinal minefield.
Two comments of mine accepted by GB News and published on the
page 'Calvin's Common Sense Campaign. Saturday 19 August, 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCz3sqpjHik&t=1968s&ab_channel=GBNews
(1)
More on Calvin Robinson's 'Common Sense Crusade.' In a
religious context, 'crusade' could be considered a tainted word.
It seems that Calvin Robinson - and GB News - are ignorant of
the horrific persecutions associated with the word. From the
vast mass of historical evidence, just a few facts concerning
one of the many crusades, the 'German Crusade' of 1096. During
this crusade, mobs of French and German Christians massacred
Jews. These massacres have often been seen as the first in a
series of large-scale anti-semitic events in Europe which
eventually culminated in the Holocaust. Just one episode in this
crusade: at least 800 Jews were massacred in the German city of
Worms when they refused Catholic baptism.
Below, statue of Godfrey of Bouillon (who took part in
the German Crusade) in the Hofkirche, Innsbruck, Austria.
According to the Jewish historian Solomon bar Simson, he swore
'to
go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the
crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely
eradicating any trace of those bearing the name 'Jew ...'
(2)
I support the view of the non-believer who wrote in the
comments section, 'How can a religious person go on a common
sense crusade?' Full title: 'Calvin's Common Sense Crusade.' I
know that Calvin Robinson has an Anglo-Catholic view of the
sacraments, including baptism. He believes that baptism is a
very important step in the life of a Christian. It turns out
that doctrines of baptism have unexpected difficulties, to do
with validity. Theologians have got to work to address the
difficulties and have come up with contradictory, mutually
exclusive solutions, as so often in theology. I wonder if Calvin
Robinson, as a person with common sense - to his own
satisfaction, at least - has a view on one aspect of baptism, to
do with valid and invalid liquids. This is an extract from the
site http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/ which, according to the
site, 'is devoted to the Truth which is the Catholic Faith ... '
'The code of canon law explains that "true, clean, and
natural water" is necessary for baptism (canon 849). Liquids
can be assessed in three categories: Those that are
certainly valid, those that are doubtfully valid, and those
that are certainly invalid. Certainly valid liquids include
water as found in rivers, oceans, lakes, hot springs, melted
ice or snow, mineral water, dew, slightly muddy water (as
long as the water predominates), and slightly brackish
water. 'Doubtfully valid liquids are those that are a
mixture of water and some other substance, such as beer,
soda, light tea, thin soup or broth, and artificially
scented water such as rose water.The last category is of
liquids which are certainly invalid. It includes oil, urine,
grease, phlegm, shoe polish, and milk. 'The rule of thumb is
that, in emergency situations, you should always try to
baptize with certainly valid liquids, beginning with plain,
clean water. If plain water isn't available, baptize with a
doubtfully valid liquid using the formula, "If this water is
valid, I baptize you in the name of the Father . . ." ...
Never attempt to baptize anyone with a certainly invalid
liquid.' So, in an emergency, baptizing a baby
with beer or thin soup (but not thick soup) will be adequate
or more than adequate, providing the priest says 'I baptize
you in the name of the Father ... ' But attempts to baptize
a baby with shoe polish won't work, even if the priest says
'I baptize you in the name of the Father ... ' Canon law
makes this absolutely clear.
i wonder if Calvin Robinson, using his common sense
perspective, would agree with this statement of doctrine or
not. Perhaps the Free Church of England, the branch of the
Church he belongs to, would take a different view: that
baptizing a baby with shoe polish would be effectual after
all, even if the Church would prefer to use other liquids,
such as slightly muddy water (provided that it contains not
very much mud.)
'Fr' Daniel French
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUo5A-vAFIM&t=2s&ab_channel=GBNews
Title: 'The End of Evangelicalism? Fr Daniel French warns
of division in the Church of England.'
