Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

I was enjoying a cup of coffee this morning when an advertisement came up for the upcoming History Channel treatment of Pius XII. The narrator intoned, in a deadly serious voice, about the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and how the Pope stood neutral; and how Jews were being shot right beneath the Vatican windows, and the Pope stood neutral; and on, and on. Any literate person with access to actual history would know at once that, regardless of the History Channel narrator’s words, the Pope never stood neutral. The History Channel wouldn't know what the real history of an event was if it came up and bit them on the butt. Obviously, they only seek to further the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian agenda of Leftist-atheistic show-biz and the SLIMC.

Pius XII is conservatively credited with saving over 850,000 Jews from the Nazi holocaust. Who else saved anywhere near that number? Schindler, of Schindler's List fame? Not even close. Churchill? No. F.D.R.? Don't make me laugh. If you combined the numbers of saved Jews from every individual, group or organization that saved any Jews at all into one number, it would not even be close. That's the real history of it.

He was universally acclaimed as the most singular, stand-alone opponent of Nazism and champion of the Jews, everywhere, until some five years after his death. Then, the open slander and defamation began, with a theatrical piece called The Deputy by a little known playwright named Rolf Hochhuth in Munich. In this hateful, slanderous and anti-Catholic polemic, Pius was portrayed as being just as ruthless and heartless as Hitler himself. And virulent anti-Catholicism has never let go of it since.

While the US and Britain were knowingly and actively blocking immigration of Jews fleeing the holocaust, the Vatican was issuing thousands and thousands of fraudulent documents to allow Jews to pass as Christians and escape to other countries, and hiding them, sheltering them, disguising them, smuggling and otherwise transporting them, and saving them. At the Nurnburg trials, even Nazi war criminals provided testimony regarding his consistent official communications denouncing Nazi anti-Semitism, atrocities and crimes. Historical figures and organizations that hailed the singular and super-heroic efforts of Pius XII include Israel Zolli, chief rabbi of Rome; Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel; Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress; Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli’s conversion to Catholicism; and even the New York Times, of all things.

The historical trail is ridiculously easy to follow; you don't need to be an historian. Look at the Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust link for a more honest and complete depiction than you will get from show-biz or the SLIMC. Real history shows that Pius XII performed heroically in defense of the Jews; but you will find SLIMC - produced crockumentaries on how he ran a secret "rat-hole" operation to smuggle Nazi war criminals to Argentina.

Yeah, right.

It's all part and parcel to the agenda of the Left to drive down and eventually eliminate the existing American guiding ethos, which is the ancient ethos of Western Civilization itself, which is already greatly reduced in Europe. The Left has always despised Christianity, and has always displayed a streak of anti-Semitism. But note well the nature of the ethos, or, perhaps I should say, the lack of an ethos, that they would replace it with. The Thinking Catholic Strategic Center discusses the nature and the vital importance of this thing called ethos in more detail in the Cultural Morality Page.

But the important thing to note is the nature of the Atheist Ethos, which is this: Atheism has no guiding ethos. To the Atheist, there are no absolutes, and there is no such thing as a definitive set of rules differentiating right from wrong. To the Atheist, whether something is good or bad can be judged, quite subjectively, only after an event has occurred. Which is a little late, and, most of us would say, a little vague, to say the least, and far too subjective.

So, the History Channel would have us believe that they are opposing Nazism in their hit piece on Pius XII, as they provide an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian nudge in their preferable Atheist direction. Which just happens to perfectly coincide with the exact same "ethos" of the likes of Adolph "Christianity is the worst thing that ever happened to humankind" Hitler, and Joseph "how many divisions can the Pope put in the field?" Stalin, and Mao "I killed more people than Genghis Khan" Tse Tung, and so many others. The bloodiest butchers in human history did not come out of the Western Culture ethos, but out of open rejection and repudiation of it.

