what abrahamowicz actually said

Interview with Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz
Laura Canzian, La Tribuna di Treviso, Jan 29, 2009

Fr. Floriano, is the Lefebvrite community anti-Semitic?
It’s truly impossible for a Catholic Christian to be anti-Semitic. I myself, on my father’s side, have Jewish roots. My last name even suggests this. This entire polemic regarding the statements of Bishop Williamson concerns the existence of gas chambers, and has been strongly instrumentalized for anti-Vatican purposes. Williamson simply expressed his doubts, and his ‘denial’ is not of the Holocaust – as newspapers have falsely said – but of the technical aspect of the gas chambers.

In your view, what’s the ‘technical aspect’ of the gas chambers?
Certainly, it was imprudent of Williamson to get into technical questions. In the famous interview, you can see that the journalist was obviously leading up to this specific aspect. But you have to understand that the theme of the Holocaust is situated on a much higher level than the question of knowing whether the victims died from gas or from other causes.

What do you think? About the gas chambers, I mean.
Truly, I don’t know. I know that gas chambers existed at least for disinfection, but I don’t know if they were used to kill people or not, because I haven’t studied the question. I know that, alongside the official version [of events], there’s another version based on the observations of the first Allied technicians who entered the camps.

Do you cast doubt on the number of victims of the Holocaust?
No, I don’t cast doubt on the numbers. There could have been more than six million victims. Even in the Jewish world, the number has a symbolic value. Pope Ratzinger says that even one person killed unjustly is too many, which is a way of saying that it’s equal to six million. To speak about numbers doesn’t change anything with respect to the essence of genocide, which is always an exaggeration.

An exaggeration? In what sense?
The number [of six million] is derived from what the head of the German Jewish community said to the Anglo-Americans shortly after the liberation. In the heat of the moment, he fired off a number. But how could he know? For him, the important point was that these victims were unjustly killed for religious motives. If there’s a criticism to be made of the way in which the tragedy of the Holocaust has been handled, it’s in giving it a supremacy with respect to other genocides.

To which other exterminations are you referring?
If Bishop Williamson had gone on television to deny the genocide of 1.2 million Armenians by the Turks, I don’t think that all the newspapers would have talked about his statements in the same terms they’re using now. Who has ever talked about the Anglo-American genocide in the bombing of German cities? Who has ever talked about Churchill, who ordered the phosphorous bombing of Dresden, where there were not only many civilians, but also many Allied soldiers? Who has spoken about the English air force, which, in the bombing of the cities, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians? And the Israelis certainly can’t tell me that the genocide they suffered from the Nazis is less serious than that of Gaza, simply because they’ve taken out a few thousand persons, while the Nazis took out six million. This is where I fault Judaism, which exasperates rather than honoring the victims of genocide decently. It’s as if there were only one genocide in history, that of the Jews during the Second World War. It seems like you can say anything you want about all the other exterminated peoples, but no one at the global level has spoken in the terms in which people are speaking today after the declarations of Bishop Williamson.

Why do so many people still cast doubt on the Shoah? Why is it a subject that still divides people so viscerally?
Because the whole history of humanity is marked by the people of Israel, who initially were the people of God, who then became the people of deicide, and who at the end of time will reconvert to Jesus Christ. Behind it all is a mysterious theological aspect, which is that of the people of God which rejected its Messiah and which still combats him. It’s a mystery of doctrine. Anti-Semitism is born from the illuminated, liberal and Gnostic world. The church throughout history has always protected the Jews from pogroms, as one reads, for example, in Domenico Savino’s book on ritual homicide.

What do you think of [Holocaust] denial?
Denial is a false problem, because it focuses on methods and numbers and doesn’t address the substance of the problem. Those who have studied the technical data, and who have cast certain doubts on the versions that we find in history books, aren’t anti-Semites. It’s enough to recall that the first ones to find this data were also those who saved the Jews, meaning the Allies.

Do you want to offer a message to the Jewish community?
One message: As a Catholic Christian, adding that little Jewish blood that runs in my veins, I express the hope that the Jews will embrace Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.


  1. Xenophile
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for the clarification, RB.

    I am in fact somewhat confused now, given that I was under the impression that Evola’s quest for the Absolute was based on an Aryan-Theravada rejection of dialectics, and consequently of semitic-manicheistic ‘pairs of opposites’.

    I have only read Evola’s “Doctrine of Awakening,” and have to tackle at some point his esoterical writings. Btw, you can dowload the full-text of the Doctrine and Men Among Ruins in English here:


    What does Abramowicz mean by “illuminated liberal” as the source, together with gnoscicism, of anti-semitism?

