- Fatima - Bad News and Good News - the latter provi...
- Panthéisme ? Non. Trinité ? Oui.
- Do not support World Childhood Foundation!
- Hans-Georg Gadamer was of the "Frankfurter Schule"? - get Inklings for me please!
- A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
- Sur le concept de l'ésotérique et sur les sociétés secrètes
- In Case Someone Thinks I am Preaching ...
- Would Gay Marriage Allow them an Authentic Life?
- Malfaisance de "Sécurité"
- Have I Done Ill Speaking Against the Real Pope a F...
- Drodzy Polacy - i Rosjanie itd.
- Vatican in Exile : Calendar and Marian Anthems
- Code ASCII et James Bond
Thursday, 22 March 2018
Depuis la prison de Fleury Mérogis, interview d’Antonin Bernanos
Grèves et blocages des surveillants : comment les détenus s’organisent
paru dans lundimatin#131, le 29 janvier 2018
Monday, 19 March 2018
Avec un homme et une femme, celle-ci assez jeune et celui-là un peu plus vieux.
Les dames d'abord.
"Si on interdit l'avortement, il faut interdire tout ce qui est sexe et qui ne fait pas d'enfants aussi"
D'abord, non, pas exactement.
Ensuite, pas mal de ça devrait être interdit aussi, notamment l'homosexualité et les capotes (sans de parler du fait que la pilule devait être interdite comme une forme d'avortement, parce qu'en certains cas elle a aussi un effet abortif).
La Suède, en 2003, a annoncé : le public ne peut plus assurer les retraites, il faudra s'assurer en contractant avec assurances-retraites privées.
La cause étant bien entendu la dénatalité. Trop peu de jeunes par rapport aux vieux = trop peu de monnaie payé aux systèmes de retraite par rapport à ce qu'en sort. Trop peu de choses et de services produits par rapport aux besoins.
Non, une dénatalité n'est pas une fatalité, mais une catastrophe à éviter et qui se laisse éviter.
Par contre, ce qu'on peut considérer comme "les préliminaires" n'a pas besoin d'être interdit, puisque, c'est sinon toujours au moins souvent une préliminaire au sexe fertile.
Ensuite l'homme. Je ne le cite pas verbatim, je n'ose pas me confier à ma mémoire suffisamment pour ne pas déformer une petite nuance, mais son histoire était celle-ci : il avait été éducateur, il avait eu une fille de quatorze parmi la clientèle, elle venait d'être violée par un agresseur dans la rue, qui n'avait pas été pris (supposé-je), et qu'elle ne pouvait pas contacter. Il lui avait dit - l'éducateur donc - "tu peux accoucher sous X ou avorter, et je te soutiens et respecte dans les deux cas".
Là, je considère qu'il l'a poussé à un meurtre.
L'avortement est un meurtre, le fait qu'elle avait été violée, cette fille, n'a pas changé la nature de l'acte abortif. Elle a pu avoir une responsabilité moindre, étant sous le choc, dans ce cas, il a une responsabilité alourdi.
- 1) Parce qu'il a considéré l'avortement comme une option.
- 2) Parce qu'il a présenté comme seule autre option le fait d'accoucher sous X.
L'avortement étant un meurtre, il n'est pas une option. Tout d'abord ça.
Ensuite, être enceinte et savoir qu'on va accoucher sous X, c'est quelque part d'être une mère porteuse.
Une société qui ne permet pas - et ça de manière régulière! - qu'une fille de 14 enceinte puisse épouser le père de l'enfant, qui pose l'accouchement sous X comme l'acte la plus pro-vie possible pour elle, c'est une société qui lui donne le choix entre deux rôles, mère porteuse ou meurtrière.
Vu comme on est, même parmi les conservateurs qui prétendent être contre l'avortement, contre les arrangements d'être mère porteuse pour un couple qui paie, on devait être moins fiers de poser une fonction comme presque mère porteuse comme principale alternative à celle de meurtrière ou collabo avec les vrais meurtriers.
En Suède, à ma conversion catholique, j'ai connu deux paroisses, dont celle en Lund connaissait un couple d'académiciens. Leur fille de treize était enceinte, et, vu qu'il était pas question en Suède pour une fille de 13 d'épouser qui que ce soit, on a des "lois" différents du temps quand la sainte Brigitte avait épousé Ulf Gudmarsson quand elle avait 13, ce couple a aidé leur fille à garder l'enfant.
Elle a été mère célibataire, faute de mieux, faute de pouvoir épouser le père, mais, c'était au moins mille fois mieux que, pas seulement avorter, mais aussi accoucher sous X (qui d'ailleurs n'est pas la modalité qu'on a en Suède pour une accoucheuse dont l'enfant sera adopté).
Non, je ne considère pas que des cas comme ça justifient la légalité de l'avortement. J'ai récemment lu des choses sur les pratiques médicales de la Juiverie, et, je comprends après ça très bien pourquoi un pape a décidé que des médecins Juifs ne peuvent pas pratiquer sur des patients Chrétiens : ils ont une éthique médicale fourvoyée. Bien entendu, selon ce que j'ai lu sur leur pratique, je ne le dit pas pour trouver des fautes avec les Juifs.
À partir de Constantin, l'avortement a été illégal en Empire Romain, Est comme Ouest. L'avortement devrait redevenir illégal, et les jeunes mariages devraient redevenir légaux.
Et l'état actuel juridique est un rêve ou un eldorado pour les "pédophiles" : pas pour des hypothétiques sociétés secrètes qui abusent des bébé en rituel sataniques, mais simplement pour les hébéphiles abusifs qui, ayant joué d'une Lolita ne veulent plus assumer cette Lolita comme femme : parce que leurs collègues ricaneraient ou parce qu'ils aiment avoir une garçonnière de temps en temps dorée par la présence d'une Lolita. Il y a des gens qui disent qu'un certain juge américain était autrefois de ce type, et personne n'a prétendu qu'il était sataniste.
Les gens qui ont ce goût là d'une bonne vie, ça leur arrange que l'abusée ne puisse pas exiger le mariage, parce qu'il ne sera pas légal pour la victime, et ça leur arrange aussi que l'avortement puisse être une solution pour leur victime - ou accoucher sous X. Dans les deux cas, aucune preuve qu'ils ont failli à leurs éventuels devoirs comme professeurs, éducateurs ou autres, sans rien dire des devoirs selon une certaine moralité des "adultes" de ne pas abuser des "enfants" (qui ne le sont pas vraiment, d'ailleurs).
Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jour ou mémoire de
In Judaea natalis sancti Joseph, Sponsi beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Confessoris; quem Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, votis et precibus annuens totius catholici Orbis, universalis Ecclesiae Patronum declaravit.
Quia iam prima est hebdomada passionis, nescio an potius sit dies Sancti Ioseph an potius secunda feria post primam Dominicam passionis, cum memoria Sancti Ioseph. Liturgista non sum perfectus, et non quaesivi quos sint vel quem sit./HGL
Sunday, 18 March 2018
Quoting his comment from a FB Group.*
No, it wasn't due to the annual movement of the Earth, it was to do with light passing through the aether. There should have been a slowing down of the light beam through the aether. After all, the aether was invented as the medium which light waves pass through.
Now, this would normally mean Michelson Morley was NOT concerned with any aether wind and definitely if any at all not the one due to the orbital speed of Earth, as the Heliocentrics Michelson and Morley supposed to be the case.
"It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind")."
In fact, this doesn't tell precisely whether this movement of matter through a supposedly stationary aether was that of rotation or of orbit. Here are some added considerations on that one.
"Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the Sun, but once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds with respect to the stars (see below)."
"40,075.017 km equatorial circumference."
40075.017 km / 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds
40075.017 km / 1436 min 4 sec
40075.017 km / 86164 sec
40075.017 km / 23.93444444444444444 h
Average orbital speed 29.78 km/s
29780 m / s
29780 m / s / 465.10163177196973222508[((m)/(s))]
29780 / 465.10163177196973222508 = 64.02901638195187788750057
So, any aether wind would be 64 times greater along the orbital velocity than along the rotational one, and I even took the rotational speed at equator, which is greater than where Michelson and Morley conducted their experiment.
He also said, compared to speed of light Earth was (in Heliocentrism) stationary or as good as.
Let's check that. Orbital speed : 29.78 km/s. Is it correct? I'll go by an approximation and treat "orbit" as a circle with "semi-major axis" as radius. 149598023 km * 2 * π = 939952100.096[km]. 365.2425*24*60*60 = 31556952 s.
939952100.096 km / 31556952 s = 29.786 km / s.
I'll go by 29.78 km/s as verified, right order of magnitude.
Speed of light: 300,000 km / s.
300,000 / 29.78 = 10,074. This is then the kind of relation we are looking for.
For instance, the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus could measure the speed of light to perhaps 5% accuracy, which was quite inadequate for measuring directly a first-order 0.01% change in the speed of light.
1/10,074 = 0.0000992654357753
0.0001 = 0.01 %
So, what Michelson Morley, with better apparatus than Fizeau-Foucault were trying to measure was precisely the speed change in light which would result from an orbital speed through a stationary aether.
I hold Matthew Hunt refuted.
Luminiferous aether is impossible (if stationary) if Earth is moving through space as thought.
Earth moving through space as thought is impossible in a luminiferous aether not moving with it.
Michelson Morley either refutes aether or Heliocentrism. I prefer it refuting Heliocentrism. For more than one reason.
Hans Georg Lundahl
I Passion Sunday
* If you want the whole context, here is a dialogue, on another blog:
Saturday, 17 March 2018
|Update : it seems CMI changed the reason for site being inaccessible, before it was "technical difficulties" and this is when I wrote below, now it is "facelift:"|
|Correction of below, as under this update, which was posted earlier, insofar as it concerns CMI:
Now enjoy (with caution on occasional Protestant content, but I mean the typical content which is Creationist):
Creation Ministries International
|See however, a bit before 14:24 in Nanterre University Library:|
|Cette page ne peut pas s’afficher
Activez TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1 et TLS 1.2 dans Paramètres avancés, puis essayez de vous reconnecter au site https://creation.com . Si cette erreur persiste, il est possible que ce site utilise un protocole non pris en charge ou une suite cryptographique telle que RC4 (lien pour plus de détails), qui n’est pas considérée comme sécurisée. Contactez votre administrateur de site.
I was speaking about the speech of French Minister of Culture before the Journalists on March 15th, the day before yesterday, and I was writing it the next day.
Now, one of the things which from time to time gets stamped as fake news is Creationism.
And one Creationist site recently promoted (with some bad publicity along with it) by Dan Brown is CMI, also known as creation.com.
I usually take time to at least skim and often read their latest and earlier connected every day; was going to enjoy that today too, but here came a bad surprise:
Meanwhile, here is a site which remains up:
Creation vs. Evolution
It is a blog of mine.
If you want a specific subject on it, there is a search bar on that blog, like on this one, like on every blog I have.
The arrow marks I moved the blog header left so it shows under the search bar, saves horizontal space on the image.
This means, of course, that if you suspect me of having stated sth illegal or immoral and therefore reproachable, you can figure out a keyword to search on, do a search and then check what I stated in the posts containing the keyword. If you find no posts with that keyword, check the spelling, unlike a google search bar there is no approximation of spelling. Any word having an American spelling differing from the English one would be in English spelling any word I write (usually even the s in -ise verbs, but I have vacillated lately because of reading too much American*), but could be in American in quotes I make. This is so for any blogs in which I write in English.
But it seems some guys will gas on about certain things containing immoral or even illegal material and this in spite of the "immortality" being a very contested such, and in spite of the searches giving no hits which would qualify as illegal before an actual judge.
Sure, in the former Soviet Union, Creationist material would indeed have been illegal. In certain Muslim countries, CMI would be targetted for being Christian. Solution? Some people think that, if the state should forbid it and doesn't, they can make some Fehmgericht and sabotage it. Secret trial, secret sentence and that one carried out by means usually illegal, like hacking in this case.
Unless it is simply CMI's way of making publicity for the other two Creationist major sites, ICR and AiG. But, somehow I don't think so.
I am living on the streets in France, and in some places where I have been going to breakfast at homeless shelters of morning shelter type, at some occasions, I have got crap from other homeless over being a Young Earth Creationist. Possibly instigated by personnel who did not want to expose themselves to my anger or suspicion, after these and young volunteers had tried some less crappy** "fraternal corrections" like "aren't you afraid of going against the Magisterium of the Church" which is obviously not what I am doing.***
Some of these homeless in Paris have connections either to former East States or to US or both. Like I for my part have more to Sweden and to Austria - countries of my citizenship and of my birth and much of childhood - and to Germany, country of my toddler years, along with Sweden. Some of them therefore have connections to former Communist educations.
