Saturday, 28 March 2015

Noé et Moyen Âge

427 Aetius se rend à Ravenne pour demander les pouvoirs nécessaires à la défense des Gaules à la fois contre les Wisigoths rebelles et contre de nouvelles incursions des Francs rhénans.

496 Baptême de Clovis.

427 + 950 = 1377, 496 + 950 = 1446.

Filippo Brunelleschi, 1377 - 1446.

Pourquoi 950 ans? Bon, tel était l'âge de Noé à son décès.

Résumer le Moyen Âge sur le seul an que toute l'Europe Latine avait la Peste Noire, 1347-48, c'est comme de dire que la vie de Noé flottait beaucoup en référence à son année de vie 600 (ou selon la Septante 500?), quand il était dans l'Arche.

Pour l'Europe Latine d'ailleurs, le Moyen Âge fonctionnait un peu comme une arche. Les horreurs de la Rome payenne antichrétienne et décadente (orgies, sodomie, jeux de cirque mortels pour les gladiateurs) ont été bouleversées, dans le "déluge" des Invasions barbares. Et à l'autre côté, les nouvelles horreurs de la Renaissance ésotérique et la Réforme protestante, début des totalitarismes - comme il y a eu une Tour de Babel après le Déluge.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, George Pompidou
Veille de Dimanche des Rameaux

Friday, 27 March 2015

Making Books at Home is Not Impossible

One blogger and Tolkien/Chesterton admirer looks back on writing her FIRST book (totally the hand made style, only copy being original):

Elenatintil : That time I wrote my first book

I left this comment (not sure whether it will be published or not) (yeah, it was published):

If you homeschool yours, and want a printed version of the project, how about doing like this:

1) number page pairs as follows:

8 - 1
2 - 7
6 - 3
4 - 5

16 - 9
10 - 15
14 - 11
12 - 13


2) Let each pupil who contributes fill in after pagination order, not as the pages come in the cahier/notebook.

Wait till a good completion has occurred.

3) Copy page pairs on copy machines so that eventually 8/1 (16/9) is top to top with 4/5 (12/13) and so that 2/7 (10/15) is top to top with 6/3 (14/11). Then make from these two sheets (per final print sheet) double sided copies so that 8/1 is back to back with 2/7 (which means 8 is back to back with 7, as should be, and 2 back to back with 1, as should be). As many of these as you wish for copies of the book.

4) Fold each print sheet over so that 2/7 is front to front with 6/3 (which will mean that 2 faces 3 and 6 faces 7 as you open there, as should be). Then fold again so that the 4/5 page pair gets a fold in the middle.

5) Collect for each copy all the print sheets, folded, and use your best talents as a bookbinder (or pay a professional) to make a book out of them.

I know what I am talking about, since I have done such artisanal printed books myself. The mainstay of hglwrites blog is the back and front sides of print sheets, handwritten. On that blog, I have the "further use" conditions (further as in beyond reading) which are common to that blog and most of mine on blogger:

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions

Obviously, the above method is not the only one I accept, I have nothing against more industrialised versions of book printing.

But other content is as said back and front sides of print sheets. Plus a little more.


Example (3 sheets, 24 pages):

hglwrites : Introduction à la Théorie Musicale

Obviously, the positing of pages also functions if you start with printouts from a computer, as I did with one collection of three essays in French:

hglwrites : Géocentrisme, trois essais

(It seems they were deleted, the back and front of this one!)

Since only one print sheet, back before the deletion, I used it to make booklets joined in the back by staples.

Of course, I left out the fact that top folds have to be cut up, but anyone who has handled older books like paper backs from thirties, knows that anyway. And as Elenatil is a book geek, I take it that includes her.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Friday after Annunciation
Day, 27-III-2015

Thursday, 26 March 2015

On Mutual Reproaches of Megalomania

Funny, (or actually sad, but so sad I can't properly cry over it and might as well laugh) some seem to think that I "think I am Jesus" or sth, because I think i know better than Astronomers (nota bene : in reality on some subjects they speak of, not all) - but I think simply they are the guys who (on some subjects, again) speak with too much assurance. Like when deducing impossible gravitational causes for orbits (and they have been demonstrated impossible by Don Pettit*) from supposed non-existence of voluntary causes on that large scale. Which in its turn is deduced from a misanalysis of consciousness as a byproduct of material things with sufficient complexity - brains and in the future computers - which complexities are not observed in the celestial objects. It's as if astronomers and likeminded had "verified" that R2D2 and C3PO could think and that Han Solo had been flying through space between inhabited planets which orbit stars. Newsflash, even if Star Wars is enjoyable, it's fiction, not fact. THe voyages of Han Solo, unlike those of Vasco da Gama, give neither any clue to Tellurian nor to any other geometry in the cosmos, except as to the film studio, of course.