Beware. Know what you are watching, and what your children are watching, and be prepared to criticize, comment and discuss. Maintain and strengthen the traditions and the norms and the boundaries of Western Culture. You know what your own ethos is, or you should; and you should know what the overall guiding ethos of America is. But when you turn on that tube, most of the time you will be viewing something produced by someone with the guiding ethos of BMDFP and the SLIMC.

So, a quickee advertisement this morning lit my fire, and I just had to say something. I feel better now.

Blessed be God forever, and may God Bless the USA.

Some good books on the subject:

The Pope and the Holocaust; John S. Rader and Kateryna Fedoryka, Family Apostolate.

Pius XII: Greatness Dishonoured; Michael O'Carroll, Laetare Press.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Sun Feb 07 09:52:23 2010
From: Rob
Email: rajh99@hotmail.com
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Comment:

I have watched several programs on the History Channel that are blatantly anti-Catholic. In a 'History of Christianity' they do not even acknowledge the Catholic church's existence, but rather refer to the first group of Christians as 'the church' (generic). The National Geographic channel clearly represents and promotes the Protestant viewpoint in many of their religious programs (i.e. Jesus had several brothers/sisters). They are closely aligned with The Salvation Army, a group which is openly and notoriously anti-Catholic.

Date: Sun Feb 07 13:49:29 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Rob:

That’s part of the reason I watch so little TV these days. When it isn’t blatant immorality, it’s something that makes me mad, whether a political issue or a religious one.

That being said, we still support and give to the Salvation Army, not because of their teaching or belief, but because of their steadfast support for the least among us and the destitute. Other than the St. Vincent De Paul society, there are very few out there who do what they do. When you think about it, Protestants are supposed to be anti-Catholic to some degree; that’s what makes them Protestant.

As a matter of fact, I must be somewhat of an anti-Protestant, else I could not continue to be so proud of being such a staunch Roman Catholic. We can openly argue and discuss these inter-faith issues in America, because we are Americans. When anyone takes a rhetorical shot at the Church, we should always be prepared to return fire. I’m sure Protestants feel the same way.

When all is said and done, although I know that they are wrong and wish they would see the light, I still feel a strong American kinship with Protestants and Jews, who share our Western Culture ethos and sense of right versus wrong. It is atheism, and even more, Secularism, that I view as out-and-out enemies of the American ethos and the American ideal.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu Sep 30 19:15:51 2010
From: Theresa Revilak
Email: sabinfigaro0714@hotmail.com
Location: Scranton, Pa
Comment:

Glad to hear someone else is upset with the anti-Christian views of the History Channel. They show complete bias in their reports, and furthermore pick and choose which parts of history and the Bible (even the proven parts) to believe. If they don't like what the Bible says, well then it simply didn't happen. We Christians (and I group Catholic and Protestant together here - after all - the bottom line is Jesus) made it all up to enslave the world. It's all a bit ridiculous. Their shows are ridiculous as well. It's too bad, since the concept is a great one, and one my husband and I would love to watch more of.

Date: Thu Sep 30 19:50:37 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Theresa:

I hear you; amen to that. It’s the old battle between the spirit, which is willing, and the flesh, which is weak. Most of show-biz today, including TV, is run by atheistic secularists and secularizers. They think of, and therefore portray, Judao-Christian religion as enslaving, and The World as freeing, but they have it exactly opposite. Faith frees you from The World; something they cannot understand.

Most of them are enslaved to power, or status, or pills, or dope, or drink, or rich food, or sex, or perversions of one sort or another, or pleasure, and forms of pleasure that cannot be achieved by just being. The fact is, the atheist is the true slave, while the faithful ones are free.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Jan 09 07:26:00 2011
From: Mild Bill
Email: bguif@att.net
Location: Naugatuck, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Comment:

"Crockumentries", great description. I had an earful yesterday from the History Channel and wondered if anyone else thought so too. Thanks for being here and May God Bless your labors.