So, it seems there can be some more targetting of conservative media ahead. For my own part, I had to change computer, since the session broke down where I was answering a youtube comment by copy paste to a notepad and inserting my answers to every point - as I usually do conduct my debates.
I think an excellent youtube channel has put things in a fairly correct perspective by the captions I give here:
Politically Correct Area Ahead. 1984.
Yes, that is my impression too. 1990 was not "the fall of Barad-Dûr", just "the fall of Dol Guldur". Communism didn't die, it moved around.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Patrick of Armagh
* See the essay heading by Helge K. Fauskanger "Of a modern Mannish tongue" in the essay "By way of explanation...:" I tend to be more consistently British than he. ** Crappy may be an American word, but that doesn't oblige me to use American spelling. I feel free to mix words from both sides of the Atlantic and to also choose to continue the spelling I was taught in school which, for many words, is historically older than the American one. A "colour labelled axe" is and older spelling than a "color labeled ax". *** Up to and including Humani Generis, 1950, if Pius XII was Pope, no definite favouring of Old Earth or Evolution was there in Roman levels, and from the speech next year to scientists, no word of any either real or supposed Pope favouring Deep Time or Evolution has had anything like the formality of the canons of the Council of Trent, tying exegesis to Patristic consensus, where such a thing exists for a given question.
Friday, 16 March 2018
A discussion long ago, with participants abbreviated back then from names and from a medium (FB, blogs, etc) no longer identifiable.
- I'm not sedevacantist, but the likes of men like Bergoglio are dangerous to the health of the Catholic Church.
- How so? Think very hard about where your sources are for that.
- My sources?
One can wonder whether EF imagines BFH has "a source" for "the likes of men like Bergoglio are dangerous to the health of the Catholic Church" or whether he is asking for sources about a) Bergoglio's behaviour and b) BFH's idea of what constitutes the health of the Catholic Church.
I assume EF actually means the first guy or girl who told BFH to compare the two concepts. But that is not a source. That is an influence.
As to BFH's sources for Bergoglio's behaviour, they are the usual media.
As to BFH's sources about Catholicism, various really Traditional ones - not "Traditional" or "Traditionalist" groups today, but exponents of Tradition as recognised and partially followed even by Pope Francis fan clubs - might do as indicating various actions as being bad.
I have been asked the totally idiotic question about "sources" when it comes to what were obviously conclusions of mine.
Again : a conclusion needs good logic. It is the facts it is based on that need sources./HGL
- Mercredi 14.III.2018
- Je publi l'article Mark Shea on Samizdat and Tacitus on a Similar Situation
- Jeudi 15.III.2018
- Françoise Nyssen se prononce à Tours, aux Assises du journalisme.
- Vendredi 16.III.2018
- J'en lis en CNEWS Matin
- Le texte, comme cité
- "Les fausses nouvelles ont toujours existé, ce qui est nouveau, c'est leur viralité avec Internet. [...] Nous avons besoins de garde-fous."
- Contexte possible
- Il y a un blog qui les semaines passées, même depuis l'année dernière, il me semble, a été viral en France et en Grande-Bretagne, dernièrement davantage en Grande-Bretagne. La semaine passée il avait 4168 en Royaume-Uni et 1730 en France.
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
Il me semble que la viralité pourrait être parmi psychologues, psychiatres, experts de sécurité, Juifs, Musulmans, ressortissants des pays "ex"-communistes et qui se font souci pour l'idée que mes positions, exprimées assez polémiquement parfois sur ce blog et prises encore plus polémiquement par des gens qui refusent de comprendre que telle ou telle idée est mon sérieux sérein, pas une exaggération rhétorique pour provoquer ou exprimer mon dégoût avec telle autre idée, et que ces gens là auraient pu, entre autre d'Angleterre précisément et pas le moins simplement des gens qui croient "la science" et refusent d'avoir des idées comme héliocentrisme ou évolutionnisme remises en cause avec des arguments philosophiques et scientifiques, certes pas corrosifs dans le sens social du terme, mais corrosifs pour tel ou tel abus d'argumentation, pourraient un jour devenir monnaie courante.
Le troisième visiteur sur ce blog est la Turquie. Pour certains Musulmans, simplement rester Chrétien et refuter un argument bidon contre le Christianisme, et encore répondre qu'il projettent les faiblesses de Mahomet sur St Paul, ça suffit pour que je compte comme islamophobe. Sans doute, il y a des Juifs et Protestants avec une réaction semblable à mon Catholicisme - et même des Néo-Cathos qui l'ont vis-à-vis mon créationnisme et géocentrisme. La Turquie, si elle n'est pas adverse à un créationnisme "leger" (sans forcément de mettre en cause les datations) est néanmoins pas connue pour créationnisme jeune terre, ni pour géocentrisme. Elle est parc contre connue pour être un pays où la liberté d'expression est très circonscrite pour un pays de l'Union Européenne. Ou candidat de le devenir. J'avais l'impression il y a quelques années qu'elle l'était déjà devenue ...
Pourrait être parmi ces gens pour des motifs comme ça, je ne peux pas garantir que ce soit le cas. Il y a d'autres possibilités.
- Contexte clair
- Avec l'impression de livres par Gutenberg, le contrôle de la littérature qui circule est devenu quelque part un privilège des riches. C'est la base sur laquelle Cheserton et Belloc, autrement favorables à la liberté d'expression et même vétérans d'une lutte pour celle-ci, motivent que l'Église a bien fait d’introduire la censure des livres.
Avec l'internet, comme je viens de découvrir, un homme pauvre comme un rat d'église, comme on dit en certaines langues européennes, peut se publier et peut être lu un peu partout.
Certains - moi compris, mais je ne suis vraiment pas le seul - ont exprimé des choses qui dégoutent ceux ou certains d'entre eux qui avaient l'habitude de contrôler l'expression imprimée ou en médias diffusées par éther. Comme on sait, je ne suis pas fan de la loi Gayssot, il y a des idées que je ne me sens pas libre à exprimer en France. Une autre époque, je n'étais pas inconditionnel pour Faurisson, je trouvais des critiques à faire à certains de ses critiques (notamment : ce qui est raconté dans le Journal d'Anne Frank peut être vrai, la volonté de protéger ou de klaften peut dans une population occupée vaciller très beaucoup, les précautions à faire par les cachés peuvent diverger et reconverger d'une manière très incohérente avec les libertés réelles, notamment si au début Anne Frank n'avait pas encore suscité la jalousie des autres - et le problème de l'encre et du fluide correcteur peut être resolu si Anne Frank a survécu et collaboré incognito avec son père après la guerre). Or, il y a des débats qui me sont plus chers que celui sur le sort des 3 ou 4 millions noms que Yad Vashem présente comme morts mais qui pourraient plutôt être décrits comme décédés ou portés disparus.