What is a fact is that for instance simultaneous vision of wobble as observed from Earth in all celestial object either argues Earth is wobbling and hence rotating, or that all celestial objects are at same distance or a limited number of different distances from, that is above Earth.** In the latter case these must coordinate through good choreography, which means voluntary causes. This also does away with distances of several light years or even millions of them and therefore leaves us free to accept that God created stars and Sun and Moon on Day 4 some 7500 or 7200 years ago. And that Moses, unlike George Lucas, was getting factual information and accurate such from the Maker and Ruler of it all, even if the Jedi mystics might disagree here. Or will disagree.

Now, you may think (some of you) that Neurologists, Computer Engineers, Astronomers might be more likely to know what they talk about than either George Lucas or Moses, since Moses lived before them and George Lucas is relying on them. And since you (those of you I mean) rely on both progress making the experts of today wiser than those who had no access to them, and also rely on famous people today having a fair clue on who are the real experts. But what if these experts, without thinking about it, are really relying on George Lucas (and such predecessors of his who wrote Flash Gordon)?

This morning, I was, while writing the draft, sitting among homeless. I heard ABBA "The Winner Takes It All", I heard "Do The Locomotion", I heard "Oh Can't You See, You Belong To Me" (Aerosmith, I think) ... There are moods in which people enjoying these will, nevertheless, say about the lyrics: "c'mon, it's just a song, reality isn't like that". But if there were no moods in which they felt the opposite of that, the songs would simply not be popular, or not remain so, if every time one reflected on the lyrics of an otherwise fine tune, one felt queezy about it. To some, I presume, though fortunately not all, these songs are as meaningful in each line as Salve Regina or O Quanta Qualia are to this Catholic. Or used to be and should be again. To such, the triumphant refrain of "The Winner Takes It All" will convey a dream of being a winner, or of being with winners and enjoying their generosity and even being found enjoyable by them. They will hear the verse where Agneta (or is it Frida? or both?) looks back on when she was "playing by the rules" and then consider that pragmatism, bending the rules, is the way. And when it comes to hearing "Locomotion" or especially "Oh Can't You See", well, let us not get too deep into what love stories they might be dreaming of.*** At least from time to time besides and while enjoying the music.

And perhaps more than any specific inspiration from each song (fortunately, as to some songs) they will take the song as a celebration of the general pop culture they live in. As a celebration of the culture in which they also get George Lucas, C3PO and R2D2 acting as if they were talking, and as if they were understanding or at least misunderstanding situations, and in this general culture that is understood to happen due to electronics in their tin heads or tin bodies and on the electronics being wired the right way, and brains are also seen as working that way. Or, that culture will also give them Han Solo flying from star to star and landing on planets that orbit around these, and often on inhabited ones. And they will also loyally accept from this same culture a certain vision of "science" saying that though these things are not yet possible in practise, in theory they should be possible and one day they will be in practise too, provided progress is allowed to go on.

There are more intricate arguments, either for accepting artificial intelligence as being no misnomer or for accepting human intelligence as being a byproduct of mainly brain and neural biology, or again, for the astronomical world view of many galaxies and each galaxy containing many stars and each star being a sun, which has been prevailing since 1930. But to such intricate and theoretic arguments, there are also answers that are sometimes very simple.

And I seem to have, when debating, difficulties in making adherents of this culture and its "modern scientific world view" permanently understand one of these actually simple answers.

Hence my very strong suspicion that they are swayed by fictional works of art, like Star Wars, or Foundation Trilogy, never having realised at all these are less realistic than Lord of the Rings, and forgetting that they are as little real as the literal storyline of that work by Tolkien. I once had trouble making someone understand that Sherlock Holmes is exactly as invented and fantastic as Gandalf.

