Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Dr. Phil Blosser on Easter and Passover

A Joyous Passover

(Excerpt from Dr. Blosser's article):

I noticed in Sandro Magister's post on Good Friday, in which he offered Easter greetings in four different languages, that the English language is the only language of those four (English, Italian, French and Spanish) in which the term for Easter lacks any etymological connection to the Jewish word for Passover. Here they are:
Best Wishes for a Happy Easter! (English)
Tanti auguri di buona Pasqua! (Italian)
Joyeuses Pâques! (French)
¡Feliz Pascua de Resurrección! (Spanish)

'Pasqua', 'Pâques', and 'Pascua' are each etymologically derived from the term Pesach (Hebrew: פֶּסַח) or, more precisely, the verb "pasàch" (Hebrew: פָּסַח) which is first mentioned in the Old Testament account of the flight from Egypt (Exodus 12:23) in Moses' words that God "will pass over" the houses of the Children of Israel during the last of the Ten Plagues of Egypt, in which the first-born were killed. ("Passover," Wikipedia).

Read more here.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Catholic Culture Judges Sungenis Material "Blatantly Anti-Semitic"

Catholic Culture (formerly Petersnet) has the following relevant comments to offer about Robert Sungenis and Catholic Apologetics International:


Weaknesses:

· A tendency to rush to judgement and condemn others. (Fidelity) (Examples)

· Some material is blatantly anti-semitic. (Fidelity) (Examples)

Sungenis has elected to go beyond legitimate arguments about why the conversion of the Jews is a theologically legitimate objective. Instead, Sungenis has chosen to recycle the worst slurs and slanders in the anti-Semitic repertoire. (End Quote from Catholic Culture)

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Sungenis's Definition Difficulties

Throughout this controversy, Robert Sungenis has repeatedly demonstrated that he holds to totally different standards for himself compared to those to which he holds his opponents. Recently, he has complained bitterly that his critics have arbitrarily changed the definition of “anti-Semitism” simply in order to single him out:

Sungenis: “Notice that I, Robert Sungenis, have become the new criterion whereby “anti-semitism” is defined, rather than using the accepted definition that says anyone who says that he hates the Jews because of their race is anti-semitic. Mr. Forrest has reached a new height in the calumny – inventing his own definitions so that he can support his own condemnations.”
Article


This specific charge will be dealt with shortly, but it is important to consider this complaint within the larger context of Sungenis’s extreme double standard on the issue of “definitions” as a whole. The fact is, he has repeatedly done precisely that about which he complains: redefining terms in order to suit a particular agenda. Notice that Sungenis appeals to an "accepted definition" but never bothers to cite any official source for the definition. There's a simple reason for this. His "accepted definition" simply isn’t actually the “accepted definition.”


The following are five recent examples of Bob's arbitrary redefinition of terms: 1) Plagiarism 2) Judaizing 3) Vigilante 4) Calumny and 5) Anti-Semitism.

1) Plagiarism:

Robert Sungenis has on more than one occasion attempted to defend himself by redefining the term “plagiarism”:

Sungenis: "Plagiarism is the willful and intentional effort to copy and distribute for personal gain someone else’s legally published material."
Article, page 8


Here is the definition according to several authoritative sources, including Sungenis’s own alma mater:

a) Plagiarize: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the
source. intransitive verb: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source (Merriam-Webster)

b) Plagiarism: The action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own; literary theft. (Oxford English Dictionary)

c) Plagiarism is a serious infraction of the law of God and is punishable by measures determined by the faculty up to and including expulsion from the seminary...

Plagiarism is literary burglary. At its worst it involves an outright intent to deceive, to pass off another's work as one's own. More often, it is the result of carelessness or ignorance. But whether intentional or unintentional (the distinction is often hard to draw), plagiarism is always an error, and a serious one.

Whenever you borrow another writer's words or ideas, you must acknowledge the borrowing. ...When you use their words, their ideas, even their organization or sequence of ideas, say so--in a footnote or in the text. Claim as your own only what properly is your own. (Westminster Theological Seminary)


Notice the efforts to which Sungenis goes in order to carve out the exceptions through which he can escape the charge of plagiarism. But his problem remains- the actual definition from authoritative sources does not square with Sungenis’s unique definition.

Furthermore, even under his own definition, he is still guilty of plagiarism, since his articles are designed in part to elicit financial donations. More directly to the point, he has included some plagiarized material in a tape that he currently sells on his web site: Products-Tapes

In his three-tape set, "Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary?? A Critique of the USCCB 'Reflections' Document", Sungenis says:

"Benedict XIV continues: 'If any should ask what is forbidden by the Apostolic See to Jews dwelling in the same towns as Christians...he has only to read the Constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, Nicholas IV, Paul IV, Saint Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Clement VIII, which are readily available, as they are to be found in the Bullarium Romanum'. The Dictionnaire* Apologetique de la Foi Catholique gives a long list of Papal Decrees condemning the Talmud and the Talmudic formation, since the Talmud became known to Catholics about 1238-1240." (Sungenis, audio cassette "Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary??", tape 1, side 1)


*Sungenis mispronounces the French word "dictionnaire" as the English "Dictionary." This last sentence, beginning "The Dictionnaire Apologetique ..." is taken verbatim from Fr. Denis Fahey's book The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation:

"The Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, in the article Juifs et Chretiens (cols. 1691-1694), gives a long list of Papal Decrees condemning the Tamud [sic] and the Talmudic formation, since the Talmud became known to Catholics about 1238-1240." (Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Jewish Nation [Hawthorne, CA: Christian Book Club of America, 1987], p. 89)


Later in the tape set, Sungenis says:

