More Notable Quotes From Sungenis

There are many interesting quotes to be found in one of Sungenis’ latest “articles” Adventures in Blogland. Below you will find a small sampling:

1) Sungenis: “I am merely doing the same thing Jesus did when he confronted the sins of the Jews…Unfortunately, the Jews haven’t changed in our day. They are still the same godless racists they were in Jesus’ day. Few of them have repented of their sins.” (page 10)

2) Sungenis: “The nation of Israel has control of AMDOCS, the central telephone operation in the United States. It's one way the Mossad spies on American citizens, including you and those you talk to." (page 30)

3) Sungenis: “Do I need to say more? I have the whole history of Catholicism behind me, and these Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the God-Man himself said much worse things about the Jews than I ever have. What is really happening today folks is that we have been taken over by Jewish propaganda, and there are a few Catholic/Jewish ideologues…Many of them are paid handsomely by Zionist groups to say whatever they can to silence people like me. They are bent on promoting the godless state of Israel for some pie-in-the-sky dream they have, even against their own Catholic religion (at least that’s the religion they claim to have), and they will smear anyone who gets in their way. The Jews have done this for centuries against good people, and it continues today.” (page 19)

Of course, this “article” is also littered with the personal lies that have become the hallmark of Sungenis’s “work” in recent years as well. As mothers have been known to warn: if you lie, you had better have a good memory. Alas, Sungenis does not.

Sungenis claims he removed his articles from the racist organization National Vanguard after being contacted by his then-VP Ben Douglass and now he wonders, why all the hubbub? Well, aside from the obvious question as to why Sungenis used such an obviously racist source in the first place, even Cliff Notes would object to his severely (and conveniently) condensed version of events.

The reality is that Sungenis left the articles up by this racist organization for two weeks after being warned by his VP, Ben Douglass. It was only after Matthew Anger published an article exposing what Sungenis had done and Douglass once again vehemently objected to Sungenis about the blatantly racist nature of National Vanguard that Sungenis finally agreed to remove the material. Additionally, Sungenis neglected to inform his readers that he initially responded that he "could care less" whether National Vanguard was a racist group or not (read here).

Let us not forget the crystal clear warning Sungenis gave to Dave Armstrong who dared to put up material from a couple of conservative political commentators:

Sungenis: “If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your web site would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.”
(Sungenis, Q&A, January, 2005, Question 3).

Indeed. By Bob's own standard, we should naturally assume that his use of the racist National Vanguard is a sign of his personal support for their views. To date, the most he has managed to say about National Vanguard and similar sources is that they are "considered by some to be extreme". Sungenis hasn't yet told us whether he considers them to be unsavory and extreme.

Then we have the following:

Sungenis: “A few months ago I had made a quote about Michael Hoffman (Jewish critic) stating that, at this point...I would trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I trust Michael Forrest… Obviously, Mr. Forrest is a conniving slanderer, just like Jacob Michael and Benjamin Douglass.”

It seems Sungenis can’t even remember what he himself writes any longer or be bothered to check before piling on more inaccuracies and slander. Here is the quote to which Sungenis actually referred (from March 27, 2007):

“Sungenis: Actually, as of now, I trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I do Benjamin Douglass.”
(Page 12)

Someone might want to let Mr. Sungenis know that the “conniving slanderer” he meant to calumniate in his latest article is the man he very recently dubbed “like a brother” and showered with a great deal of praise for his scholarship and integrity: Ben Douglass, not Michael Forrest. Although, Sungenis' confusion is perhaps understandable in light of the similar stories of so many CAI VPs who are first touted by him as the best thing since sliced bread...only to later be ripped apart by him as connivers and opportunists once they've had enough of his anti-Semitic shenanigans and quit.