In such cases, they may be stumped momentarily, but they will return to an argument which I have already refuted. If not with me, on internet debates, at least with someone else - or otherwise why don't they come back and tell me they have changed their mind? Not all, no doubt, but a number which is worryingly great (unless same person poses under very many profiles) - either their early education will have included imbibing and never even later correcting the errors of these pop culture works of art, or some are definitely more than seventy, squatting, except for public vloggers, the atheistic debate sphere, or the part of it concerned with me. Or even people both senile and swayed unduly by works such as mentioned which unfortunately became pop culture along with better ones.

But I must not forget, there is also another group who couldn't care less if I have good and simple answers. People to whom questions of hierarchy totally take the upper hand over facts and logic, or if not totally, at least to a great part, when it comes to determine the difference between knowledge and nonsense. Or between reasonable speculation and complete nonsense. Or between hard fact and reasonable speculation too. Such people might think I "take myself for Jesus" just because I do not share their "heathen respect" (great thanks to German language for the concept!) for this or that subgroup of the present human society. For my part, I think it is they who misidentify if not Jesus and His Holy Church at least their bad version of the general concept with certain collective intellectual habits called Academic Disciplines. As to these, I think they are neither Jesus, nor His holy Church, nor in as good a shape as Academic Disciplines were (but they were never infallible, as such) back when clearly subordinate under Christ and under canonic bishops of His Church, such as Stephen II Tempier, bishop of Paris.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Day After Annunciation Day, 2015

* Science off the Sphere: Knitting Needle Experiment

** As I argued in more detail here: New blog on the kid : Implications of a Wobble

*** A hint : without the song "Oh Can't You See", there might not have been the book and film "Fifty Shades of Grey".

Progress Gone Mad

Nick Bostrom (Niklas Boström) on a documentary*:

"before the end of the century, we will either have gone exstinct or we will most likely have taken the steps to become what you might call transhumans or posthumans or just very enhanced humans, that have reached the[ir?] full potential"

Oh, and how exactly would exstinction of humans not taking this diabolical step come about if we refuse it?

The willingness to nuke or to bioterrorism is linked to a disregard of Natural Law (God's Ten Commandments which He put in our hearts, but which we can disregard at our own risk) which is also there in transhumanism.

And man made global warming ...

  • 1) we don't know that the warming is manmade;

  • 2) if it is, it is due to industrialism, also an example of disregard for traditional limited production methods, like the one shown by ... again : transhumanism.

Someone might object that with limited production methods we would not have enough food for all who are alive. Not so. They were not that much more limited in capacity to get food out of area of ground. They were limited in production capacity of each man - meaning that for the farming done more had to be farmers. For the shoe production done, more had to be cobblers. There were lots less truck drivers. And lots less ultraheated factories producing 24/24, 365/365.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Day after Annunication Day, 2015

* Rob Skiba identifies it as "Building Gods".

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Implications of a Wobble

1) Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism, 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes out one Heliocentric YEC explanation , 3) New blog on the kid : Implications of a Wobble

As it happens, and as RationalWiki notices, there are wobbles.

Geocentrists have to imagine that the stars and galaxies all wobble in (what appears to us) synchronicity while Earth stays still. Since these stars and galaxies are millions of light years apart, however, their wobbles must all occur in the same pattern, but at different times according to their distance from Earth so that the light from these different objects reaches us at exactly the same time making it look simultaneous (for example, the apparent wobble of a star 10 light years away would actually be our observation of its wobble 10 years ago, in synchronicity with a coordinated wobble of another star somewhere across the universe 5 light-years in another direction, but that second star only wobbled 5 years ago). [In footnotes:] Well, of course, the geocentrists can claim, contrary to all the evidence, that stars are really only little mysterious points of light only a few light years away. (Remember, "nothing in astronomy makes sense except in the light of heliocentrism".) The argument still works, we're saying that stars are making this strangely coordinated dance, instantly changing so that their light will appear on Earth in synchrony. Even if the separation is a matter of as little as days, it is still demanding thousands of ad hoc changes which just happen to look like it is really the Earth which is changing its motions.

RationalWiki : Geocentrism

Chandler's Wobble is just one of three, I think the one going fastest - once every eight days, unless I misrecall.*

Now, parallax (which is another movement of the Heavens, also neither exactly daily nor in periods observed by astronomers for thousands of years), varies, not just between three quarters of an arc second and "zero visible", but also into the negative, as with 63 Ophiuchi. Aberration (another of the recently discovered movements) probably varies exactly insofar as parallax is measured as minuscule variations on presumed standard annual aberration. But in the wobbles, apparently, especially Chandler's, there is hardly any variation, and apparently it all lines up very neatly.