"The Talmud is divided into six main divisions called 'Sedarim'. The Talmud is an assortment of every subject imaginable. Unfortunately, it is filled with obscenities and blasphemies of the highest order. It seeks to reverse many biblical moral teachings on theft, murder, sodomy, perjury, treatment of children and parents. Most of all, it has an unrelenting and virtually insane hatred of Christ, Christians and every aspect of Christianity ... A like hatred displayed in Talmudic Judaism is reserved for, and directed against, the believers of Christianity. They are called "enemies," "heathen," "idolators,"" and "goy-animals". Christians receive the Jewish curses of the 7th and 12th of the Eighteen Benedictions called the Shemoneh Esreh, which the orthodox Jew recites three times daily and four times on the Sabbath, or Jewish holidays. Thus Christians are cursed six times on ordinary days and eight times on special Jewish days." (Sungenis, audio cassette "Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary??", tape 3, side 2)


These two paragraphs are lifted verbatim from Elizabeth Dilling's book The Plot Against Christianity, later republished under the title The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, and from Lt. Jack Mohr's book The Effects of the Talmud on Judeo-Christianity:

"The Talmud is divided into six main divisions called 'Sedarim' (orders), but each division and each volume is a hodge-podge of every subject imaginable. The main and overall characteristics of the Talmud are: pomp, silliness, obscenity and more obscenity, a setting up of laws seemingly for the purpose of inventing circumventions, and evasions; delight in sadistic cruelty; reversal of all Biblical moral teachings on theft, murder, sodomy, perjury, treatment of children and parents; insane hatred of Christ, Christians and every phase of Christianity." (Dilling, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today [online source, p. 4)

"The supreme hatred of Talmudic Judaism is reserved for, and directed against, the believers of the Christian Bible ... You who believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God are classified as the primary enemies of Judaism. You are called "heathen," "Idolators," and "goy-animals" by your Jewish friends ... As a Christian, you receive the Jewish curses of the 7th and 12th of the Eighteen Benedictions called the SHEMONEH ESREH. The orthodox Jew recites this three times daily and four times on the Sabbath, or Jewish holidays. This means that Christians are cursed six times on ordinary days and eight times on special Jewish days." (Jack Mohr, The Effects of the Talmud of Judeo-Christianity, Chapter 7, online source )


Additionally, Ben Douglass has recently divulged the following information:

“At the second conference of Catholics Defending Biblical Inerrancy, one of Sungenis' speeches consisted essentially in him reading, without attribution, Damien Mackey's article ‘The Toledoths of Genesis.’ This speech was recorded on DVD. So, I recently asked Sungenis a few times whether he had ever sold this DVD for profit. Lo and behold, he refused to give a straight answer to my simple yes or no question.” Article


Sungenis has recently complained that "There was one instance, five years ago, in which I copied and pasted material for an article I wrote. I rearranged the wording so that I did not quote directly from the source, but Mr. Cork (who admits his family is Jewish) accused me of plagiarism", and "This was a private article which I had no intentions of publishing on the open market. Had I plans to publish it on the open market, every statement would have been properly footnoted and with a bibliography, as is the case with every book I have ever written." (Sungenis, Jacob Michael: Still Confused and Calumniating, p. 6) But as we can see, there are at least four verifiable examples of plagiarism, at least three of which are still being sold "on the open market" at CAI's web site today - Bob charges $18 for this three-tape set, in which he plagiarizes Fahey, Dilling, and Mohr. Of course, this is to say nothing of the book reviews and News Alerts taken from other sources that so regularly appear without any attribution at CAI. Bottom line: according to accepted definitions of the word, Bob Sungenis has plagiarized numerous times over the past five years.

2) Judaizing:

As Claudio Salvucci clearly demonstrated, Robert Sungenis has cavalierly redefined the meaning of this heresy in order to smear brother Catholics who converted from Judaism. Below are two representative statements made by Robert Sungenis:

"What is Judaizing? Simply put, it is the attempt to mix Judaism with Christianity."
Article


“not only do I contend that Moss and Schoeman are reintroducing a modern-day Judaizing theology, I would go so far as to say that it is a hyper-Judaizing theology. This is especially the case with Roy Schoeman, as he has outlined his case in his book, Salvation is from the Jews.”
Article



Yet, what is the actual definition of “Judaize”? Follow along with Claudio Salvucci:

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 defines Judaizers more precisely as follows:

"A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians."

The heresy is not, as Mr. Sungenis suggests, the mere mixing of the two religions, nor even the mere incorporation of Jewish rituals into the Church. Rather, the Judaizing heresy as condemned in Acts and elsewhere also involves the idea of moral necessity: i.e. that it is morally necessary for all Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike, to keep the Mosaic Law. A less extreme variant argued that it is morally necessary for Jewish Christians to keep the Mosaic Law, but that Gentile Christians are exempt from it.”


Sungenis is clearly guilty of redefining this term in order to fit his targets within it. But when one considers the actual, accepted definition, his charges against Schoeman, Moss, et al. fall flat.

3) Vigilante:

Sungenis: “Today, however, we have vigilante Catholics who think they can reinvent Catholic worship to suit their own tastes.”
Article


Here, Sungenis essentially redefines “vigilante” as someone who thinks “they can reinvent Catholic worship to suit their own tastes.” However, the following are the actual dictionary definitions of “vigilante”:

Vigilante: A member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily…a self-appointed doer of justice. (Merriam-Webster)

Vigilante: a person who tries in an unofficial way to prevent crime, or to catch and punish someone who has committed a crime, especially because they do not think that official organizations, such as the police, are controlling crime effectively. Vigilantes usually join together to form groups. (Cambridge online dictionary)


The irony, of course, is that by these authoritative definitions, Sungenis and a few of his most active supporters are the true vigilantes: self-appointed bishops who usurp the authority of true bishops by conducting what amounts to a kangaroo court, issuing condemnations and declarations of heresy based on often false or outright fabricated evidence.


4) Calumny:

While he has never actually offered his own unique definition, Robert Sungenis has given evidence of his definition by repeatedly accusing his critics of calumny. He has made accusations of calumny for bringing to light his own well-documented plagiarism, libel and anti-Semitic tendencies. For example:

Sungenis: “…leave it to a sinful slanderer like Jacob Michael to distort all this and make people think that I am a practicing plagiarist! This is calumny of the highest order…”
Article


Sungenis: “I have defended the ‘gory details’ against Mr. Palm’s calumny…I am not a bigot.”
Article

Sungenis: “Mr. Forrest has reached a new height in the calumny.” (In response to Forrest’s opinion that Sungenis is anti-Semitic).
Article


But here are accepted definitions of Calumny:

Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary: “Injuring another person’s good name by lying. It is doubly sinful, in unjustly depriving another of his good name and in telling an untruth…”

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: 1) a misrepresentation intended to blacken another’s representation 2) the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another’s reputation.