Mais pour certains, un débat sur la crédibilité de NASA (où je ne suis pas le plus défavorable, de loin), un débat sur le bon jugement des scientifiques en refusant le géocentrisme et le créationnismes jeune terre en grande masse, même un débat sur les "petits fascismes" qui n'ont pas eu des cibles ethniques (Austrofascisme, Franco, Salazar), même un débat beaucoup plus reculé, comme de défendre la France catholique à propos des incessantes reclamations à propos les Huguenots, pour certains, ceci est autant sensible comme un débat qui leur paraît (même si ce n'est pas le cas avec moi) comme un insulte à la véracité des survivants des camps.
Eux, ils ont leur politiquement correct à défendre quasi comme un dogme, comme l'Église défendait le dogme catholique, notamment contre préadamites comme Isaac La Peyrère ou un autre comme le fixiste racial Giordano Bruno*. En défendant leur politiquement correct, ils sont prêts à se reclamer de a liberté d'expression, comme d'un bien précieux et à défendre, mais en même temps de tricher comme modérateurs et administrateurs de sites, pour trouver une "faute" grâce à laquelle ils peuvent exclure quelqu'un. Aussi en même temps, ils sont prêts à faire du lobbyisme pour exclure les "irresponsables" de cette liberté d'expression - comme si l'Église n'aurait pas pu appeler Bruno et La Peyrère "irresponsables" plutôt que de tenir Bruno comme responsable de ses erreurs, si elle avait eu cette vision là de l'humanité, une vision assez dédaigneuse.
Donc, ils demandent le genre de mesures que maintenant semble envisager Françoise Nyssen.
- Il semble qu'elle vise des mesures administratives ou légales contre la liberté d'exprimer quelque chose de controversiel, donc, restons vigilants sur la liberté d'expression!
Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Sts Hilaire et Tatien
évêque et diacre à Aquilée, martyrs
* La wikipédie donne Graves, 2003, p. 25. et Graves = Graves, Joseph L. (2003). The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3302-3 et la citation donnée est "In 1591, Giordano Bruno argued that, because no one could imagine that the Jews and the Ethiopians had the same ancestry, God must have either created separate Adams or that Africans were the descendants of pre-Adamic races."
Je vérifie les statistiques pour la semaine:
En total : 9583
Royaume Uni 4181 (4168 1 10 2) France 1881 (1730 1 1 12 14 4 4 11 3 1 7 6 1 2 3 32 2 1 16 8 3 6 3 10)
Italie 737 (144 71 1 138 1 239 143) Russie 653 (27 71 9 6 9 9 13 121 7 6 4 2 48 3 111 4 5 3 9 56 57 11 5 7 1 13 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 15) Ukraine 639 (163 2 54 66 43 46 7 92 3 16 2 1 3 7 3 36 2 20 16 5 52)
États-Unis 380 (38 5 7 10 1 3 20 6 16 2 89 1 3 7 40 15 3 14 4 93 3) Turquie 346 (345 1) Canada 302 (295 4 2 1)
Pologne 155 (1 1 40 2 2 3 8 1 3 1 3 4 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 41 3 4 2 2 4 4 8)
Espagne 68 (5 1 4 2 2 2 1 10 1 2 1 1 1 1 29 2 1 1 1) Allemagne 41 (4 1 15 5 4 9 3)
Corée du Sud 33 (1 32) Irlande 30 (28 2) Indonésie 28 (5 5 4 12 2)
Brésil 21 (1 5 1 10 1 1 1 1) Portugal 19 (13 6) Vietnam 18 (10 1 2 3 2)
Égypte 8 (1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1) Suède 7 (1 2 2 2) Belgique 7 (1 6) Chine 7
Honduras 5 (1 1 1 2) Pays-Bas 4 Australie 3 (1 1 1)
Danemark 2 Cambodge 2 Tchéquie 2 (1 1)
Algérie 1 Colombie 1 Tunisie 1 Argentine 1
Notons, si on enlevait les grandes chiffres pour le blog controversé, ce serait moins que 1000 visiteurs par jour, 3045 en total et donc moins de 500 par jour.
Thursday, 15 March 2018
I think a comment on a bare summary of the 12 rules falls within fair use.
- Stand up straight with your shoulders back
- Not 24/24, I hope?
- Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
- Hmm ... I think there is a bit of atheism involved ...
- Make friends with people who want the best for you
- As they define my best or as I define it?
- Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
- Sounds a bit as if he's against Syndicates preaching wage equality and "same wage for same work" ?
Putting the latter in citation marks, since I think a family wage can earn more for a family breadwinner than for a single man doing same job, but still.
- Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
- For how long? Till 18? Till they leave your house? Past both?
- Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world
- Oh dear ... not too bright for those defending poor selves against rich, since poor selves have less capacity to set own house in perfect order
- Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
- Hmmm ... I like that one.
- Tell the truth--or at least don't lie
- I especially relish the first half, the second sounds a bit like what is sometimes expedient
- Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
- There are clear exceptions to this one - when you have seen each item of the list in a previous comment on internet.
- Be precise in your speech
- I think in writing it is even more important - but OK, in speech it is appreciated too.
- Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
- In a sense of accidents, should one bother anyone when skateboarding?
I mean, certain activities take concentration and are dangerous when the concentration is interfered with.
- Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
- Well, I would actually wait till the cat comes to me ...
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
Hardcover – 16 Jan 2018, by Jordan B. Peterson (Author)
Actually, here is some more:
The great myths of the hero—from Gilgamesh to Luke Skywalker and Bilbo Baggins—typically recount the story of someone who leaves complacent domesticity behind in order to venture into the dangerous unknown, where he manages to find something of enormous value to his family or village or society. One key to psychological/spiritual fulfillment is to embody this archetype of the hero, to live one’s life as an adventurous exploration of the unknown. So Peterson tells his readers—especially young men, who have been cowed into complacency for various reasons—to throw back their shoulders, stand tall, and face the challenges of life head on. This archetype of the hero also allows us to read the story of Adam and Eve with fresh eyes. In Paradise (the word itself denotes “walled garden”), our first parents were secure and innocent, but in the manner of inexperienced children. Leaving Paradise was, in one sense, a positive move, for it permitted them to grow up, to engage the chaos of the unknown creatively and intelligently. This reading of Genesis, which has roots in Tillich, Hegel, and others, permits us to see that the goal of the spiritual life is not a simple return to the Garden of dreaming innocence, but rather an inhabiting of the Garden on the far side of the cross, that place where the tomb of Jesus was situated and in which the risen Christ appeared precisely as “gardener.”