This could be due to one of three things:

  • light might have no finite speed, so even if the wobble is in a star as far away as the thirteen point five billion light years presumed for some stars (and those presumed to be furthest away among visible ones), the wobble is immediately seen on earth, precisely as with the "closest stars" at "4 light years' distance" or as with a very close star c. 1 Astronomical Unit distance, and as with planets, while the Universe wobbles;
  • or, light has a finite speed, distances are as thought so Earth is wobbling : simultaneousness of wobble is because wobble is in the one body we inhabit;
  • or, light here also has a finite speed, but all stars are equally far away. Sirius and alpha Centauri and 63 Ophiuchi wobble simultaneously seen from us, because they have the same distance from us.

There is a problem for this last option: even if all stars are same distance, planets are closer, including Sun, Moon, comets, asteroids, satellites of planets.

But, supposing as I do that angels are carrying the stars and planets, if not vertically above Earth (that might be due in part at least to relative densities of nuclear matter and ether - Aristotelian theory of gravity updated - or to gravitation of Sun, giving partial credits to Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravity), at least horizontally in their different heights above us (and perhaps some verticality in Tychonian orbits as well) : thus they could show the wobble at same moment by moving it in each their own little mirror or lantern with a number of delays between them, as I will presently explain.

Or the wobble could be a fraud.

Supposing the wobble is no fraud, supposing also light has a speed, which, though very great, is finite, one could nearly (not quite), pose the following two equations:

wobble + geocentricity = stars at same distance
wobble + stars at now commonly supposed distances = heliocentric models of some sort

There is however a little problem with the "stars at same distance" solution, as already noted, being that objects closer to us than stars also show wobble contemporaneous to them, and they are not same distance as stars, nor as each other.

The solution for a geocentric would be to suppose that angels guiding planets (in the large sense as large objects between us and the stars) do the wobble-displacement in time, not with when angels further away and up are actually doing it, but when light from their displacement is reaching down. When a star in Virgo wobbles, its light reaches the level of Mercury a little later and Mercury wobbles in time with the light on its level, each having an angel who is very observant of timing. For angelic beings such fine tuned and speedy reactions are no real problem. Think of the superheroes like Superman and Flash as clumsy and weak compared to angelic beings.

However, as I realised while writing the draft, this solution is also open to a large universe scenario. Which is why the equations will not quite be absolute.

The real reasons against a universe as large as commonly posited, or larger than say stars being in a radius around Earth of for instance a light day (still very large universe, commonly assumed distance to Pluto is 30 light minutes, unless it was Neptune), the real reasons are these:

  • not parting from Heliocentric assumptions, via parallax, there is no necessity for a much larger universe;
  • there are objections of fittingness against stars being further away than a light day or two, since of they were as distant as four light years or more (even that "smallest stellar distance" is 1461 times the distance of a lightday), it would normally have taken four years after their creation before Adam and Eve would have seen even alpha Centauri;
  • apart from being deduced from Heliocentrism, one false system, the hugeness or rather infinity of universe, was alongside the heliocentric topos one of those rejecting Medieval cosmology (Kant, Wright and others).

But the reasoning "from fittingness" for accepting an infinite universe (for which 13.5 billion light years is culturally a recent standin, whatever scientific merits or demerits it might have for one accepting Heliocentrism) is the following reasoning : "God is infinite, therefore he has to express Himself in an infinity of universe or universes" - as if everything that was in God could be adequately expressed even in an infinite number of infinitely large universes! And each existing from eternith past to eternity future!

So, if God can be content with a universe 13.5 billion light years across, He can also be content with a very much smaller one, twice one or two lightdays across.

St. Juliana of Norwich had a vision in which God showed her everything He had created - and it was no bigger than a nut.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton said he liked to adress the universe with diminutives - and it had never seemed to mind.

Ha! Noted I made an explanation involving no rotating ether, as in Greek Mythology or like the Hebrew view familiar to Flavius Josephus or whoever wrote Book of Henoch (whether it be or be not worthy to be considered even locally as canon is a question the Pope may take up with Ethiopian Copts, if and when they apply to be Uniates, and as to Antiquitates, no one ever pretended it was canonic : I refer to story of Abraham realising there was one God, philosophically, before that one God actually called him).