Date: Sun Jan 09 13:39:16 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Mild Bill:

Thank you so much; blessings to you and yours.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Jun 19 17:03:41 2011
From: Nina
Email: bryant.janine2@gmail.com
Location: Oklahoma City, United States
Comment:

Ya know what? The history channel is an organization of hacks! If I were a Princeton academic or some such "authority" there is no way that I would wish for my reputation to be lain on the line of the History Channel. Indeed, they take the testimony of experts on Aliens from outer space. That is their only possible answer to the "evidence" of extra terrestrials in the Bible. No. It couldn't possibly Divine activity! Any other truth but that. If a college student handed in a paper resembling any of their shows, they would get it thrown out as a "zero". They are the worst kinds of hacks because they like to "tickle" our ears. They are the "inquirer" style rags in the form of television. The Roman Catholic Church and many others were heroic in their efforts to save many Jews and other victims. As an Orthodox Christian I cannot but see the living out of the Christian gospel by His Holiness, Pius XII who was a willing martyr, laboring for the cause of the freedom of many victims FROM THE NAZIS! I just can't understand why people hate The prince of Peace so very much....but then I remember...this is not about flesh and blood but about spiritual realities of good and evil. It is evident which side history channel is on.

Date: Wed Nov 23 23:11:55 2011
From: Manix
Email: ndoki53@yahoo.com
Location: Richmond/Virginia/USA
Comment:

Something is very wrong with the way history is being told in the world. To watch the History Channel one would think that Africans made absolutely no contribution humanity. This is very suspect. I believe that the credit given to Arabs (to include the Egyptians of today who do not view themselves as African) and Europeans concerning building, writing, and the sciences were stolen. There was a people in what was a much larger Africa long ago BEFORE the Europeans invaded and the Arabs invaded and occupied that continent. There appears to have been (and still is) a major over-up effort to conceal who were really the inhabitants of the land: Black Africans. The building of the Aswan Dam - which backed up the Nile and creating Lake Nasser - certainly covered a lot of evidence. I believe this was by design. If the Arab Egyptians really built the Pyramids and wrote the hieroglyphs, why are European and American scholars the ones primarily deciphering them? One would think the people who wrote them would have absolutely no problem with reading those writings. The Egyptians of today cannot read them. Only a few Egyptian scholars can. Why is this? If the Arab Egyptians ancestors created these writings, certainly the understanding of them would have been passed down through the generations. I believe the entire "mystique" about Egypt, the Great Sphinx, the Pharaohs, the Pyramids, and the hieroglyphs have been one major major lie. When Arab and European invaders came down from the North into Africa, a highly civilized people were already there. Today the only reason why the Egyptian government closely guards and monitors where tourist can go, is to prevent any discovery of a Black African people who built up that ancient civilization. The only reason why so many Caucasians are over their digging stuff up is not to "discover and reveal", but to "discover and conceal." One NEVER sees an African American scientist in Egypt working side-by-side with White American or White European scientist. Ever wonder why? The History Channel is another tool to lie to the world about it's history. It makes absolutely no sense for a Black African people to have existed in a land such as this and the world is being led to believe that they made no contribution to humanity. It reminds me of how Christopher comes to America, so-call discovers it, and claims it. Yet, a peaceful and civilized people were already here. The native American has been pushed off on reservations and forgotten. The invading European stole and desecrated, their land (what is called America today). This is what happened in the Africa of long ago before the European and Arab invaders came; a peaceful, trusting, welcoming people where already there. Their monumental contribution to the world has been stolen and others have taken credit for it. If what is written in Scripture (The Bible) is true, Nimrod was the son of Cush (Hamitic), Africans descended from Cush. Scripture also says Nimrod led the building of the great Tower of Babel and had built the first city. The people were builders and planners. This FIRST was not attributed to the descendants of Japheth (Indo-Europeans, Aryan, Germanic) or to the descendants of Shem (Jews and Arabs), but to the descendants of Ham, Cush who was father to Nimrod. World history is biased and it is a major lie.

Date: Thu Nov 24 07:05:52 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Manix:

Hmmm …

First, let me wish you a blessed and happy Thanksgiving Day, as the turkey goes into the oven and delicious aromas begin to waft through the house.