This is from the résumé of the book by one Robber Baron of Theology, as I tend to call him.
On balance, I like this book and warmly recommend it. I think it’s especially valuable for the beleaguered young men in our society, who need a mentor to tell them to stand up straight and act like heroes.
The Jordan Peterson Phenomenon
by Bishop Robert BarronFebruary 27, 2018
If Robert Barron was anything like tongue in cheek about the fall, and Robert Peterson's Tillich's, Hegel's* and so on take on it, I missed that. The final quote from him seems to indicate, this was not the case, he agreed with it. Or at least found it an interesting and worthwhile take. I most totally disagree.
Leaving paradise was not a move, it was a punishment, it did not make Adam and Eve greater, but lesser, it did not make them more creative, but less so.
Some of the punishments would have been God's way of restoring perhaps half or a third or a quarter of the creativity or greatness they would have had, if they had remained without sin.
The innocence and security were coupled with** inexperience (indeed, Eve must have been inexperienced to talk to a talking snake, a housewife these days with even some basic catechism would probably have resorted to holy water and calling an exorcist as speedily as if pots and pans were flying around the kitchen outside her own tantrums or another family member's). We are savvy about poltergeists and would probably be so about talking snakes, she wasn't.
B u t, she was not just physically but also mentally equipped to her role as mother of all living. She did not need to fall and she certainly did not grow by the mere fact of falling. The innocence and security did not depend on her remaining inexperienced, except insofar as there are "experiences" we would all like to be spared ("ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo").
The reading given Genesis 3 is one I think I recall as reading of as a Masonic and a Mormon one, it is not that I know a Catholic one.
Yes, one experience really made Adam and Eve greater for eternity which they got through their fall : being redeemed by the Cross. O felix culpa, quae tantum nos meruit salvatorem.
But apart from that one, in the "humanist" sense he espouses, no. Over Solzhenitsyn I vastly prefer Tolkien. "To grow is not to lose innocence". And alas, it is Solzhenitsyn and not Tolkien who is - it would seem - Jordan Peterson's hero. Even if perhaps he takes one of his from Tolkien.
Hans Georg Lundahl
* One can note, as C. S. Lewis was an ex-Hegelian, he did not share this error of Hegel in his Christian writings. At all. ** They were coupled with inexperience, but not per se permanently. They were not inexperience.
Wednesday, 14 March 2018
The Catholic Weekly : Mark Shea: Heavenly Samizdat
By Mark Shea March 8, 2018
Obviously, there is a reference to underground activity in the former Soviet Union.
He is drawing parallels and here are two such I would like to further comment on:
Just as that was a major function of Soviet era samizdat, so it is major function of Resistance literature here in the age of Trump. Samizdat helps free minds from lies by circulating the truth among resisters. (Not, of course, that I mean to in any way compare the oppression suffered by victims of Communism with the aggravations of living under a dumb and incompetent aspiring authoritarian like Trump and the paltry 30% of the electorate who have been brainwashed to believe his lies. The point is to note the similarity of tactics, not the similarity of power. The US still has a free press and freedom of speech and we are still able to speak out about the lies. Heck! The work is largely being done by late night comedians who, under a truly oppressive regime, would long ago have been shot or poisoned with plutonium like Putin’s critics. This is a liberty that the brave critics of Communism never enjoyed and I thank God for it.)
OK, he is speaking about the age of Trump ... what about his own involvement in the age of Evolutionism?
The age in which Karl Keating can pretend that Young Earth Creationist tenets like only thousands of years back to Creation and a world wide flood and languages other than Hebrew coming from Babel are an 19th C Calvinist novum, and in which Anthony Zarrella will pretend that ....
As to angels, of course I believe in them, and I even regard it as wholly plausible that there are angels tasked with effectuating every one of the natural laws of the universe. It would bother me not at all to posit that there’s an angel whose divine assignment is to hold atoms together (what we call the “weak nuclear force”), or to regulate the flow of electrons, or to pull masses towards one another (“gravity”). I could even posit that there’s an individual angel assigned to the orbit of each planet and star.
But that is a satisfactory answer to the question of “Why do the physical laws work?” I don’t find it a particularly satisfying substitute for explicable, empirically deducible physical laws.
And no bishop tells Karl Keating he is a bad historian (he got an imprimatur for his hogwash even) and no bishop tells Anthony Zarrella he is not accurately accounting for Thomistic view of angelic movers. A man who is involved in that can give Trump a break.
As for me, in this age of evolutionism, I think that I am providing a potential of ... innizdat ... (else-publishing, as contrasting with self-publishing)*. As long as no one needs to go to prison for publishing what I write, it is not too selfish of me to offer others the possibility and to hope for royalties from them. I have also done conditions such that if anyone should go to prison for publishing what I wrote, it should not be for breach of royalty payments or for breach of copyright.
Here they are:
hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
But in France and US, normally speaking, someone should be able to use them openly and therefore also to start sending me voluntary royalties.
How old are these conditions? Last post is from May 4, 2015. Second last post is from July 21, 2012, I certainly posted the conditions before that. Both the English and the French version.
I actually had to add a comment on the French version earlier, in 2013: Dec 13, 2013.
This was after a link originally in the conditions had become disactivated and so definitely after I added the conditions. So, at least five years these conditions have been in place.
But more, before being copied onto that one, they were added onto first message of my blog "deretour" after it was written, but at least before 26 October 2010, when I linked to that first message "de retour" as a way to linking to my conditions:
deretour : full url : version / présentation : pleins urls
This means, at least seven years the conditions are visible on the internet, the first message has by now been seen by at least (according to stats provided by google) 3652 times. Cannot access the times the conditions have been viewed on hglwrites, since that account was disconnected.
So many thousands could have started or enlarged a printing business from that offer. Note, I say enlarged, because the conditions do not exclude conventional publishers.
Did I mention anyone is free to print, sew and sell my essays or any reasonable collection of them (by theme or contrarywise on all different themes)?