The 'warning' is hardly that. In the GB News video,
Daniel French comes across, to me at least, as not a very
strenuous person at all, an impression reinorced by the
Website of his Church, Holy Trinity Salcombe in Devon.
https://www.theseasideparish.co.uk/
The stress is upon the seaside, the surroundings, not in
the least on orthodox faith. This is a missed opportunity,
surely - but of course, I would view an attempt at
explaining the faith and attempting to convert people to the
faith as a waste of time.
In the GB News video, he concentrates so much attention
on statistical evidence - again, of a non-rigorous kind,
evidence which is misused rather than used, demonstrating
and proving nothing or next to nothing. He plays the
percentages game but fails to notice that the steadily
increase, the dramatic increase in the percentage of secular
people, people who have no interest in Christian faith
or next to no interest, is far more significant than
marginal increases in one form of Christian belief rather
than another.
Calvin Robinson and Daniel French are impressed by
bigness, the churches which make a big contribution to the
figures for Church attendance, the churches which seem to be
making a big impression. With a different perspective, the
bigness shrinks alarmingly - the activities of these
churches aren't significant in the larger scheme of things
at all - but this would be to see it from a secular
perspective.
The two of them overlook one very important and
significant fact (they overlook far more than one fact, but
I concentrate on the one.) The Churches which they regard as
so important for restoring the power of Christian faith in
society have again and again failed abysmally. The number of
churches which have transgressed in particularly serious
ways is a minority, but a very significant minority. Here, I
add to the material in other pages of the site and use some
of the material to be found there. The mass of critical
material - the 'critical mass' - is very striking. All I can
do here is provide a very small sample. Most of it is
information, disturbing information, about a group of
Churches not far from where I live, although I begin with a
different group of Churches and the starting point is Lucy
Letby.
The Church which has been in existence for the longest
time is successful. It has planted other Churches,
successful too - successful in the very restricted sense
used by Daniel French and Calvin Robinson. If the criteria
used are ones other than large or very large congregations
and the accumulation of money and other resources, the
record of the parent church and its offshoots is a story of
abysmal failure. There are large numbers of churches
throughout the country which show the same combination of
'success' and failure. I think that anyone who commits time
and money to such churches would be making a bad mistake -
but I don't confine my criticisms to Churches in this class.
Scandal in the second biggest Pentecostal Church in
Britain
https://www.culteducation.com/cult_staging/
group/874-clergy-abuse/4540-scandal-in-the-second-biggest-pentecostal-church-in-britain-.html
With her former bus driver husband, she set up a church
with a congregation of 50 that grew into a charity with an
annual income of £3.5 million.
As the charismatic leaders of the Victory Christian
Centre, Erica Goodman and self-styled pastor Douglas Goodman
were respected by thousands of worshippers.
But away from the pulpit Douglas Goodman was grooming
vulnerable young women in his congregation for sex. And he
and his wife were enjoying a lavish lifestyle, with a
five-bedroom house and a fleet of expensive cars.
Today a two-year investigation by the Charities
Commission into the second biggest Pentecostal church in
Britain reveals how it registered debts of £200,000 despite
having an income of £3.5 million at its peak.
The probe found evidence of " misconduct and
mismanagement," including "significant unauthorised salary
payments and other benefits provided to the pastor and his
wife as well as a number of trustees."
The church, based in an old cinema in Kilburn, was shut
down in December 2002 after a receiver and manager appointed
by the Charities Commission uncovered a long list of
creditors.
There is little chance of recovering cash and benefits
taken out of church funds, and it has emerged that Erica
Goodman is back in business as senior pastor of the slightly
rebranded Victory To Victory Christian Church (V2V). Her
sleek image adorns its website, under the slogan: "The
family church with you in mind." It promises happiness,
healing and prosperity.
The church meets three days a week at a school hall near
Wembley - and is accepting online donations from supporters,
suggesting they pay their "biblical tithe" by credit card.
Douglas Goodman is serving three and a half years for
indecent assault, attempted indecent assault and perverting
the course of justice.
Goodman's victims were a teenage student and a
26-year-old. The jury was told he would shower them with
gifts, urging them to call him Daddy or Papa D. A detective
said: "The victims are really messed up. Some of those who
made allegations against him have made half-hearted attempts
to commit suicide."