Of course, while we're at it, let us not forget one of the more blatant personal lies Sungenis has told about his dealings with Michael Forrest. He has been absolutely adamant that his wife was an “eyewitness” to his phone conversation with Forrest before Forrest quit:

Sungenis: “Mr. Forrest yelled to me on the phone that I was an anti-semite…My wife was a witness to the whole fiasco. No one else was an eyewitness…”
(Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL, page 3)

and in attempting to prove to David Palm that his wife actually heard his conversation with Forrest, Sungenis wrote:

Sungenis: "My conversations on the phone are often held on speaker-phone, and my wife, since she works for CAI as a secretary and bookkeeper, is often listening to my conversations, whether by happenstance or deliberately."
(e-mail of January 20, 2007)

Apparently, either his mother never warned him about telling lies and the need for a good memory or he forgot her advice. Read on from October 2006, when he at least told the truth about the source of his wife's account:

Sungenis: "Mr. Forrest never denied to me that he had a gig or a promoter for the gig around the beginning of 2005. He told me these things on the phone, and my wife remembers it because I told her about the whole conversation."
(JMATJ, p. 54, emphasis added)

Of course, this may be a simple matter of definitions. Perhaps Sungenis will tell us the “real” definition of “eyewitness” is someone who takes his side in an argument and that only the Zionists who want to kill him think it means something else.

Current Status

This blog was originally created in response to Robert Sungenis’s problematic views and history related to the Jewish people.  In 2006 during negotiations with Sungenis we expressed our willingness to take down this material if he would remove all such material and provide assurance that there would be no return to it.

Unfortunately, those negotiations were unsuccessful.  Recently Sungenis contacted one of our contributors and indicated that he was removing the material to which this blog responds and that there would be no return to it.  As this essentially meets the objective we sought in 2006, we were willing to take down the material originally hosted here.

This is not intended to imply that Sungenis has retracted and/or apologized for the statements on Jewish issues that were formerly documented here.  He has not done so.  Instead, he has recently stated, both publicly and privately, that he believes God has given him a new vision/direction related to the issue of geocentrism.  As a result of his desire to pursue this new vision/direction, Sungenis writes,  “I’ve publically declared that I am no longer addressing [Jewish] issues and don’t wish to discuss them with anyone” and “I . . . will never discuss them again.”  However, he has said that he still personally holds to the same beliefs and considers them to be true.

At present Sungenis and some of his close associates have once again brought public accusations against his diocese and former ordinary. As such, some articles documenting the falsehood of those charges has again been made available to the public. 

G. K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy, Chapter 2: The Maniac

Pages 18-19

Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, “That man will get on; he believes in himself.” And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written “Hanwell.” (Footnote: An English religious visionary whose ‘revelations’ attracted many followers). I said to him, “Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Supermen. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums…

…If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter…Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness.

Pages 20-21

It is true that some speak lightly and loosely of insanity as in itself attractive. But a moment’s thought will show that if disease is beautiful, it is generally some one else’s disease. A blind man may be picturesque; but it requires two eyes to see the picture. And similarly even the wildest poetry of insanity can only be enjoyed by the sane. To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken…It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing…In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people…

…Now, if we are to glance at the philosophy of sanity, the first thing to do in the matter is to blot out one big and common mistake. There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to man’s mental balance…Facts and history utterly contradict this view. Most of the very great poets have been not only sane, but extremely business-like…Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom…

Pages 22-25

And if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners…

The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless; they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick…It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman…generally sees too much cause in everything. The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Everyone who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense, satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.

Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable mark of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air, to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside the suffocation of a single argument. Suppose, for instance, it were the first case that I took as typical; suppose it were the case of a man who accused everybody of conspiring against him. If we could express our deepest feelings of protest and appeal against this obsession, I suppose we should say something like this: “Oh, I admit that you have your case and have it by heart, and that many things do fit into other things as you say. I admit that your explanation explains a great deal; but what a great deal it leaves out! Are there no other stories in the world except yours; and are all men busy with your business? Suppose we grant the details; perhaps when the man in the street did not seem to see you it was only his cunning; perhaps when the policeman asked you your name it was only because he knew it already. But how much happier you would be if you only knew that these people cared nothing about you! How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it; if you could really look at other men with common curiosity and pleasure; if you could see them walking as they are in their sunny selfishness and their virile indifference! You would begin to be interested in them, because they were not interested in you. You would break out of this tiny and tawdry theatre in which your own little plot is always being played and you would find yourself under a freer sky, in a street full of splendid strangers.”