Anyone, that means literally anyone.
And "my essays or any reasonable collection of them" means, you cannot later what is in an essay (beyond very moderate spelling correction, not stated, but there, and if including comment section on the posts, one can also delete the marks for who is saying sth between for instance different instances of myself adding content that way).
And "print, sew and sell" means any kind of publishing except pure glueback without sewn quiers which is very brittle. The stapled version on comic book or magasine format is acceptable.
Since big publishers do have these means, they could have. As to small publishers, well, they could learn to sew, cooperate with a book binder or settle for comic book format. I have given instructions for all steps up to sewing and binding, for anyone interested.
This means, sth has happened to stop this. I wonder what ... and if it has connection to viewer stats.
Each following stat is from one of my blogs, not giving all top ten, but the dominant one or ones. A country is counted as sole or last dominant one, if next country is about half as many or less, I did one exception for the really big blog these days.
|If you don't like stats, skip these down to below the boxes!|
Russia 4 Russia 1
|Vietnam 5 France 4 Ukraine 4 United States 4
United Kingdom 699 France 259 Canada 103
United Kingdom 1
France 2 Ukraine 2
Poland 1 Ukraine 1
Canada 1 Poland 1
If, for instance, one blog has France 2 viewers and Spain 1 viewer today, France is dominant country since Spain has exactly half as many viewers. Any blog where a country with only one viewer is dominant country has that country as sole viewer today.
Let's look at the sole viewer countries, for blogs having only one visitor:
United Kingdom 1
And on some blogs where Russia had 2 views today, it was also sole country.
Now, Russia has experience with Samizdat, from two sides. From the KGB side and from the Samizdat side.
Supposing my viewers in Russia were in fact from Samizdat side, by now, I think, some of them might have discovered that Samizdat has become legal in Russia. Well, I suppose it has. I am not sure.
In that case, perhaps some of them might have started sending me some. Or some of the material might have come out into the free world traditionally such and been reprinted on larger scale.
On the other hand, if the Russian viewers are from the former KGB side, that might explain why my blogs are not being republished on paper in Russia and ... why perhaps too some of the other countries seem to prefer a fairly similar number of viewers over time and why none of the traditionally free countries has seen any paper publishing on larger scale of any of my six thousand plus articles.
Or why none of my music is played, for that matter.
Psychiatric specialists being involved in the watching is also fairly consistent with the former KGB scenario. It would involve looking at blog after blog and seeing I am not updating it, sometimes because it is an old blog with a successor or for a special finite purpose, sometimes because it is a blog I don't update every day, because I only do so when I have sth new to say on the subject.
When we look at the week, there is less Russian dominance and a bit more US and Ukrainean one ...
|United States 6
United States 16
United States 17
United States 5
|Russia 6 Germany 4 United States 3
Russia 13 United States 10
Russia 2 United States 2
Russia 13 United States 8
Poland 3 Russia 3
Poland 3 Russia 3
United Kingdom 1 Russia 1
Russia 3 Ukraine 2
France 10 Russia 10 United States 9
France 4 Russia 4 United States 3
Russia 6 Germany 4 Poland 4 France 3
Ukraine 103 United States 102 Russia 98
Russia 10 United States 7 Belgium 6
United Kingdom 4196 France 1854
Italy 72 Ukraine 52 United States 41
How if we compare with last month as well?
United States 42
United States 13
|France 17760 United Kingdom 12352
Russia 427 Ukraine 382 Italy 348
Ukraine 460 Italy 446 Russia 429
Russia 665 Italy 488
Ukraine 17 Russia 14
Ukraine 35 Russia 31
Russia 67 Ukraine 47
Russia 275 Ukraine 179
United States 1894 Ukraine 1223 Russia 1116
Russia 33 United States 20
Russia 37 United States 20
Russia 260 Japan 158
Russia 27 France 21
So, for last month, Russian dominance is even more marked.
Just taking Ukraine, US and Russia here:
4233 : 30 = 141.1
Expected readers from month last 24 h = 141.
20 Real readers last 24 h.
140 : 20 = 7 Real readers are 1/7 of expected readers from month.
303 Real readers last week.
303 : 7 = 43.3 Expected readers from last week for last 24 hours.
43.3 : 20 = 2.165 Real readers are less than 1/2 of expected readers from last week.
141.1*7 = 987.7 Expected readers f o r last week from last month.
987.7 : 303 = 3.26 Real readers last week are less than 1/3 of what one could expect from last month.
Long story short : Russia, US and Ukraine have dominated my readership and diminished it. From month to week and from week to last 24 hours.
Also, France seems, on most of my blogs, to have a watchdog role. No blog has French dominance one week, let alone one month, except the one where France and UK share the dominance for quite some time now. As to its sister blog in French, it has Italian dominance.
So, for my resistance writing in an age of Evolutionism, I am fairly controlled resistance. Not because the big ones control what I write, but because they control who reads. For free countries, US and France can be pretty unfree, at times.
And I wonder how many of the Russian veterans from Samizdat era would in fact still believe printing from home is illegal - and I wonder if they would be right in Russia.
Now, second point.
Anyway, all this business of samizdat got me thinking. One of the oldest bodies of samizdat in the world is called the “New Testament”. It was written by a community living, not only under the threat of persecution by a brutal Roman regime that killed its Master by crucifixion and which periodically killed his servants by equally brutal means, but also under the rejection of its very own fathers, mothers, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles who were constantly telling the early Christians that they had lost their minds, that everything they believed is a lie, and that they are either crazy or liars too.
Such a community, telling the world such a tale as the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the God-man, needed to hear words of encouragement from one another—a lot. Its members needed to remind each other not merely to be brave against mobs that wanted to kill them, but against moms who pled with them to stop chasing after this nutty new cult that believed in a risen Messiah and claimed to have seen him with their own eyes. The great danger they faced was not persecution but seduction: the pleading call of friends and loved ones to see reason, abandon Jesus, and come along with them “for fellowship.”
The early Christians needed to tell each other, “No. You are not crazy. We saw the Risen Lord too. We heard his words. We saw the miracles. We saw the signs. We saw the apostles do such signs. We even saw each other do them. It’s all real. It’s all true. Be not afraid.”
This is why the letters of Paul are replete with admonitions to “encourage one another.” As Orwell noted, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps toward it is to keep a diary, or, at any rate, to keep some kind of record of one’s opinions about important events.” The New Testament is the Church’s diary. Every liturgy is a reading of that diary: a reminder of what happened, of what it means, of what the truth of things really is, that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. It is a call from our most ancient ancestors to hold fast to those truths no matter how much the world may lie to us.