The reader will readily notice two important elements for calumny to be present: falsity of the charges and bad intent. In the case of Robert Sungenis, the charges leveled against him are all amply documented as true. And there is certainly no intent to deceive in order to harm his reputation; on the contrary, the intent is to present the truth about Sungenis. Therefore, by definition, there can be no calumny.

The reader should remember what prompted the charges against Sungenis in the first place: his own unjust and often false accusations against others. In fact it could much more easily be argued that Sungenis himself is a serial calumniator. He has calumniated Roy Schoeman -- from the fraudulent quote he attributed to Schoeman and stubbornly kept posted on his website, to completely erroneous charges that Schoeman is pushing for a corporate Jewish identity within the Church, to the charge that Schoeman is basically a Judaizing heretic -- in each case the charges were false and were intended to damage Schoeman's reputation, the very definition of calumny. Likewise he has calumniated Michael Forrest with a series of outright lies regarding his departure from CAI. He has calumniated Christopher Blosser and Leon Suprenant, accusing them of being pro-war Zionists without any evidence. There are other examples as well. Suffice it to say that Sungenis's double standards are in full view here.


4) Anti-Semitism:

This is the specific example that led Bob to cry foul with respect to the "accepted definition" of words. Anti-semitism is defined thusly by Robert Sungenis:


“the accepted definition...anyone who says that he hates the Jews because of their race.”

Article


This is perhaps the most preposterous and self-serving of Sungenis’s unique definitions. Under Sungenis’s definition, a person would have to both realize they are and openly admit to being an anti-Semite. But the fact is, in the spirit of St. James (2:14-18), a man's works and words speak clearly enough for themselves. There is no need to have access to Bob's interior disposition. His absolute culpability can only be judged by God. Nevertheless, by his words and actions he is reasonably viewed as at least a material anti-Semite.

Following are 8 definitions of anti-Semitism, none of which comport with Sungenis’s extremely narrow and self-serving definition:

1) Encarta World English Dictionary: behavior discriminating against Jews: policies, views, or actions that harm or discriminate against Jews. link

2) Oxford English Dictionary: Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-'Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se'mitic

3) Cambridge Dictionary: The strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people. link

4) Dictionary.com: discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews. link

5) American Heritage Dictionary: 1) Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism. 2) Discrimination against Jews. link

6) Webster’s Collegiate: Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group. link

7) OSV Catholic Dictionary: Prejudice against Jews, which has found expression from the time of the ancient Persian Empire.

8) New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Prejudice or hatred against Jews. link


Note especially the definitions given by the highly authoritative Oxford English Dictionary. That definition alone shows that one does not require access to another person's interior disposition to judge that they are guilty of anti-Semitism. The fact is, Sungenis’s writings, both in essence and frequency, exhibit a clear hostility towards and prejudice against Jews. He frequently jumps to the very worst conclusions when Jews are involved and he tends to believe accusations uncritically when he sees them. That is prejudice in the classic sense of the term. If I find that my wallet is missing and there are a few people in the room, one of whom is black, and I reflexively and repeatedly jump to the conclusion that the wallet was probably stolen...by the black guy, that’s prejudice. It’s the sort of thing Sungenis frequently does with Jews and it has been documented at length.

Many of the documented items have nothing to do with Zionism specifically or even Judaism more generally. The way they are phrased, the accusations are directed broadly at Jews as a whole, singling out their ethnic identity. And the extreme bias and recklessness with which he even criticizes Zionism and Judaism strongly suggests that a personal prejudice is at work.

While Sungenis has complained about Forrest’s suggestion that Catholics consider what we would find anti-Catholic and then apply that same standard to anti-Semitism, the idea is perfectly sound and reasonable, a matter of simple common sense. What is anti-Semitism in essence but prejudice and bigotry against Jews? And what better standard by which to judge the presence of prejudice and bigotry than to apply the Golden Rule? If we would consider certain behavior to be anti-Catholic when applied to us, then it is a matter of simple justice to conclude that we may not treat others in the same way.

It would be helpful to know if Sungenis no longer believes James White is an anti-Catholic. And what of Dave Hunt and Jack Chick? After all, they all claim to “love” Catholics, too. But the fact is that he quite rightly has seen what they do as anti-Catholic bigotry, yet at the same time he writes in the very same way against the Jews.

To Sungenis’s point about race vs. religion, of course such people don’t “hate” Catholics as a race of people because Catholics are not a race of people at all, we are exclusively a religious group. But they have an animus against what we believe, what we are precisely *as Catholics* and they misrepresent our faith in the process, regularly evidencing an inability to genuinely apologize for any of it. We rightly call that anti-Catholicism. When people believe the very worst at the drop of a hat and tend to ignore or refuse to believe the good…when they negatively stereotype people...when they refuse to retract dubious, spurious and scandalous charges when confronted with evidence or only remove them under sustained public pressure (without so much as a direct apology and public retraction)….then the claim to “love” rings incredibly hollow….this is legitimately termed “anti-whatever” whether based on race or religion. And this common sense approach comports with the real "accepted definition" of anti-Semitism, not Bob's fabricated one.

And so, in summary, it should be plain that along with a serious “source problem”, Robert Sungenis has a significant “definitions problem” as well.

As always with Sungenis: One standard for me, another for thee.