  2. Xenophile
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    Interesting excerpt from the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s article on ‘Gnosticism’:

    “The first Gnostic about whom something can be said with confidence is Simon Magus (q.v.), a 1st-century Jewish heterodox teacher who introduced the fundamental Gnostic conception that evil resulted from a break within the Godhead. But Simon’s gnōsis remained essentially Jewish and monotheistic, as did that of the Gnostic circles to which later parts of the New Testament allude.

    The dualistic phase was reached after the expansion of Gnosticism into the Hellenistic world and under the influence of Platonic philosophy, from which was borrowed the doctrine that a lower demiurge was responsible for the creation of this world. This teaching is to be found in the Apocryphon of John (early 2nd century) and other documents of popular gnōsis discovered near Najʿ Hammadi in upper Egypt in the 1940s and in the Pistis Sophia, a 3rd-century Gnostic work in Coptic belonging to the same school. The learned gnōsis of Valentinus, Basilides (qq.v.), and their schools presupposes this popular gnōsis, which, however, has been thoroughly Hellenized and Christianized and sometimes comes very near to the views of Middle Platonism.

    Eastern Gnosticism took a somewhat different course. Under the influence of traditional Iranian religion, the semi-Gnostic Manichaeism developed an absolute cosmic dualism between soul and matter. Moreover, it showed the enormous influence of Syrian asceticism, but it was equally rooted in popular Gnosticism and preserved its essential doctrines.”

  3. niqnaq
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    I just ignored the word, ‘liberal’, it’s so trite.

    I don’t propose to discuss the definition(s) of ‘dialectics’ here.

  4. moonkoon
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 3:05 am | Permalink

    Well said Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz.

    Thanks for posting that, Rowan.

  5. moonkoon
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 4:31 am | Permalink

    However, the smear bandwagon rolls on.

    Pope Criticized Over Second Priest’s Holocaust Denial (Update1)

    By Flavia Krause-Jackson and Alisa Odenheimer

    Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — Pope Benedict XVI again came under fire from members of the Jewish community after a second priest publicly questioned whether Jews were exterminated in Nazi camps and said gas chambers were used merely to “disinfect.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aPV4Lyh3gCh4&refer=germany (via

    This is not about the “holocaust” as such, is a scurrilous attempt to stifle legitimate debate.
    Once again, there is no attempt to address the the well founded concerns about the “official” story, it merely a demand for acquiescence, a petulant and unreasonable directive that vague, unsubstantiated statements be accepted without question.
    It’s a con.

  6. moonkoon
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    Regarding dualism.
    If you look hard enough you can find it everywhere.
    That doesn’t surprise me as I think it is “built in” to us all.

    It is one of those things that we can easily see in others and easily deny in ourselves.
    And it is popular because it makes life so much simpler.
    It is less confusing when you know who the bad guys are.
    We can suspend the respect that is due to others.
    I have found myself taking this easy way out time and again.

    But it is a delusion and can never be the right answer to any of the problems that we grapple with.
    It is doubly dangerous when it becomes institutionalized and mandatory.

    At the risk of being branded a “topologist’ 🙂 , I’ll say that dualism is a repudiation of the universal and personal nature of the God who tells us to love our enemies, and who, when all is said and done, weighs our hearts, one by one.

  7. niqnaq
    Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Yes, unfortunately this conversation started on another thread. I think I can be more precise about what I would mean by ‘ontological dualism’ in the gnostic and ‘illuminated’ contexts (quite a tall order, I know).

    What I have in mind is that this type of gnostic dualist views the universe as the battle-ground between two substances, one of which he defines as ‘spirit’, ‘light’, the ‘masculine’, etc., and the other of which he defines as ‘matter’, ‘darkness’, the ‘feminine’, etc.

    The gnostic is on the side of the former – the ‘angels’, so to speak.

    For the illuminati, who were in fact soulless empiricists (as you can see if you read the excerpts from Weishaupt’s letters in Barruel), this meant ‘mind’ over ‘matter’. This was the emergence of the witch-hunter spirit from hibernation after the end of the medieval period, in a sense, or the revival of a type of magic that specialises in conjuring and commanding demons. As such it was also the beginning of the ghastly, sadistic pseudo-science of psychology we have now, with ‘operant conditioning’ and so on. The ‘mind’ of the organised capitalist class’s hired intellectuals devising ways to control the human animal of the lower classes.

    Or, as Baron Julius Evola would put it, the lower castes …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.