Pages 26-27

Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil. And however quietly doctors and psychologists may go to work in the matter, their attitude is profoundly intolerant…Their attitude is really this: that the man must stop thinking, if he is to go on living. Their counsel is one of intellectual amputation. If thy head offend thee, cut it off; for it is better, not merely to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, but to enter it as an imbecile, rather than with your whole intellect to be cast into hell…

Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms. He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. Now, as I explain in the introduction, I have determined in these early chapters to give not so much a diagram of a doctrine as some pictures of a point of view. And I have described at length my vision of the maniac for this reason: that just as I am affected by the maniac, so am I affected by most modern thinkers. That unmistakable mood or note that I hear from Hanwell (note: the false prophet) I hear also from half the chairs of science and seats of learning today; and most of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one. They all have exactly the combination we have noted: the combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason with a contracted common sense. They are universal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation and carry it very far. But a pattern can stretch forever and still be a small pattern. They see a chess-board white on black, and if the universe is paved with it, it is still white on black. Like the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint; they cannot make a mental effort and suddenly see black on white…

…It has just the quality of the madman’s argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world.

Page 29

The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts.

The Latest at Sungenis and the Jews

Updated February 10, 2009

As an on-going service to those who encounter the problematic writings of Robert Sungenis, from time to time the RSATJ blog may continue to document his material on Jewish issues, Jewish conspiracy theories, and the conflict in which he is embroiled with his bishop. It seems prudent to have an historical record of these events since so often Sungenis has sought simply to remove material from circulation in the hopes that the latest crisis will blow over, only to resurrect it again when the coast seems clear.

A thorough overview of the issues from 2002 to 2006 may be found at this blog's companion Sungenis and the Jews website: click here. This blog contains updates from 2006 to the present.

Recent Postings:

An Open Invitation to Bob Sungenis - RSATJ invites Bob Sungenis to clear up the record and makes an offer to remove all the material currently at this blog.

** NEW ARTICLE -  More Sungenis Anti-Jewish Duplicity on Display at BTF - Sungenis returns to a tainted source he once repudiated:  The "Reverend" Ted Pike.

More Heterodoxy from Sungenis? - Ben Douglass examines a problematic statement made by Sungenis about God in Not By Scripture Alone.

More Imprimatur and Canonical Difficulties for Sungenis? - Sungenis publishes three "Catholic Apologetics Study Bibles" that appear to be in direct violation of the Church's Code of Canon Law. His commentaries also apparently continue to be rejected for imprimaturs.

The Pope's "Blunder" or Sungenis' Prejudice? - An in-depth analysis of more inaccurate accusations made by Sungenis, this time against the Holy Father. And once again, the Jewish people are at the center of the controversy.

Is Pope Benedict Guilty of a "perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism?" - More double standards are examined in regard to the way Sungenis treats Jews.

Sungenis and E. Michael Jones Attracting White Supremacists - Two white supremacist websites are quoting and using the anti-Jewish work of Robert Sungenis and E. Michael Jones.

Proverbs 26:11 - Copious documentation of Sungenis' most recent broken promise and his most recent offensive and irresponsible attacks on the Jewish people.

Sowing Confusion, Distrust and Conspiracy Theories: a review of Sungenis' multiple conspiracy theories regarding Jews, the Church and the world.

More Fraudulent "Quotes", More Misrepresentations - Conservative author, David Brooks, appears to be the latest victim of Sungenis' (or E. Michael Jones'?) carelessness.

Fr. Harrison and RSAJT - A response to Fr. Brian Harrison's recent criticisms of RSATJ

Fr. Harrison and Bishop Rhoades - A response to Fr. Harrison's recent criticisms of Bishop Rhoades

U.S. Catechism for Adults Revised - Thanking the U.S. bishops and also those who respectfully brought their concerns to them.


Previous Postings:

Breaking the Silence — Sungenis' public attack on his bishop prompts the contributors of this blog to break their self-imposed silence.

Bishop Rhoades Answers Sungenis — Sungenis' charges against Bishop Rhoades are erroneous and slanderous and Sungenis' "evidence" amounts to no more than guilt by association and jumping to rash, unwarranted conclusions.

A Timeline of Events — A helpful timeline detailing what has occurred with Sungenis and when.

By Sungenis Alone — A comprehensive analysis of the problems at CAI-BTF, signed by ten concerned Catholic apologists.