If we take an ether rotating westward, the view of Aristotle basically and of scholastics, though instead of ether they had solid orbital spheres between stars and Earth atmosphere, the wobble is either the largest (I think it is larger than 25 arc seconds) an independent movement of each and every star and planet in it, and second largest, after periodic orbital one for any planet (including Sun and Moon, etc)* - or else ether has an elasticity which causes the wobble due to circular movement contracting and rebounding. I do not know and do not pretend to know which it is of these two. Unlike Heliocentrics who do pretend to know it is neither.

Before I quit, if there be an ether, what is the Biblical word for it?

Sungenis and Bennett (two Roberts) think it is "firmamentum, stereoma, raqqiya" and this was of course created on day two. I think it is rather "coelum" in the pair "coelum et terram". Coelum, ouranos, hashamayim. It was thus created in the beginning.

If ether is also the substance of light, and visible light is ripples in ether, this would be very fitting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Annunciation Feast, 2015

* I was wrong. The 433 days, at the poles, show only 9 metres displacement, an angle smaller than 0.75 arc seconds. And thus somewhat difficult to measure.

Monday, 23 March 2015

Georges Pompidou a rectifié

1) Non, je ne méprise pas les Français ... (fut publié hier sur un autre blog), 2) Et la Bpi alors ..., 3) Et Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou (persiste en filtrage abusif ...), Persistait! 4) La Bibliothèque Municipale Heureusement ne filtre pas le blog de Red Cardigan, 5) Georges Pompidou a rectifié

Ce que je viens d'écrire avant sur ce thème reste, non pas comme reproche à la Bpi, mais comme leçon pour d'autres occasions et pour d'autres.

Je suis très satisfait d'avoir reçu un mail là-dessus.

Et je peux retourner en bonne conscience à la Pompidolienne ce soir, j'aurais peut-être qqc à écrire sur le wobble de Chandler et ses implications selon héliocentrisme - ou géocentrisme. En anglais.

Encore, merci, merci, merci!

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
avant-veille de l'Annonciation

Can an Old Sack be Renewed by Macramé?

1) Recipes from Home and Abroad : If ever you throw away old shoes – save the shoestrings !, 2) New blog on the kid : Can an Old Sack be Renewed by Macramé?

Last Friday, I knew the answer is yes.

I had over months since the summer been repairing a sack that was falling apart, by adding strings arranged by making knots around strings. Friday morning, I cut off what was left of the original sack, and the macramé sack is in use. Parts will have to be added, it's a bit awkward with sleeping bag peeping out of sack for nearly a foot length when the sack is crammed, but it was not really falling out.

Now, here is the basics on how I did what is still useful:

The top part of the sack, which contains the drawstring, was first fortified by loops starting below the part where the cloth was doubled to contain the it and going above it. Take string or tripled string plaited from a fastened point to a hole in the cloth under the seam, push it through to make a loop, continue, next hole, next hole. Either all around, or start off without really closing the top fortification, start out from two or three or four rows of loops, so the fortification doesn't unduly narrow the opening of the sack.

Loops should be about 10 cm apart. Or 4 inches.

If the original fortification was one string and not a triple plait, go same way back to at least double it.

Next, add string in a long series of half hitches around the double or triple plaited string. In order to do it well, I hope you have done some macramé before.

Next, add a kind of grid along top, under the loops. Here I started using triple plaited string before doing the half hitches around it. Ideally, use loops attached onto nether part of the loops for the drawstring, let the strings meet after crisscrossing. Say you have twelve loops for the drawstring, then under four equidistant of them, you can hang the strings down, so they meet in pairs. Where they meet, you tie them together by the superfluous piece of string from the triple plaiting. Then you do same thing under the four drawstring loops to the right of each already done. Take care they cross alternatively same direction below. Then the under the four drawstring loops that are left, now criss cross.

Now tie the half hitches, start off with a larks head around a crossing of two strings, like under a drawstring loop, continue all around, meaning that whereever strings cross, X-wise, you tie two or four half hitches around both and then continue on other string same level as before rather than on same string lower level. Next, take the level under it, until you are done to where strings meet. After each level, check that the macramé fortification is not narrowing the sack opening. If it starts getting narrow, you will need to undo and pull apart, adding material between to keep it easy to enter and take out your stuff.