Monday, April 16, 2007

The Ginsberg "Quote"


To make matters worse, Jews often, secretly or not so secretly, conceive themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their neighbors...Indeed, Jews are extremely successful outsiders who sometimes have the temerity to rub it in (The Fatal Embrace, p. ix, as cited in Piper's The New Jerusalem). (Sungenis, Neo-Cons and the Jewish Connection, September, 2005, source)



To make matters worse, Jews often, secretly or not so secretly, conceive themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their neighbors...Indeed, Jews are extremely successful outsiders who sometimes have the temerity to rub it in (The Fatal Embrace, p. ix, as cited in Piper's The New Jerusalem). (Sungenis, Politics, Religion, Israel and the Seduction of the Catholic Voter, p. 38, source)



Caller: To take this slightly away from religion, or, mostly away from religion for a little bit, I think the whole thing can best be explained by Benjamin Franklin's statement to the Continental Congress in 1789, when he warned them, "Gentleman, if you let them in, in 200 years your children - your descendants, rather - will be cursing you in your graves, because they will be in the fields as slaves, while the ones you let in" - and we know who they're talking about - "will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands." That was Benjamin Franklin's statement, and I think it explains the whole thing. Because the man knew, he was a student of history - and he wasn't the only one - but he was a student of history who knew - he knew what they'd done in Europe, and all the countries in Europe that they'd been kicked out of, over and over again, because it's the same game plan for these people, no matter where they are, where they go, it's always the same game plan - has been for 2,000 years.

Bob: Yeah, as a matter of fact, just to add to what you're saying - we've been quoting Benjamin Ginzberg a lot on this program, and here's what he says, along those same lines - he says, "to make matters worse, Jews often, secretly or not so secretly, conceive themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their neighbors. Indeed, Jews are extremely successful outsiders who sometimes have the temerity to rub it in." That comes from The Fatal Embrace, page Roman numeral nine. (Sungenis, on the radio program Mark Dankhof's America, February 23, 2007)



Speaking of quotes falsely attributed to men named Benjamin, the quote from Benjamin Ginsberg might be fraudulent as well. I haven't read the whole book The Fatal Embrace, so the quote might be in there somewhere. But it certainly is not on p. ix. I told Bob this a long time ago, when I did all the digging to give him the primary sources he needed for his essays, thus obviating his reliance on Hoffman, Piper, et al. He agreed to remove the quote, and it no longer appears in the updated version of his essay:

http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/JNC.pdf

Though apparently he left it in another version: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/priscv.pdf (see p. 38)

And it would appear that he is back to his old tricks again. (Ben Douglass, comment left on Sungenis's Views on Display at Republic Broadcasting Network)


Here is page ix of Ginsberg's book. The reader is invited to attempt to locate the quote anywhere on this page.

When the reader has given up on this hopeless task, he is invited to read this excerpt from pages seven and eight of Ginsberg's book. The portion Bob quoted is in bold, while the rather enlightening contextual bits he left out are in bold red.


Certainly, everywhere that Jews have lived, their social or economic marginality - their position, "outside society," as Hannah Arendt put it - sooner or later exposed Jews to suspicion, hostility, and discrimination. Even in multiethnic societies, Jews have usually been the most successful and visible - and, hence, the most exposed - outsiders. In America, Jews currently appear to be accepted by the larger community. Nevertheless, at least in part by their own choosing, American Jews continue to maintain a significant and visible measure of communal identity and distinctiveness in religious, cultural, and political matters. At the same time, most gentiles continue to perceive Jews to be a peculiar and distinctive group. Though Jews have learned to look, talk, and dress like other Americans, they are not fully assimilated either in their own minds or in the eyes of their neighbors. Even in America, the marginality of the Jews makes them at least potentially vulnerable to attack.

In America as elsewhere, moreover, Jews are outsiders who are often more successful than their hosts. Because of their historic and, in part, religiously grounded emphasis on education and literacy, when given an opportunity Jews have tended to prosper. And, to make matters worse, Jews often, secretly or not so secretly, conceive themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their neighbors. Jews, to be sure, by no means have a monopoly on group or national snobbery. In contemporary America every group is encouraged to take pride in its special heritage and achievements. The problem is that Jews as a group are more successful than virtually all the others. Indeed, Jews are extremely successful outsiders who sometimes have the temerity to rub it in. As one outraged right-wing columnist noted recently, a Yiddish synonym for dullard or dope is "goyischer kopf," that is, someone who thinks like a non-Jew.

The question with which this book is concerned, however, is not so much the roots of anti-Jewish sentiment as the conditions under which such sentiment is likely to be politically mobilized. As we shall see, where an anti-Semitic politics becomes important, usually more is involved than simple malice toward the Jews. In politics, principles - even as unprincipled a principle as anti-Semitism - are seldom completely divorced from some set of political interests. In the case of anti-Semitism, major organized campaigns against the Jews usually reflect not only ethnic hatred, they also represent efforts by the political opponents of regimes or movements with which Jews are allied to destroy or supplant them. Anti-Semitism has an instrumental as well as an emotive character. Thus, to understand the cycle of Jewish success and anti-Semitic attack - and to understand why the United States is not exceptional - it is necessary to consider the place of Jews in politics particularly, as Hannah Arendt noted long ago, their peculiar relationship to the state. (Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace [Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1993], pp. 7-8)


And so yet again, Bob is caught quoting secondary sources as though they were primary sources, giving bad reference information, and leaving out rather important contextual statements - and all of this, even after he was informed by Ben Douglass back in 2006 that his source information was incorrect.

But what did Mark Wyatt say, once upon a time, when Bob was caught using a bogus quote in his Galileo Was Wrong manuscript?


Seeing that the quote appeared not accurate, I asked Robert about it, and upon investigation he admits that in fact the quote is incorrect. He has checked out practically every quote in the book for accuracy, unfortunately , that one he did not. He says he has purchased thousands of dollars worth of books and articles during the research phase, and carefully checked (and in some cases rejected / corrected) the quotes. The person who made the advertisement also liked the quote, so he used it in the ad.

He personally thanks you, since in fact he has not sent out the first CD's yet, and will expunge the quote (or correct it as makes sense) from both the ad and the book. He is a stickler for literary accuracy, and in fact it is a good thing you pointed this out. (Mark Wyatt, in defense of Bob Sungenis, source)


A "stickler for literary accuracy"? That statement is, at this point, just plain laughable.