But while Goodman serves his sentence his church has
been reborn as a non-profit organisation, this time without
charitable status.
Today's Charities Commission report sets down new rules
to close a loophole that allowed Goodman to extort money
from his congregation by claiming a salary.
Meanwhile, Mrs Goodman, who continues to live in the
couple's ?1.5 million house in Northampton, claims the new
church is like one large family. She states on the website:
"God has blessed V2V abundantly. He has helped us grow into
a thriving church."
She has also set up the Victory Bible Institute, linked
to V2V, which holds conferences and offers a two-year
diploma in biblical studies for a fee of ?950. The website
states VBI exists to make sure that lives fully given to
Jesus reap the richest harvest.
The Evening Standard attempted to contact Erica Goodman
but a spokeswoman for the church refused to make contact.
The spokeswoman refused to comment on the Charities
Commission report and refused to state what revenues are
used for.
She said: "There is no comment. We do not do interviews
for newspapers."
From the Website of Network Church, Sheffield: St Thomas
Philadelphia.
'Our church was planted out of St Thomas Crookes (an
Anglican / Baptist church in Crookes) beginning in 1998,
under the leadership of Mike Breen.
The planting out was in response to significant
growth and also to a sense of call to the whole city.
Extract from a report by the BBC of an event at St
Thomas Philadelphia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61106998
Children's charity Barnado's is to conduct a
review into claims conversion therapy was performed
at a church.
Matthew Drapper said he suffered long-term
trauma after undergoing a form of "exorcism" at
Sheffield's St Thomas Philadelphia church eight
years ago.
St Thomas church has denied it engaged in any
conversion therapy.
Mr Drapper, 33, previously
told the BBC he
was made to repeatedly shout a prayer during a
20-minute session, which left him "cramping up and
struggling to breathe".
"They told me to speak to the gay part of myself
as if speaking to a wild dog coming up to me - and
for me to say to 'leave my body'," he said.
"The people I was with told me they could see
demons leave me and go out of the window."
Barnard's has still not published a report on the
incident.
Most Churches now have safeguarding officers, a
response to the fact that Bishops and other senior
clergy have so often done nothing or next to nothing
about allegations of abuse, sexual abuse and other
forms of abuse. The cases still surface, with
claims that the action of the Churches has been
insufficient or non-existent.
Daniel French has illusions about the kind of faith or the kinds of
faith to be found in 'The Global South.' This is a big
topic. I allude to some issues in connection with the
farcical map below, included with brief comments in the section
Africa and Jesus
in my page
Home Page Images.
Of course, the approach of Daniel French to this continent
of 'The Global South' is very different, to some extent its
diametrical opposite, approving rather than condemning.
However, there are intersections between these two
approaches and they are unified by one obvious factor, an
orthodox Christian view. I don't claim in the least that the
multiple misrepresentations of the map follow from orthodox
Christian belief, only that orthodox Christian belief
underlies many of them
.
Supplementary: Anglo-Catholicism
Calvin Robinson and Daniel French are Anglo-Catholics. Below I
include some images of the people they'd find congenial
company, fellow Anglo-Catholics attending The Walsingham
Miracle - more images and further information on my page
Home Page
Images. Or would they find them congenial? Not
necessarily. It's necessary to take into account the petty
or poisonous jealousies, rivalries, ambitions, animosities
which can be found in groups like this, and, of course, far
more widely. These people will, though, have this in common
- the assurance that their eternal destiny has
been taken care of, is in safe hands. It's possible that Calvin
Robinson may feel aggrieved that this is an Anglican
(and Roman Catholic) event. In these august circles, the
Free Church of England, the outfit he belongs to, occupies a
lowly position. Roman Catholics will claim pre-eminence. If
they follow Roman Catholic teaching, they will believe that
the ordinations of all the others are 'null and void.'
Doctrinal 'errors' won't be overlooked.
Peter Hitchens
For the time being, this is very short. I include an extract from
my page Billingsgate, which
includes material on 'Ichtheology.'