I’m not really sure exactly how to respond to your submission; it is certainly thought provoking. But you seem to ask more questions than provide solid evidences regarding your theory. The biggest question in my mind regarding this involves the potential number of black archeologists and historians – I have a hard time believing there aren’t any, or that the ones who are out there are somehow kept from accessing dig sites or archival records, and they aren’t raising a big public stink about it.

As far as Western culture knowledge of the time was concerned, the New World was indeed “discovered” by Columbus, because they did not previously know that it existed. Your use of pejorative terms such as “invaded” and “stolen” regarding lands in America reveal a highly prejudiced education in American history. Those words might be more truthfully changed to “settled” and “overwhelmed by superior culture” with the admitted aid of tyrannical racists and mass-murderers such as Andrew Jackson, and periodic discoveries of gold on Indian lands.

But note the socio-economic condition today of our Reservation Indians, who are dependent on the government, and the off-Reservation Indians who are not, and who are just as well off as any other Americans. Are the Reservations not similar to the old Soviet collective, or the old Israeli Kibutz, or the American Catholic Worker Movement collective farm, or any other sort of Commune, all of which eventually failed and had to be abandoned? And does this not bear some resemblance to the black single-parent family in the inner city ghetto that is completely dependent on government programs? Compare their socio-economic condition to all the many, many black self-made millionaires in America.

Note also that Nimrod was a bad guy; that the tower he built was turned into the tower of babble in an event that destroyed the ability to communicate, and ruptured the existing civilization and fractured it into a bunch of nonsensical individuals who could not make themselves understood.

Perhaps you’re onto something there.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue Nov 29 13:53:58 2011ar
From: JD
Email: jim.dunstan@yahoo.ca
Location: Canada
Comment:

I'm surprised that the commentator, who is rightly critical of the History Channel's portrayal of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant), takes no offence to wild speculation, i.e. "They (National Geographic) are closely aligned with The Salvation Army, a group which is openly and notoriously anti-Catholic." Where are the facts for this statement? How is the SA connected and how are they anti-Catholic? And the commentator's response goes on to state "we still support and give to the Salvation Army, not because of their teaching or belief...". Why the issue with the SA? Clearly some sort of bias, but based on what? I understand non-Christians have problems with the SA in that they strive to address both the physical and spiritual needs of the individual, especially the marginalized. But why are Christians critical? The SA is a bible based Christian organization and first and foremost a holiness movement. This means that soldiers are not just required to show up at church once in a while, but to live their lives daily as a witness for Christ (hence the uniform). They believe all was created by God, that Christ is God's only begotten son and part of the trinity along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, He alone can forgive sins through his death on the cross and resurrection. They believe in clean living, don't drink, smoke, gamble or engage in other injurious habits. They are an army of action fighting against oppression and sin, shedding the trappings of pomp and ceremony for the true expression of God's love. They preach that salvation is available to all who ask Christ for forgiveness and accept Him as their saviour. So a simple question: what "teaching or beliefs" do you find distasteful and is this anti-Catholic?

Date: Wed Nov 30 05:57:38 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

JD:

Rob, if he reads this, will have to respond to your questions re the SA relationship with National Geographic, and the degree to which the SA might be anti-Catholic. I have seen no evidence supporting Rob’s remarks.

As for my position, I know that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the center of all truth on earth. That is an element of the Creed, which forms the bedrock foundation of Catholic theology. If I didn’t believe it, I wouldn’t profess it, and I publicly profess it every time I recite the Credo, out loud, at every Catholic Mass. You do not believe it; if you did, you would be standing right beside me and professing it out loud at every Catholic Mass.

To say that the SA projects helping the poor and leading souls away from the slavery of sin are admiral and praiseworthy is not to say that I do not have theological differences with the SA. The SA is highly moral; so are the Mormons. So are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But there are theological differences that cannot be ignored, and I do not ignore them.

The Church Christ founded began operation in the year of our Lord 1. It did not begin in 1865. Our Lord said that the very gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and our Lord did not lie.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.