And so, we turn again, with a new perspective, to Bob's claims about his own research:


The Jews are the best sources of information to talk about the Jews, it's amazing. That's what I found in doing my research. (Sungenis, on the radio program Mark Dankhof's America, February 23, 2007)


No, that is not what Bob has found in his research, because he hasn't done the primary research that would lead him to actually read the works of Jewish authors. What he meant to say above is that other anti-Jewish authors who quote Jews out of context are "the best sources of information to talk about the Jews." That is what he has "found" in doing his "research."

Sungenis Source Shut Down By Commonwealth of Virginia

National Vanguard Website

National Vanguard

We regret to inform you that National Vanguard (the organization) has been shut down by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

We thank you for your loyal patronage over the years and hope our hard work has kept you informed and entertained while making a positive difference for our people.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

National Vanguard is an organization previously used by Robert Sungenis as a source of information about Jews. Only after sustained public pressure, an article published by Matthew Anger and heavy criticism from his own VP (Ben Douglass) did Sungenis eventually (and quietly) remove the material after writing that he didn't care whether NV was a racist organization or not.

To date, the most critical thing Sungenis has said about National Vanguard is that it is considered by some to be extreme. (Page 10, MFATJ)

As of this date, Sungenis has a link to a video (The World As Seen Through Jewish Eyes) that includes a segment on National Vanguard. Apparently, Sungenis thinks this video makes the "Jewish" perception of reality look skewed. If you watch the video through, it is not the Jews who look bad. Perhaps the most likely answer is that, following his pattern, Sungenis did not watch the entire video before posting it.

Here is a statement of purpose made by National Vanguard:

"We can have a clean, orderly, progressive, safe, and incomparably richer and more beautiful nation if it becomes a proud White nation again. To do that we must begin by restoring White community and White racial consciousness among our people. We at National Vanguard are doing that by building world-beating new media for Whites and by getting out on the street and meeting our neighbors and showing them what we're all about. We're going to help our people. We're going to educate our people. We're going to come up with creative ways to awaken our people. We're going to create publications that will be like nothing ever seen before in the cause of White awakening. We're going to do what it takes."

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Sungenis's Views on Display at Republic Broadcasting Network

If you visit the homepage of CAI (at the time of this writing, anyway), you will see a large advertisement prominently displayed in the right-hand column, inviting you to listen to Bob Sungenis's radio interview with Republic Broadcasting Network (RBN) on the subject of "Neocons and the Jewish Connection."


We recommend that you listen to this interview as well. It is very enlightening, to say the least. Below are a series of quotes taken from the interview that bring into sharper relief what are Bob Sungenis's various beliefs and positions on Jews and Jewish issues.


First, a brief word about RBN. A quick visit to their web site (here) reveals that the organization is on the fringe - to put it mildly. You will find talk of political conspiracies surrounding 9/11, the coming New World Order, the conspiracy of the JFK assassination, secrets, subterfuge, and - naturally - alternative healthcare products (salt lamps, air purifiers, herbs, organic foods, etc.).


On the products page, you will find books written by authors such as Andrew Hitchcock (The Synagogue of Satan), Dr. Adrian Krieg (Vale: The Illuminati and its Plans for the Future), Eric Hufschmid (Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack), Grambo the Prophet (New World Order Defeated, a "collection of short essays dictated by God through me as a prophet over a year and a half"), and Texe Marrs (Codex Magica, which "exposes Secret Signs, Mysterious Symbols, and Hidden Codes of the Illuminati").


Interesting company Bob is keeping these days.


Some of these authors appear to share the same views as Bob concerning the Jews. Dr. Adrian Krieg writes:



So much for Zionist nationalism and allegiance to the nation in which they reside, Zionists have allegiance only to the Jewish community. The Talmud is quite clear in allowing Jews to lie, cheat or steal from any non-Jewish entity. In fact dispensation is given for even the vilest acts perpetrated against any none Jew. Verification of this is readily available through an examination of major spies against America, a great preponderance of whom from Pollard to the Rosenberg's have all been Zionists. (The New Zionist Captivity, source)


Eric Hufschmid, explaining what Really Happened© on 9-11, suggests:



I can think of several scenarios. The least complex scenario that is that the Jews discovered where some of the Arab terrorists were living and installed a few microphones in their homes. They then began listening to the conversations.


One day the Jews hear the Arabs talk about flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. The first reaction of the Jews was laughter. Could the Arabs possibly be serious about such a wild stunt, they laughed? How could the Arabs possibly pull off something so difficult and bizarre? Surely the Arabs were daydreaming.


...


In other words, the plan to destroy these buildings may have started off as a joke simply because the Jews could not believe such a incredible stunt was possible and that the Arabs were serious about it.


However, as they continued to observe the Arabs, they noticed that the Arabs were actually looking for suicide pilots and seriously planning this stunt. The jokes about planting explosives in the building turned into serious discussions. Eventually it became approved by the Israeli government. Tax money was set aside to increase the observation of the Arabs and to figure out the best way to take advantage of this attack.


Soon thousands of Jews in America were contacted and told of this stunt. The Jews in America then began pushing the New York government officials into selling the World Trade Center to Larry Silverstein so they would have control over the building. (Silverstein, in case you didn't guess, is a Jew.) You can take it from here, right? (Who would put explosives
in WTC? And why?
, source)



Yes, thank you, Mr. Hufschmid, we can take it from here.


Texe Marrs, for his part, writes:



"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."


If I asked you what group of people embrace a set of doctrines like this, what would your answer be? Most of you would probably answer, "The Nazis." Today, in fact, it is Jews who make all these poisonous claims to racial superiority. No, not all the Jews. But, as I will document, a huge number of leaders among the Jews ascribe to these wicked and dangerous theories of racial and blood superiority. (All Hail the Jewish Master Race, source)



These are the kinds of opinions held by the men whose products are sold at RBN. And this is the organization that decided to tap Bob Sungenis for his opinions on Jewish issues.