Above, representation of Peter Hitchens,
contributor to GB News, in the form of a
hammerhead shark, with use of artistic licence.
Hammerhead sharks aren't deadly
fish. The teeth on this specimen are nothing to be afraid
of. There are no recorded human fatalities. Most hammerhead
shark species are too small to inflict serious damage. Peter
Hitchens isn't big but bloated. The mouths of hammerhead
sharks are small. Peter Hitchens talks big but what comes
out is far from impressive, more often than not. His
reputation as a fearless, deadly polemicist is unearned, but
when he makes the effort, he can be quite good, although the
opinion that his writing is 'as firm, polished and
potentially lethal as a Guardsman's boot' is surely
exaggerated, as well as peculiar. So many of his opinions
are standard stuff. His opinions aren't the opinions of an
endangered species. Some specimens:
Oppose Covid public health
measures
Support the Church of England
Bring back hanging
His opinion that the
'Conservatives are now the main Left-wing party in the
country' is becoming more and more common but amounts to
flagrant exaggeration, surely.
His book
'The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion,'
published in 2018 presents his views on what he would regard
as 'the national myth' of the Second World War.
It was reviewed by Richard Evans,
who described the book as
'riddled with errors.' An extract:
He 'relies
on a handful of off-beam, eccentric studies of prewar
diplomacy, like the work of the Europhobe and climate change
denier Richard North, instead of using standard modern works
such as Zara Steiner’s two magisterial volumes on interwar
diplomacy in the Oxford
History of Modern Europe.
'This leads him into one error after an-other. He
suggests, for example, that Chamberlain had decided to bring
about a world war in 1939. There is no evidence whatsoever
to support this contention, and abundant evidence to the
contrary; even at the beginning of the war the British prime
minister was trying to arrange for the Italian dictator
Mussolini to intervene to stop the fighting, and had to be
overruled by his cabinet. The problem with arguing, as
Hitchens does, that Britain should have waited to declare
war until rearmament had created a military that was
effective enough to defeat Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany
was rearming even faster than Britain was.
'Similarly, he is flying in the face of many years of
research by German historians when he claims that the German
armed forces in the war were fighting for military
objectives that would have been regarded as legitimate by
the democratic governments of the Weimar Republic that
pre-ceded Hitler’s rise to power: it is very doubtful indeed
whether Weimar’s foreign minister, Gustav Stresemann, would
have approved the invasion of France, Denmark, Norway or
even Czechoslovakia, let alone the Soviet Union.'
In some ways, the review is poor. Richard J Evans
writes,
The word “we” occurs innumerable times in this
book, denoting the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, who
apparently hold firm to the false memory of Britain standing
alone, fighting a “good war” against Nazi Germany from 1939
to 1945 ... Hitchens’s “we” in truth, I suspect, means
mainly elderly readers of the newspaper he writes for, the Mail
on Sunday, and this book is really only for
them.'
This caricature is ridiculous. Peter Hitchens may write
for the Mail on Sunday but his views on the Second World War
won't be to the liking of the vast majority of the
readership at all.
Richard J Evans would seem to share Peter Hitchens' view of
strategic bombing. Frederick Taylor's book 'Dresden' is one
of the many re-examinations of strategic bombing which have
presented the moral dilemmas but also examined in detail the
practcal dilemmas, shockingly hard realities. Richard J
Evans, like Peter Hitchens, seems to be unaware of the mass
of argument and evidence which presents a very different
case.
My loathing for Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens is
increased by the fact that both of them support restoration
of the death penalty. I've already given some arguments
against the death penalty in the section on Patrick Christys.
See also my page on the
death penalty.
I'll give extracts from two sources on a case which has
relevance to the Lucy Letby case. I don't regard the
material as having relevance to the conviction of Lucy Letby.
I include it only because it has relevance to the case for
restoring the death penalty. It would be disastrously
misguided to restore the death penalty and it would be
impossible or virtually impossible to restore it. The
stupidity of Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens may prevent
them from realizing this but people with more sense should
have no difficulty.