When these top levels are ready, get to lowest level. Make long triple plaited strings, cross them at midlength, put crossing inside bag. Next make a "macramé hotpad" and put it inside the sack under the crossed triple plaited strings. Push these through holes in the "hotpad" and pull out the strings through four holes in ground level. Either equidistant or two closer to each other than to the two others, depending on form of sack.

Then attach to the grid top of sack. A crossing of two strings is stronger to attack the new ones to than the low bent meeting of two strings going together - unless you made them meet a long way. And attaching to more than one low bend or crossing is tronger still. Once you have rounded, as in looped, the crossings and bends you think you need, maybe looping the loop into a figure eight, you tied the loop together by half hitches around both ends of the string, then you go along the side which is not going down all way and go along that string up, when strings cross, double hitch both and continue on same side and other string as before, loop around and now do half hitches down - again at any crossing, double hitch both strings and continue same side other string, and all down to the holes at the bottom.

Now add levels and crisscross strings, for my part I added a belt half way between ground level and top grid and another one around the ground level, meeting the four strings that go up. I added another beltlike sequence of triple plaited strings between nethermost belt and where mid belt crosses the up and down strings. Then I added triple plaited strings in curves between top grid and mid belt, and at most if not all yet crossings, I attached by halfhitching the cords. Attaching a new string for half hitching is obviously done by larks heads. Down I have added fish net after fish net. As described in the shoestrings post.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Victorian and
other martyrs under Huneric

PS, finally, when I think that either macramé or fishnets are close enough to keep the stuff I need kept, I cut, last Friday, away the oroginal textiles./HGL

La Liberté du peuple

Ne consiste pas, selon les mots de Charles I des Trois Royaumes* avant d‘être décapité, dans le fait d’avoir une part dans le gouvernement qui ne lui convient pas, mais d’avoir du gouvernement des lois qui garantissent la vie et les possessions de chacun comme le plus vraiment leurs propres.

Qu’une part du gouvernement convienne ou pas au peuple, ce qui diffère d’ailleurs entre les états, c’est sûr que le nécessaire est d’avoir des lois selon lesquelles les vies et les possessions de chacun soient le plus vraiment leur propres.**

C’est aussi sûr que dans les gouvernements qui ont pendant un siècle réclamé d’être regardés comme légitimes par le fait que le peuple y participe, ont assez souvent abusé de cette position pour priver les gens gouvernés, donc le peuple, de la libre disposition de leurs vies et de leurs possessions.

Surtout d’ailleurs de leurs vies. L’école obligatoire (en France rarement, en Allemagne même jamais échangeable pour scolarité à maison), la psychiatrie, les DDAS qui privent les familles d’unité (en Suède c’est peut-être pire qu’en France), non pas seulement pour des vrais menaces à la survie ou intégrité corporelle des enfants, mais pour des critères élastiques sur le bien mental ou social des enfants, là les gouvernements considérés comme démocratiques ont été souvent liberticides. Même aux États-Unis, un état qui considère la bonne limite d’âge pour le mariage comme 18 il me semble vient de kidnapper des jeunes mariées certes pubères « pour leur bien » puisque soi-disant exposées à des « child marriages » ***. Et en Soviétique, tandis que sous les Czars la limite était 12 pour une fille, après la Révolution ça fut remporté à 18. Mais dans cette union-là, on n’est pas tous d’accord si le peuple avait une part dans le gouvernement, dû au système du parti unique. D’ailleurs, on pourrait argumenter qu’un oligopole de fait sur les listes de votables, même avec un vote général pour les citoyens, constitue une entrave, moins grave, mais déjà notable au libre exercice du droit de vote. Ou dit-on listes d’éligibles ?

Des gens qui avaient été éduqués sous l’Ancien Régime trouvaient les Lettres de Cachet un abus tellement offensif que la Bastille fut rasée (sous Louis XVI, s v p, qui d’ailleurs avait voulu déjà abolir les lettres de chachet, mais n’avait pas eu le temps de le faire avant que le peuple le fasse pour lui). Et combien de tyrannies ne subit-on pas de nos jours, peuple éduqué dans les écoles d’une république ?

Notons, si je suis monarchiste, je n’écris pas en première ligne pour rétablir la monarchie, mais pour abolir les abus liberticides qui sont une tare pour les pays chrétiennes, pas seulement les républiques.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Victorien et les autres
Martyrs sous Hunéric

* Pas encore unis et à l’époque le royaume d’Irlande n’était pas divisé en République et Six Contés. Bientôt après sa mort il y aura la première république irlandaise, la Confédération de Kilkenny, qui avait le soutien de Pape Pie XI.