Nearly all is correct.
One little point. In Roman Empire there was no such thing as copyright. Stealing a private letter and publishing it was punishable, I presume, but publishing whatever text you had bought or been sent was perfectly legal. This meant, each person copying could copy less than we would now, and still have more impact in the end - because others followed on.
Knowing you were not writing a faked text was back then an already developed art to which little has been added. It was a question of comparing the manuscripts you had.
And, as everything you copied for others could be copied in turn, it was mainly innizdat*.
This underground innizdat was what actually survived of contemporary history from AD 30 to AD 96 (the latest parts of Antiquities and possibly Jewish War excepted). Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are with Flavius Josephus our historians from Tiberius to Nerva's early reign.
And in Nerva's early reign, Tacitus explains why ...
We have read that the panegyrics pronounced by Arulenus Rusticus on Paetus Thrasea, and by Herennius Senecio on Priscus Helvidius, were made capital crimes, that not only their persons but their very books were objects of rage, and that the triumvirs were commissioned to burn in the forum those works of splendid genius. They fancied, forsooth, that in that fire the voice of the Roman people, the freedom of the Senate, and the conscience of the human race were perishing, while at the same time they banished the teachers of philosophy, and exiled every noble pursuit, that nothing good might anywhere confront them. Certainly we showed a magnificent example of patience; as a former age had witnessed the extreme of liberty, so we witnessed the extreme of servitude, when the informer robbed us of the interchange of speech and hearing. We should have lost memory as well as voice, had it been as easy to forget as to keep silence.
Chapter 2 of Agricola.
In other words from Tiberius to Domitian all the Roman Empire lived in a situation very close to that of Soviet Union. Because the latest surviving contemporary historian before this silence falls silent in AD 30 - when St John and Our Lord were speaking to Roman Soldiers in Palestine. It was Vellejus Paterculus, writing about the last 16 years, the first ones of Tiberius, in a very much more general way than he had written about Augustus.
I quoted both here:
somewhere else : Two of These Quoted (Silent Historians Argument Revisited)
I made the general observation about "silent historians" argument here:
somewhere else : 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category
This is part of my Apologetics about the Resurrection of Christ, against the argument that no "contemporary and independent" historians confirm the Resurrection, nor even existence, of Jesus, Tacitus, Josephus, and Sueton all being next generation.
Well, there are no "independent" historians in that "contemporary" : the ones not enjoying the Church's faculties of preserving under ground publishing depended too much on the power and perished, if speaking about contemporary events. Tacitus, Sueton and Dio Cassius would all be quoting some historian from Nero's time - which we know now only in the quotes in Tacitus, Sueton and Dio Cassius. The Sovietic parallel was scaringly accurate.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Leo, bishop
martyred in Rome
PS, if the Church was so good at providing us with illegal writing in the age of Nero, it is astonishing if there would have been a true Church other than the Catholic and in the age of Constantine it survived in silence, like the Pagan Romans Tacitus spoke of. So much for Baptist Continuity theory, the second most absurd Church History after ... how about the "Church was never really Young Earth Creationist but discovered it was Evolutionist only after nearly 2000 years" ...
* OK, never learned Russian, and if my memory of "inny" = "other" is wrong, it would be a "false memory" from my time of learning Polish and having to leave off too soon. But I don't think it is.
|Update next day|
|no clear dominant country||one dominant country|
|France 1 Russia 1
Poland 1 Russia 1
Ukraine 4 Indonesia 3 Russia 3 United States 3 Poland 2
Russia 10 Ukraine 9 United States 6 France 5 Brazil 3
United States 8 Ukraine 7 Russia 4
France 1 United States 1
France 1 United States 1 Vietnam 1
United Kingdom 713 France 414
Spain 1 France 1
France 2 Ukraine 2
Poland 2 Ukraine 2
Poland 2 Ukraine 2
Friday, 9 March 2018
Status quo, as resumed by a blog post:
Currently, teens under 18 in Kentucky can marry at age 16 or 17 with a parent’s permission. Teens under 16 can marry with a judge’s permission in case of a pregnancy, though critics say if a girl under 16 is pregnant, it is evidence of a sex crime because she would have been too young to consent to a sexual relationship.
First of all, a pregnant woman should be able to marry the father of the child unless it would involve incest, adultery, sacrilege of vows of chastity (if the father is a priest or the pregnant woman a nun, since in the case a "marriage" would be invalid and involve further sacrileges beyond the one already done), or disparity of worship (if one is baptised and other is not baptised and won't get baptised).
Second, a sex crime can be amended by precisely culprit marrying victim if she so wants to.
Third, in Medieval Latin Christendom, a girl of Twelve was legally capable to marry, even without parental consent. She was also legally presumed capable of consent to fornication and adultery (which in Christendom were not punishable by death), except if she was a virgin, in which case the crime stuprum was a kind of equivalent to statutory rape, except it depended on her being virgin, not on her being 12. So, a widow of 12 and a half could legally consent to fornication. A virgin of 15 or 17 could not, but the culprit was free to make up by marrying the victim. Parental consent was customary except where already married and widowed or already sham married and annulled. It was not a legal requirement.
These are the rules that the Catholic Church upheld, these are the rules that should be upheld.
Making courts capable of forbidding marriage even with parental consent, as proposed by some legislators of Kentucky*, fulfils dire Biblical prophecy:
" Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,  Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,  Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth."
[1 Timothy 4:1-3]
Obviously, the "marriage at 18 and parental consent for no one" rule would involve some evil spirits coming some places earlier than others.
In 1870, it was imposed on Former Papal States, I suppose, as they were annected by the Kingdom of Italy. If not, Kingdom of Italy got involved in that game after offending Papacy. Either way, while Pius IX ruled in Rome and Romagna, including Nettuno, a twelve year old girl could certainly marry. By early 20th C. it was 18, as I read in Dummrath.
A bit later this evil change came to Russia, in the case of 18 in the Russian Revolution.
In this context, consider that while 616 is not the number of the beast, since it belongs to Nero rather than to Domitian**, it is still bad enough. How does this relate? Well, in Russian, both Vladimir and Ilich would have been very valid ways to refer to a certain Ulianov. He was quarter Swedish and in sweden his last name is spelled Uljanov. Now check IULJANOV. Even so, Czars had previous to that deviated from the Catholic standard.