Note: Above, I refer to 'The stupidity of Patrick
Christys and Peter Hitchens ... ' I'd prefer to use a
different form, the more specific 'The
*stupidity of Patrick
Christys and Peter Hitchens ... '
I take the view that natural language, in this case
obviously English, is often a very imperfect instrument.
It's all we have for uses like this, but it needs modifying
or supplementing, in this case, for the reason that calling
these two people 'stupid' is an unfair generalization.
Similarly for the variant, 'Patrick Christys and Peter
Hitchens are exceptional people ... exceptionally stupid.' I
prefer to make it clear that they are stupid in this
context. I wouldn't claim that they are stupid in every way.
To make it clear in this way requires explanation, not very
much perhaps, but enough to lead to a loss of directness, a
decrease in force. . Using the asterisk before the word would be a
way of showing that they're stupid, but in a restricted
sense: a sense subject to {restriction}.
The people at GB News generalize again and again - but
that is a generalization in itself, of course. It refers to
all of them, when what I mean is that some of them (or
perhaps most of them) do that. The misuse of generalization
is so frequent that it would be justifiable to introduce a
new category of generalization, the 'GB News
generalization.' They are reckless and ridiculous and the claims
can't be corroborated.
The use of the asterisk here can only be used in writing.
A spoken form might be useful - but it doesn't seem likely in the least that this idea will
be adopted, so I simply repeat the point that Patrick Christys
and Peter Hitchens aren't stupid in every way but that their
obsession with reintroducing the death penalty is stupid but
amounts to more than mere stupidity - much more. I hope this
clarifies the matter.
The discussion here has philosophical implications. Very
little on this site amounts to philosophical discussion, but
academic philosophy is a frequent background. In this case,
there's a linkage with 'Ordinary Language Philosophy,' which
I find inadequate. J L Austin, an ordinary language
philosopher, wrote in 'A plea for excuses,'
'...our common stock of words embodies all the
distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the
connections they have found worth marking, in the lifetime
of many generations: these surely are likely to be more
numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long
test of survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least
in all ordinary and reasonable practical matters, than any
that you or I are likely to think up in our armchair of an
afternoon—the most favourite alternative method.'
Tim Stanley
Tim Stanley was a guest on the GB News show, 'Calvin's
Common Sense Crusade' on 12 August, 2023.
The address of the GB News video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCwZ2Iz6NKY&ab_channel=GBNews
He appears at 19:36 into the video. He disappears from view
at 26:15. During his talk, he refers to the New Atheist
Movement. According to Tim Stanley, The New Atheist Movement
claimed that 'There was nothing sane about religion.' Tim
Stanley claims that 'They never bothered to understand
religion.' I think I can claim that I've made the effort to
understand Christian religion, including the Roman Catholic
variant.
The claims he makes can't be allowed to go unchallenged.
I've given answers, I've provided a very great deal of
counter-argument and counter-evidence on this site, on this
page and on other pages. The material is dispersed and it
wouldn't be a good use of my time to collect all the
dispersed material and to present it here. He makes a set of claims which aren't in the
least reasonable presented in a reasonable tone of voice.
His apparent plausibility hasn't been earned in the least.
This is what he has to say: '[Christianity] offers you a map
for life. It says, here's what you are created for, here's
the purpose, here's the relationship you're trying to build
with God and other people and here's a whole ethical code
that goes with it, here's 2,000 years of magnificent culture
... '
The '2,000 years of magnificent culture' amount to gross a
gross generalization and the generalization amounts to gross
falsification. Even a broad survey uncovers massacres,
persecutions, executions inflicted by Christians upon
non-Christians or inflicted by Christians of one Church upon
Christians of another Church.
A much more detailed set of
investigations uncovers horrific evidence. To give just one
example - in his grotesque generalization, Tim Stanley has
failed to take into account this evidence:
between about 1450 to 1750, which included the period of the
Reformation and Counter Reformation and the Thirty Years'
War, there were an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 executions for
witchcraft, carried out by both Protestant and Catholic
jurisdictions.