** Il y a des cas où la possession de l’un doit être limité pour que la vie de l’autre appartienne à lui-même et non pas à tel possesseur plus riche que lui. Et pour que le fait d’avoir des possessions soit davantage répandu. Parfois pour que le fait d’avoir la vie soit plus répandu, comme les bonnes vieilles lois contre l’avortement.

*** deretour : Another take on FLDS (two sets of links) + update

Je donne ce lien, parce qu'il donne les liens vers les autres écrits. Les miens et qqs-uns des autres.

Friday, 20 March 2015

La Bibliothèque Municipale Heureusement ne filtre pas le blog de Red Cardigan

1) Non, je ne méprise pas les Français ... (fut publié hier sur un autre blog), 2) Et la Bpi alors ..., 3) Et Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou (persiste en filtrage abusif ...), Persistait! 4) La Bibliothèque Municipale Heureusement ne filtre pas le blog de Red Cardigan, 5) Georges Pompidou a rectifié

J'en ai profité pour lire des messages blog assez jolis:

And Sometimes Tea : If you give a mom...

Ou encore, bloggueur invité Paul Likoudis écrit l'histoire du journal américain et catholique The Wanderer:

And Sometimes Tea : A History of the Wanderer, 1867-1931: Article One, by Paul Likoudis

Il y a en total onze articles.

Entretemps, ils filtrent encore pour intolérance ... mais au moins pas pour pornographie avec un système qui semble avoir confondu des images de chatons et d'une tasse de thé avec des images pornographiques, comme celui de la Pompidolienne .../HGL

Mise à jour dimanche:

Petite astuce pour la Bpi : si on voit un module de filtrage sur lequel on ne peut pas rectifier un filtrage erroné, vu qu'il y a toujours, alors on ne choisit pas ce genre de module.

Si par contre le filtrage permet aux administrateurs de rectifier une erreur, on s'efforce de le faire dès que telle erreur a été signalée et constatée.

Et de ne pas vérifier les erreurs signalées par untel parce que l'on ne l'aime pas trop bien, ce n'est pas la bonne manière pour un service publique./HGL

Mise à jour lundi:

Pompidou a rectifié./HGL

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

Pour hier, avec gratitude et regrets

À la fille si gentill’ aussi joli-e :
Note qu’à Face-book my “Friend"
N’est pas un ami, mais un’ ami-e
Avec qui beaucoup de time I spend.

Guest Book Back Up / Livre d'Or de Réserve

My guest book had two functions: taking notes from visitors, and this is where this comes as a back up, and taking notes by myself, where it's being "down for repair" is a problem. Mon livre d'or a eu deux fonctions: recevoir des notices des visiteurs, et là ceci est la réserve, et de prendre de notices par moi-même, domaine où c'est problématique que le livre d'or soit "en chantier."
Les commentaires de ce message sont fait pour servir de livre d'or. Comment section of this message is made to serve as a guestbook.

Saturday, 14 March 2015

Et Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou (persiste en filtrage abusif ...)


1) Non, je ne méprise pas les Français ... (fut publié hier sur un autre blog), 2) Et la Bpi alors ..., 3) Et Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou (persiste en filtrage abusif ...), Persistait! 4) La Bibliothèque Municipale Heureusement ne filtre pas le blog de Red Cardigan, 5) Georges Pompidou a rectifié

Le filtrage:

La consultation du site est interdite sur les postes informatiques de la Bpi, conformément aux prescriptions de la Charte d'utilisation d'Internet que vous avez acceptée en vous connectant.

L'url est dans la catégorie : Sexe, Pornographie

Service de filtrage Olféo de la Bpi


Le site (en anglais):

And Sometimes Tea

Ma correspondence avec la propriétaire du site (aussi en anglais):

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Red Cardigan on Abusive Filtering of her Blog


Bon, il y a des gens qui, même avertis, refusent de faire une confiance minimale suffisente pour vérifier eux-mêmes, en face de leur confiance excessive à la technologie, en occurrance de filtrage.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Extreme Badness of Google Translate (Copy Pasted both texts)

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :

basic english blog : This will be. Easy.

basic english blog : I was wrong.

original link to the reading test - no longer extant

Donc, si la raison pourquoi on n'a pas rectifié, depuis que j'ai donné l'url de mon blog quand ma plainte avant était en haut et allait être en deuxième place, soit c'est qu'on n'a pas fait attention, quoique un filtrage abusif est quelque chose de sérieux, soit parce qu'on a trop fait confiance à la technologie du filtrage.