This is a reason why Kentucky should not deviate from it further than they already did.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Francesca of Rome
PS, as we today celebrate St Francesca, patron saint of Rome, widow, it may be noted that her marriage was at age ... 12. Probably with parental consent or even guidance, as she was pious, but it would not have been a legal requirement./HGL
* If I understand the blog post correctly, read it for yourselves:
Why Conservatives Objected to that Kentucky Child Marriage Bill
March 5, 2018 by Libby Anne
** How does 666 belong to Domitian? Well, if you take Latin vocative "Domitiane" and spell it DOMITIANE or French phrase "à Domitien" and spell it ADOMITIEN, you only need to add up ASCII values for each letter, there are no accented ones, especially not in the Latin vocative (French tend to omit accents in capitalisation, but this is optional), so the 26 standard letters go in upper case 65 for A to 90 for Z.
Are Muslims threatening the freedom in the West through psychiatry?
Well, look how psychiatry might seem to function in Egypt, in a Muslim country:
The Mohammad he is speaking to is a young atheist.
The atheist is wrong. But that doesn't make psychiatry right.
And while atheism is so common in France, atheists are not in any way menaced, some others, like Christians of a more radically faithful type may be (Catholicism in France is not very faithful, most of it).
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Francesca Romana
Tuesday, 6 March 2018
I was going to go through blog after blog where a mention was possible and show screenshots of "no post found with the term Soros".
I took the blog Assorted Retorts first, and I actually found one.
Here is the post and the relevant passage:
Are Dinos Feeling Squished in the Bible?
This post - before I quote the passage - actually is a comment on a video, so 13:14 is a time signature in it and the next words in citation marks are a quote from it, giving context for my comment. The full context for those not seeing the video is, the speaker Viced Rhino claims Creationists do not make any discoveries. It is then qualified to "interesting enough to make headlines" and here is where I bump in:
13:14 "interesting enough to make headlines"
You don't know which interests own the mainstream media, right?
Soros is one of them, and he's behind next year's new Irish referendum which he hopes will bring abortion to Ireland.
Do you think HE would like such a thing to be known?
Or the four years since I started doing the research debunking geological column, as far as palaeontology is concerned, I have not been easily refuted and after that ignored, I have been NEITHER refuted NOR taken note of by the relevant specialists.
Here is a correspondence with Karoo:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
That was 2 years ago.
Here, if you read Spanish, is one with Yacoraite:
Correspondencia de Hans Georg Lundahl : Yacoraite
As you can see, it is actually one letter, from me, no answer from the Universidad Nacional de Salta.
So, my point is, Soros is involved in the Irish campaign for abortion and he owns media concerns. I do not think it too likely the media he owns would publish news that even Fox News could consider a bit too controversial. If that is "paranoid," who isn't? Is Soros "paranoid" for not liking The Alex Jones Channel?
The point is, some things are by some persons weighed with two measures. If I think of Soros' media like Soros thinks of The Alex Jones Channel, only one of us is likely to be stamped as paranoid.
Precisely, as I said elsewhere, if Jews have a certain attitude about a swastika, in reference to past history, and I have that as a Christian in reference to future history (see Apocalypse 13:18) to the number six hundred sixty six, only one of us is likely to be stamped as a phobiac. You have a diagnosis called hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, but, despite the smaller word and easier pronunciation, psychologists have not bothered to involve a diagnosis for swastikophobia.
Well, infortunately, there are some chances psychologists and psychiatrists are more often sectarian Jews than Christians (except Protestants who are close to Seventh Day Adventist in relation to Catholicism) and those who are, are more likely to get away with an abuse of position than Christians would be. If I as a Catholic threw Muslims into Mental Hospital or even damaged them ever so little socially by making a diagnosis, supposing I had been a shrink, on the basis of those Muslims disliking the Crusades and exaggerating the extent of war crimes and exaggerating the extent of recent scandals of sex abuse among Catholic clergy, I would lose the job as a shrink no time, similmarily if I did so to Jews confusing Austrofascism and Francisco Franco with Hitler. And of course, if I were to try it with Protestants like acting an Inquisitor about hersy under the guise of psychiatric totally religiously neutral expertise. But some people do get away with similar things the other way round. Because they are likelier to try? Not necessarily, but rather, there are more things they can get away with ... except perhaps when the Catholics are very up to date ones.
But what I said about Soros is very mild compared to what I have to say about shrinks - with reference to, but little difference in, exact confession. I only considered Soros unlikely to favour a certain type of news which nevertheless I think is very good if it gets out, and I consider other owners of mainstream media, the ones he is part of and some others, have similar "attitude problems" about certain truths.
Now, I showed a research on Soros as one example, but the thing is, you can get to the "search" bar in the blog, in each blog, and type a key word, and every post where a keyword with exact same spelling (if I misspelled "Sorros" for "Soros" it wouldn't show, but I usually don't do that), every such post will come up on the search, on each of the blogs.
If some people have been visiting my blogs very often just searching and searching for material they consider damning or could even use against me in courts, well, why the trouble? There is a search bar on each blog.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Sts Perpetua and Felicitas
PS, it seems Soros is doing some good too, it seems he has shown some support for Palestinians./HGL
PPS, I just tried to find out sth about Soros involvement in media ownership, independently of my cavalier and amateurish half memory of an allegation. Guess what. There is a site dedicated to Media Ownership, it is called a Monitor (of it). The countries they do monitor are: Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Ghana, Mongolia, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine. Not Russia, China or India, and also not South Africa or Ireland. Not Japan, no country of the Commonwealth, and not US. Only smaller and less important countries. Wonder why?/HGL
PPPS, found one possible reason. The site is funded by ... The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) is headed by the Minister, Dr Gerd Müller, the Parliamentary State Secretaries, Mr Hans-Joachim Fuchtel and Mr Thomas Silberhorn, and the State Secretary, Dr Friedrich Kitschelt. ... In other words, the countries monitored could be such where the Germans are posing money for projects, in foreign aid. That automatically concentrates on poorer countries and excludes some big ones and rich ones./HGL
PPPPS, George Soros, on twitter promoted Michelle Gallo as pronouncing this calumny against those against Gay Marriage : "The concept first gained traction in Europe, where anti-LGBTI activists and politicians in Spain and France, among others, used the term while attempting to limit the rights of women and LGBTI persons." The phrase "attempting to limit" sounds like depriving of rights already there, while it is about opposing non-rights./HGL