Below, three witches being
burned alive in Baden-Baden, Germany. The Baden-Baden witch
trials (in which torture was used to secure 'evidence') took
place between 1627 and 1631 and resulted in the executions
of about 200 people.
There are 'floating voters,' people who go from one
political party to another, and 'floating believers.' Tim
Stanley was a floating believer. He seems to have been
faithful to one particular Christian sect, the Roman
Catholic branch, for a long time. Can he defend his
decision? I'm sure that he can't, but if he wants to defend
his views in detail, he should go ahead.
This is from the Wikipedia entry for this floating believer:
In October 2012, Stanley stated he
was "raised a good Baptist boy".Later, he considered
himself to be an Anglican, beginning around "one glorious
summer" in 2002, and was baptised as an Anglican in Little
St Mary's, Cambridge, in New Year 2003. He
subsequently aligned himself with the Church of England's
Anglo-Catholic wing, before converting to the Catholic
Church when he was 23.'
'There was nothing sane about religion.' He converted to
a Church which venerates Saint Augustine, who taught that
unbaptized babies go to hell for eternity. This is just one
deranged view that I attack on this site. Tim Stanley lives
in a dream world - not all the time, not in every way,
obviously, but with some deeply
confused part of his personality. I should phrase this
differently, though - 'with some shallowly confused part of
his personality.'
Michael Phillips,
Christian Legal Centre
Michael Phillips, of the Christian Legal Centre, appeared on the GB News programme,
'Calvin's Common Sense Crusade' of Saturday 9 September,
2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08p7RYWnpKw&t=2593s&ab_channel=GBNews
I posted a long comment on the same page, not directed at
Michael Phillips. Calvin Robinson sees the need for every
disused Church to be recognized as a 'sacred space.' He
recited a list of new uses to which former churches
have been put and said, 'I think it's disrespectful, I think
that a sacred space should always be respected and used for
worship.'
Before a church closed for good, the congregation may
well have dwindled to vanishing point. If he has a
miraculous answer to the issue of how a church can be kept
in a state of repair when things have reached this state
then he didn't mention it on the programme.
But thriving churches, churches which are packed out,
aren't 'sacred spaces' so much as places where cruel,
backward doctrines are taught - I include some of them in
the column to the right. But Michael Phillips has no idea.
He persists in the belief that 'the church is in decline
because it is moving in a certain direction' (away from
orthodox faith.' I give profiles of a conservative
evangelical churches which still attracts large
congregations on my page
Church donations. The
Church is STC
(formerly St Thomas Church) Sheffield.
The Christian Legal Centre appeals for donations - no
surprise. The page
https://christianconcern.com/donate/
gives information about how to donate. My advice is:
don't bother. According to the Wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Centre
the Christian Legal Centre 'has lost most of its legal
cases.' Some examples:
Graham Cogman, a Norfolk police constable lost his job
for sending emails to colleagues in which he quoted
Bible passages condemning homosexuality and gave information
about
a group offering to 'cure'
homosexuals. He complained to an employment tribunal,
supported by the Christian Legal Centre, claiming harassment
on the grounds of his religious beliefs. He lost his case
and his dismissal was not rescinded.
Duke Amachree, a homelessness officer,
was fired by Wandsworth Council for subjecting a client to
a "30-minute barrage" of evangelism when he was supposed to
be offering her housing advice. The client complained to the
council, leading to an investigation. The council complained
that Amachree revealed "sensitive personal information"
about the client to the media, namely in an interview with
the Daily Mail after the Christian Legal Centre had
become involved The CLC supported Amachree in an
unsuccessful legal claim for unfair dismissal, religious
discrimination, and breach of contract.
In 2018, a High Court judge expressed serious
concerns over the conduct of Christian Legal Centre
consultant Pavel Stroilov during the
Alfie
Evans case.
[Clicking on the link will give information about the case.]