The specific show on which Bob appeared was Mark Dankhof's America. Dankhof writes for the Breaking All the Rules news site (you can imagine the kind of content you'll find there), and is a Lutheran minister. The radio program he hosts is a three-hour program, and you can find all three hours of his interview with Bob Sungenis below:


First Hour


Second Hour


Third Hour


Quotes from the Interview: Bob Sungenis on Jewish Issues


These quotes speak for themselves. There is little need for further commentary, therefore, each quote will simply be prefaced by a summary statement of introduction.


In this quote, Bob discusses the Talmud and how Jews are raised from childhood to believe in their own racial superiority:



... while they were in Babylon, in about 500-600 AD, they wrote the Babylonian Talmud. And this was the musings of the Jews, and what they would get is their own tradition and mix it with the Torah, and all kinds of things, it was just a mish-mash of Jewish thought. Some of it was good, but a lot of it was bad, and the stuff that is bad is what our caller was just referring to a few minutes ago, which is, you know, the Jews are somehow superior to everyone else in the world, and when you are - when you study the Talmud as a child you're reared in this thinking that somehow you're a special people, even though you've been decimated and you've been sent across the world to every other nation, because God has judged you - you're still the Chosen People, you're still special. And so they grow up with this mentality, and this mentality seeps into their politics, their theology, their finances, I mean, every part of their life, this is an integral part of how they think. And this is what causes the problem. And what we're here to do is to even out the playing field. We're not here to smash their face into the ground, we're not here to say "you people are so evil", we're just here to even out the playing field, "look, we're all sons and daughters of God, and we all need to live together in peace. Nobody is better than anybody else, so let's start from square one and build from there."


Next, Bob discusses how the Jews were behind the Monica Lewinsky scandal, because of their anger at Bill Clinton:



You know, the thing about Bill Clinton was, you know, he tried to secure this peace accord between Israel and the Arabs and wasn't successful with that, and he did some other things that the Jews didn't like, because he got some power under him and he thought he could, you know, do whatever he wanted and then they, you know, they sent Monica Lewinsky in there after him, you know, and brought him down.


Listen to the audio clip



Here we have Bob telling us that God has indeed given up on the Jews, and that it is to indulge in "delusions of grandeur" to think that there will one day be a mass conversion of Jews (other men who indulged in these "delusions of grandeur" include St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, Pope St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, Venerable Bede, Cornelius a Lapide, M.J. Lagrange, etc., see further here):



Caller: ... I'm also hit with the verbiage in the Talmud that is vicious and vile and I don't believe in any of that at all, yet, many Jewish believers today who use the Talmud as their source may not be aware of what it said and how vile it is [in] regard to Gentiles ...


Bob: Right, and St. Paul said the same thing, he says, you know, "what am I gonna do? I'm up against people that God Himself said are stiff-necked. God Himself - the man ... uh, the, the Divine Being with perfect patience gave up on the Jews! So what am I, Paul, gonna do?" He goes, well, in verse 14 he says, "I hope to save some of them." Some of them. He knows he's not gonna have - he doesn't have any delusions of grandeur that he's gonna convert the whole Israel nation as some people have today - they think there's gonna be massive conversions of Jews before Christ comes back - that's not gonna happen! We're gonna convert a remnant of Jews just like St. Paul did back in the first century, so he has no illusions of what's going to happen - and that's what we do. Those that don't wanna listen to the message, we say the same thing St. Paul said in Romans 11, he says, "look, they're in their hardness, they're not gonna change, and God's gonna deal with them." We can give them the Gospel - we can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, you see, and that's all our job is to do, to give them what they need, and let them make their decision.



Next, Bob talks about his research and how Jewish sources are the best sources of information about the Jews (of course, we'll overlook that fact that Bob's main sources thus far - Ley, Mohr, Weber, Pike, Piper, Hoffman, National Vanguard, IHR - are not Jewish sources):



The Jews are the best sources of information to talk about the Jews, it's amazing. That's what I found in doing my research.


Here, Bob discusses why he runs a web site - certainly this will be news to his patrons.



Everybody knows who - everybody who has been investigating this stuff for years on end and who have written about it, uh, and these are people - prominent people and some not prominent people - uh, they can all tell you that 90% of what goes on, the American public or even the world public doesn't know about. Uh, and you really have to dig to find this kind of information, and sometimes you do find conflicting information, of course, it's not all that easy, but as far as how it reflects on them ... you know, like Jesus says, you've gotta be as cautious as a snake and gentle as a dove, you know, Jesus was not a man that told us that, you know, we just let things fly as they will. You know, we have to be very cautious about what's going on in the world, and know that there are evil people out there, there are people with an agenda. And so they way it reflects on us as Americans is, we have to be alert, we have to understand what's going on, and - we live in what we call a democracy where we can voice our opinion, at least we have that left, and so, uh, that's why we have a web site, to educate people to these things. And I encourage other people to do the same thing, it's the only way this world - this word - is gonna get out about what's happening behind the scenes, is if people get involved in educating other people to it, and then things can happen. (bold emphasis added)


In this next quote, Bob tells us how it was the "Israelis" who were behind the JFK assassination (compare this to his recent statement here, "I said that there is evidence that SOME Jews were INVOLVED in the JFK assassination, but Mr. Michael's game is to make it sound as if I believe the Jews, as a race of people, hated JFK and wanted to kill him"):



Well, I've read Michael Collins Piper's book from cover-to-cover, every word of it ... couldn't put it down, actually, um (laughs), it was my bed-time reading for about the last three or four months, and he uncovers some things there that would astound people, basically - people who consider themselves experts on the Kennedy Assassination have never considered the angle that he's brought forth. And although he doesn't come right out and say, "yes, the Israelis killed JFK", he lined all the ducks up for you so that you can walk right through it and see all these political connections and make your obvious conclusion , and I think he did a very professional job in doing it that way ... Ben-Gurion wanted nuclear weapons for Israel, as early as the 1960s, and Kennedy absolutely refused to give Ben-Gurion his nuclear weapons. And from there, the whole thing fell apart, uh, Kennedy's relationship with Israel. And it is implied in the book that, you know, Ben-Gurion gave the decision to allow Kennedy to be assassinated by the Mossad with the CIA involved. And after that, it's astounding when you look at the American Foreign Policy to Israel, it changed 180 degrees when Lyndon Baines Johnson got into office.