Mr. Justice Hayden described Stroilov as a "fanatical and
deluded young man" whose "malign hand" was "inconsistent
with the real interests of the parents' case." The judge
also accused CLC activists of doing the parents "far more
harm than it does them good" and said submissions were
"littered with vituperation and bile" ... Mary
Holmes, former solicitor for the parents of
Alfie Evans, accused the CLC of exploiting the case for
their own benefit.
Three court of appeal judges said a letter from
Stroilov to the parents of Alfie Evans was "misleading to
the extent of giving the father false advice". The letter in
question advised Evans' father that it would be lawful to
remove Alfie from Alder Hey Hospital. The court heard that
this led to a confrontation at the hospital, in which Alfie
was involved, and police were called. A
court of appeal judge said that the letter was "disseminated
on social media (presumably with the knowledge of Mr
Stroilov".
Simon Webb, historian: a very disturbing page
These are two hideous comments that follow a You Tube video of Simon
Webb, 'How two Jewish academics in America created the modern concept of
anti-racism.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTCc_6IKeIk&t=76s
More comments are quoted later on, many more: in all the comments
quoted, spelling, punctuation and grammar as in the original. Simon Webb
did nothing about the blatantly anti-semitic, in some cases neo-Nazi
comments which he allowed to be published, in very large numbers. One of
the comments:
'thank you so much for being such a brave fellow this needs to be
heard the truth will finally be revealed to the public one of these days
the german man [obviously a reference to Hitler] tried to warn us but
nobody listened people like you are so brave thank you so much sir for
making this video god bless''
They [an obvious reference to Jews] even managed to make a teetotal
vegetarian who loved animals and who enjoyed painting as a pastime ...
into evil incarnate.' [an obvious reference to Hitler.]
Anti-semitism takes different forms, obnoxious but comparatively mild
and forms which are much worse than obnoxious. The antisemitic language
of the Nazis was terrifying, the kind that led to the policy and
practice of annihilation. The comments of these people on the Simon Webb
page aren't in that category but most of them surely much worse than
obnoxious.
The two academics who according to Simon Webb created 'the
modern concept of anti-racism' are Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict.
According to the evidence available to me, neither of them were
observant Jews. Even if they had been observant Jews, the description
Jewish academics would have been completely unnecessary. If Simon Webb
thinks that no objection can be taken to the description Jewish
academics, a large number of the commenters thought that the mention of
'Jewish' was very, very significant and responded, in some cases like
Nazis, in others like easily-led sheep.
It's very, very disturbing that Simon Webb never intervened and
responded to the antisemitism of so many of the comments. He did respond
to a single comment, which wasn't antisemitic. The comment: 'Did your
wife write this one?' Writing as 'History Debunked,' the title of his
You Tube channel, Simon Webb responded with 'That is an odd question!
No, I wrote it myself.' The question posed in this comment was odd, but
he preferred to be silent about the hideous spectacle which was playing
out on this You Tube page of his. I find it impossible to believe that
the only comment he read was this one about his wife. He must have known
that vile claims were being made but chose to do nothing about it.
In a matter as important as this, responsibility doesn't end with
posting a video. He should have known the likely response or a possible
response from antisemites before posting the video. If his historian's
judgment failed him and he had no idea of what could happen, the
evidence soon came flooding in - and still he did nothing. He was
culpable, he failed. He's welcome to come up with explanations or
excuses, if he can think of any.
Simon Webb is a liability to 'the
anti-woke cause' - except that there isn't a single, monolithic cause. There are nuances,
small differences and, also major differences, with the possibility of
the contradictions, unexpected events, grotesque complications which are
common in human life.
The comments of what I call 'the rabble,' the rabble enthused or
inspired by if not incited by Simon Webb, included these:
'Europe and the US would truly be something magnificent without
them.' [i.e., the Jews. And the Nazis believed that Germany would be
something magnificent without the Jews.]
'Good work here Simon, finally calling them out.' [Again, 'them'
obviously refers to the Jews.] 'Oh yes he's finally addressing the tribe
[obviously the reference intended is to Israel] ... Many other things
they inflicted on the west.' [No attempt made to give examples. The
Nazis did, of course, come up with examples of alleged harm to justify
their policy of exclusion and then extermination.]
'I always appreciate your honesty Simon.' [Perhaps someone who is
easily pleased - by, for example, an affable manner, by appearances,
without delving any deeper.]
'The thanks we get for saving them.' [The commenter would find in
Martin Gilbert's book 'The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the
Holocaust' a great deal of information about 'Yad Vashem,' based in
Jerusalem, which amongst other things honours, commemorates and makes
completely clear the gratitude of the state of Israel for the many
people who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. There
are countless other pieces of evidence which could be cited.]
'Who would have guessed, a concept invented by the 'chosen' people.'
'It's always them. The same group behind everything.' [The Nazis had
the same deluded conviction.]
This [the thesis which the writer of the comment finds in the video
and found by so many others who added a comment to the video] is
explained in 'Culture of Critique' by Macdonald.' [Wikipedia gives this
information, 'The Culture of Critique series is a trilogy of books by
Kevin B. MacDonald, an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, white
supremacist and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology.
MacDonald claims that evolutionary psychology provides the motivations
behind Jewish group behaviour and culture. Through the series, MacDonald
asserts that Jews as a group have biologically evolved to be highly
ethnocentric and hostile to the interests of white people. He asserts
Jewish behaviour and culture are central causes of antisemitism, and
promotes conspiracy theories about alleged Jewish control and influence
in government policy and political movements.' ]
'15.2 million Jews in the world. 6.3 million of those are in Israel.
Therefore, there are only 8.9 million Jews in the entire world outside
of Israel. Smaller than the population of London. They've got a lot to
say haven't they? They do seem to be at the root of much of christian
society's problems. I've never held antisemitic thoughts. I worked on a
kibbutz in Israel when I was a teenager. However, even I am beginning to
see a pattern here.'
'Oh yes he's finally addressing the tribe...Many other things they
inflicted on the west.'
'Perhaps just perhaps that little fella with the strange moustache
knew something all along ?' [Another obvious reference to Hitler.]
'Youll get the clicks. Thanks for sticking for the truth.' [Present
statistics: 9,600 likes, no dislikes. It would have been far, far better
for the reputation of his followers and admirers if for this video,
there had been far less likes.]
'Your channel could be taken down soon if you keep this up. It's not
worth the risk. It's sad that merely speaking verifiable information
with proof is this risky.'
'But isn't it strange that they never insisted on equality between
Jews and Palestinians?' A reply to this comment: 'They don't consider
anyone else to be their equals. Their sense of worth is vastly out of
proportion to their contributions to humanity.'
Is the penny or should that be shekel starting to drop for Simon
after all these years?'
'Universal troublemakers' 'I don't hate them, but they've pulled the
wool over our children's eyes, enough is enough.'
'WOAH 6 MILLION JEWS WERE MURDERED BRUTALLY IN YHE HOLOCAUST HOW DARE
YOU CRITICIZE GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE.' [I take the view for a variety of
reasons, including stylistic reasons, that this wasn't a genuine
expression of dismay that Simon Webb had criticized Jews but a facetious
comment posing as a genuine expression of dismay. As such, given the use
of the shocking statistic that 6 million Jews were killed in the
Holocaust - or rather misuse - this could be called a particularly
shocking comment on the part of whoever wrote the comment.]
And with that, I leave Simon Webb and the New Culture Forum to think
about the implications of all these comments, if they're so minded, and
to consider their responses, if any. Perhaps any people who recorded
their appreciations of the wonderful talents, the wonderful gifts, the
wonderful personality of Simon Webb in many of the comments on that You
Tube page and who find out about this dissenting view may like to think
about the issues and consider this possibility: that this is a man less
wonderful than they supposed, a man with some very substantial flaws. I
think that Peter Whittle would benefit by reconsidering his obviously
high opinion of Simon Webb. No professional historian who values his
reputation would or should allow what Simon Webb did, complacently
allowing so many of his admirers and followers to run riot, in effect.