Next, Bob talks about the problem the Catholic Church is having with those troublesome Jewish Converts today (note especially how he makes his personal opinions out to be the opinion of the Church itself):



We have in our own Catholic Church here many Catholics who are now, or, who have come from Judaism, they've converted from Judaism to Catholicism, and they carry over a lot of their Judaism with them, and we're having a lot of trouble with these folks because they are now claiming that the Jewish Catholics should now be treated more favorably than Gentile Catholics because God has a special program for these Jewish Catholics that the Gentiles aren't supposed to have. So it's not only just the land that they think they're privileged to have, this other spiritual plateau that they think they have achieved, just because they're Jews, is another issue that we have to deal with.


And along these lines, they try to make impressions on us by saying that God is now moving in these realms because we see so many new conversions of Jews to Christianity today that we haven't before. And as a matter of fact, they use 1967 as the pivot-point, they say, "well here" - and we have one author in the Catholic Church who says that 1967 is the time that's prophesied in Luke 21 verse 24, called the "fullness of the Gentiles." In other words, this is the time where the Gentiles have reached their peak, God has now set them aside as of 1967 and we know that because of the six-day war that went on in 1967. And the Jews took over Jerusalem, and from that time there's gonna be many more conversions from 1967 to the present time ... if we say a million or two million people back in that time, in 800 BC, and as Paul says, that God told Elijah that "I have 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al", well 7,000 out of a nation of a million or so is .7 percent, ok? Now, you take that .7 percent, that's much more of people that were saved in Israel in 800 BC than we see today, in Modern Israel, where it's .08 percent, you see. So the statistics don't lie, I mean, if you look at them closely, there haven't been any real conversions to Jesus Christ from Israel - these people are as blind as they were 2,000 years ago! You know, so all this hullabaloo about God moving both geo-politically and spiritually in Israel is just not true at all, when you look at what's really going on. (bold emphasis added)


Listen to audio clip 1


Listen to audio clip 2



Claiming to be a "Greek scholar", Bob gives us his interpretation of Romans 11:29 and the meaning of "irrevocable"; for the sake of contrast, the great Catholic Scriptural exegete M.J. Lagrange (a true Greek scholar) argued that "irrevocable" in the Greek has precisely the "force of a legal axiom" (see further here for a fuller discussion, with source references).



A lot of Jewish converts today want to ignore that [Galatians 3:29], and as a matter of fact some of these Jewish converts coming into our Catholic Church are carrying over their Judaistic rituals, uh, you know, they wanna have a seder meal, and they want to have Jewish feast days, and wear Jewish garments, and - even on Catholic television we have a Jew wearing a prayer shawl, a Jewish prayer shawl, and telling us that Yom Kippur is one of our favorite feast days. I mean, this is ... (chuckles) ... this is how insidious this is!


And you know, it's interesting, uh, Romans 11, as you probably know, is one of these chapters that's pivotal on this whole thing. And in our Catholic Church even our Catholic Cardinals - and even our Pope at one time had made this statement, he said in 1980 - he said the Old Covenant has not been revoked, ok? Now if you have any ringing in your ear over that statement, you know that it comes from - part of it comes from, or seems to come from Romans 11:29. And there is where Paul says that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable. Now, this statement from Romans 11:29 has been taken out of context and twisted so badly in the last 20-30 years that it's almost just unrecognizable. Basically, what they've done, they've taken the phrase "the gifts and call of God are irrevocable", and they've said the Old Covenant - now, that's referring to the covenants that God made with Israel - are irrevocable, ok? Not only is it wrong to put the words "Old Covenant" in there, because Paul didn't say "Old Covenant", he said "gifts and call of God" - number one - and number two, the word "irrevocable", if you look that up in the Greek ... and I'm a Greek scholar, I know the Greek language ... if you look that up in the Greek, it's only used two times in the New Testament. And the other time it's used, in 2 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 10, where it's translated as "unregretted". And that's what the Greek word means, it means "unregrettable" or "unrepented".


In other words, what Paul is saying in Romans 11:29 is - to the Jews, the gifts and call of God are not repented, they're not - God does not regret that He gave those gifts and call to the Jews at one point in time ....... but when we see the translation "irrevocable", in a lot of these modern translations, we begin to think legally ... because that's the way we use the word in English, but it doesn't mean that at all in the Greek. It has no legal connotations whatsoever.



In this quote, Bob tells his listening audience about the Jewish tendency to want to take over and control everything:



To point out the other side of the coin, I've been as fair with Israel and the Jews as I am with anybody else. Because I suggested this, I said, "Look, if you guys would just get borders, constitutional borders in Israel, and not give the impression that you're gonna be out for some more land-grab out there - you know, I think the United States should protect you, once you have these constitutional borders, yes, the whole world community should protect you, because you have a right to be a nation. And nobody should infringe upon that. But stay within those borders, and have a little humility, for Pete's sake! You know? Stop trying to dominate everybody and trying to control all these things in the Middle East and get your way all the time." This is why, every place that they have been throughout history, they have been excised. Because they do the same thing every time they go in there, they try to take over the places that they go to! And every time they do, people get wise to it, just like we're doing now, and they get themselves in trouble. And then they wonder why they're so persecuted, and vagabonds across the face of the earth for the last 2,000 years - well this is why! And in my article I show Jewish authors - Benjamin Ginzberg, for example, is one of them - who says, "yes, this is what they do, this is why they incite people against them, because of the attitude they have, and because they try to grab all these things and control everything."


Bob on Our Lady of Fatima. Here, he links Russia, the Jews, and Fatima so closely together, but as of this writing he still hasn't made the connection, if his reasoning is correct, between the mass conversion of Russia and the mass conversion of the Jews. As long as we call it a "conversion of Russia" and not a "conversion of the Jews", apparently Bob has no complaints.



In our Catholic theology, you know, we point to Our Lady of Fatima as the guiding light for us, to give us some handles to understand what's been going on in history, and in the midst of the German uprising and their revolution, she never mentioned a word about Germany. She always talked about Russia, about Russia being the problem - from the 1920s to the 1930s to the 1940s, Russia's been the problem. Well why was Russia - who was running Russia at that point in time? The Jews were running Russia at that point in time.


Bob on EWTN and Zionism:



I wouldn't even want to speculate on [whether EWTN receives money from Zionist groups] right now, but I would say is that, Colin Donovan and the rest - not the rest, but many of the staff of EWTN, ever since the departure of Mother Angelica in 1999, have definitely turned the corner on the Jewish issue and have become, what I would say, pro-Zionist.


In this next enlightening quote, Bob admits that he only began studying these Jewish issues back in 2002 - the same year he wrote the extremely problematic essay Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary??, in which he plagiarized from Nazi and white supremacist sources. This statement below is proof that, when Bob began writing his articles on Jewish issues back in 2002, presenting himself as an authority on the subjects, he had only just begun to look into the issues (and the sources he was consulting, as we have seen elsewhere, were hardly unbiased).



Yeah, I think they're [EWTN] heavily influenced by that [the mainstream media]. I know I was influenced until I was educated just a few years ago. You know, it wasn't until, say, 2002 where I didn't - I had no idea any of this was going on, and then I began to study it myself. And I was bamboozled by the press just as well as EWTN is probably being bamboozled right now.


And last but not least, a lengthy quote in which Bob interacts with a particularly blunt caller. When faced with this caller's rather stark extremism, Bob does nothing to correct it, but confirms it instead. In the one attempt Bob makes to balance things out and say that Jews are humans too, his caller interrupts him and refuses to hear any of it - and so Bob gives up trying to play that particular card, and goes back to affirming the caller's extremism.



Caller: To take this slightly away from religion, or, mostly away from religion for a little bit, I think the whole thing can best be explained by Benjamin Franklin's statement to the Continental Congress in 1789, when he warned them, "Gentleman, if you let them in, in 200 years your children - your descendants, rather - will be cursing you in your graves, because they will be in the fields as slaves, while the ones you let in" - and we know who they're talking about - "will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands." That was Benjamin Franklin's statement, and I think it explains the whole thing. Because the man knew, he was a student of history - and he wasn't the only one - but he was a student of history who knew - he knew what they'd done in Europe, and all the countries in Europe that they'd been kicked out of, over and over again, because it's the same game plan for these people, no matter where they are, where they go, it's always the same game plan - has been for 2,000 years.


Bob: Yeah, as a matter of fact, just to add to what you're saying - we've been quoting Benjamin Ginzberg a lot on this program, and here's what he says, along those same lines - he says, "to make matters worse, Jews often, secretly or not so secretly, conceive themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their neighbors. Indeed, Jews are extremely successful outsiders who sometimes have the temerity to rub it in." That comes from The Fatal Embrace, page Roman numeral nine. Now, and on the other side of this coin, you know, we've got to be very cautious, because these are human beings too. Jews are human beings, and God loves them just like He loves you and I --


Caller: According to the Talmud, they are the only human beings. The rest of us are cattle.


Bob: Well, yeah, and that's where the problem comes in.


Caller: Absolutely, so that's exactly what you're saying, but in a different way.


Bob: Right, right, and what I find in, especially today, is this idea that has been resurgent since after World War II, and that is that the Jews are the Chosen People - that this somehow has come to the fore again, that all of a sudden, 2,000 years has gone by and God has resurrected them as the Chosen People above everybody else - and this is where institutions like EWTN, or the liberal Catholics, or the Zionists, or the Evangelical Protestants, or whatever - this is all what they're feeding off of, that the Jews are the Chosen People and now we have to restore them to their rightful place - and it's causing a lot of problems, because once you do that, you're gonna push other people out of the way!



As a side note, the alleged "quote" of Benjamin Franklin to which the caller refers is highly problematic, to say the least, and is more than likely a forgery - another bogus quote. See further here, and especially here.


In conclusion, it is worth quoting once again from the introduction to Michael Forrest's essay Robert Sungenis and the Jews (online here). After listening to the three-hour radio interview with RBN, one can only conclude that Forrest was far more correct than he probably knew:



[Bob] continues to evidence a propensity to uncritically seek out and accept unsavory, dubious and/or negatively biased information in regard to Jews and has drawn others with similar proclivities to his website. (emphasis added)

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Jacob Michael the Prophet?


8) Attributed a bogus quote to Einstein


R. Sungenis: No, the quote was two sentences from Einstein's paper that were separated by ellipses. The words were said by Einstein and no one else.



Here is a challenge I proposed to Mark Wyatt at the Envoy forum, which he failed to respond to. Let's see if Bob does any better:



I have not looked at [the Einstein quote] in depth, but it appears to come from the true quote, and Bob still stands behind it. I know that Forrest feels it is misconstrued.


Unacceptable, Mark. Ante up or fold your cards. Here is the quote exactly as Bob has given it to us:


"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world...the root cause is their use of enemies they create to keep solidarity."


This quote appears currently at CAI in no less than three separate articles and one QA.


Here are the actual, scanned pages of the magazine in which the quote is purported to appear (which, by the way, is not the source Bob used, per his own admission):


page 1


page 2


page 3


page 4


Read those pages Mark, and then come back here and tell me: which page(s) does this quote appear on?



I will be interested in hearing Bob's response, if, that is, he doesn't do what Mark Wyatt did and simply ignore the challenge.


-------------------------


Those are the words that I wrote on March 29, 2007. It is now April 11, 2007. After two weeks, Bob has still not answered the challenge, just as I predicted he would not. Certainly, his lack of response is not due to ignorance of the challenge - I sent him the article after I wrote it, and he responded, so I know he has seen it. He simply chooses to ignore it - which, again, is exactly what I said he would do.


There is no need to speculate. He has ignored the challenge because he has no answer. He knows the quote is bogus, and he simply will not admit it.


Enough said.