Comme chez les fourbes à Boulogne-Billancourt, voici mes lettres de plainte, sans réponse:

Correspondence de Hans Georg Lundahl : Evoyés à BB (Mairie ou Espace Multimédia), sur filtrage

Bon, je viens de leur envoyer, cette fois par courriel ma demande insistante de ne plus filtrer, abusivement, come c'est évidemment le cas, le blog pour lequel je fais ma récommendation comme celui d'une catholique comme il faut:

And Sometimes Tea

Mise à jour, le 18-III-2015:

Les incompétents persistent et signent, alors.

Soit ils sont tellement stupides que de croire que le lien est "sexe, pornographie" à cause du filtrage, au lieu de se prendre le geste intelligent de vérifier et de corriger le filtrage. Soit ils sont tellement malhonnêtes qu'une fois vérifié la faute, ils la gardent, que ce soit pour se venger sur le fait que j'ai dénoncé la faute sur le blog, ou que ce soit pour démoniser indument (et calomnieusement) un blog qui leur déplaît parce qu'il est trop réactionnaire et catho-intégriste dans leurs yeux. Dans les deux cas, stupidité ou calomnie, celle-ci enverse moi ou envers la bloggueuse dont le pseudonyme est "Red Cardigan" ou les deux confondus, il s'agit d'un personnel qui ne devrait pas être employé dans le service publique./HGL

Cras erit, nisi fallor, dominica in qua ecclesia cantat "letare Iherusalem"

Septingentos triginta octo annos ante, aliquot pri9 in Martis mense s7 eq; dominica que uocat2 letare, Domn9 Ep9 Stephan9 Tempier condempnauit aliquot hereticos, necnon aliquot libros, 7 precipue theses ducentas unam de uiginti.

Has theses 9dempnatas latine in interrete misi 9 notulis meis infra. Hic est uinculum:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
... capita que iam extant (VItum ad XXIIndum, quia priora quinque ad exordio et nomina personarum et librorum pertinent

Ut iam scripsi in pagina mea:

Transscripsi ex appendice primo libri huius: La condamnation parisienne de 1277. Texte latin, traduction, introduction et commentaire par D. Piché, avec la collaboration de Cl. Lafleur, Paris, Vrin, 1999 (Sic et Non), 351 p. - et ei ipsi scripsi de conatu meo, et non rescripsit protestando.

Nota bene : est ex appendice ei9 libri, s7 corp9 libri sunt theses, non per capita s7 per seriem qua ab ipso epo enumerant2.

Thursday, 12 March 2015

Chris Ferrara the Conspirator

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

I had commenced a philosophical discussion involving David Palm and Robert Sungenis. Per a mail adressed to the two of them.

The latter got a few more involved. I did not object.

One of these few more is however Christopher Ferrara. I leave to my readers whether his opening words of an "endless war" mean he took our rather peaceful discussion - at least on my own and David Palm's part - as an "endless war". However, what is abundantly clear is that he:

  • 1) proposes a "truce", and proposes it be binding on all involved by their voluntary gentlemen's agreement;
  • 2) then asks the participants in a discussion I started and involving me to keep this secret.

I find such a gesture totally worthy of the creeps who run the Modern World to its ruins. That it comes from one purported opponent of them, and not from an abortionist or evolutionist, if anything makes it worse.

Here are the two letters:

Christopher Ferrara to Robert Sungenis et al. including me
12/03/15 à 03h41
Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
I suggest that you end this seemingly endless war with a truce containing the following terms:

1. To hold to the heliocentric is not heresy per se.

2. Yet, the Copernican principle and modern cosmology in general are clearly, expressly and avowedly motivated by a philosophical aim, stated as such, by leading physicists such as Wolfson, whom I am reading now. That aim is to prove that that the Earth is nothing special, which is an indirect proof of the nonexistence of God. We inhabitants of Earth are just the incredibly fortuitous outcome of a long series of mutations occurring on a planet in a random location at the edge of a humdrum galaxy. They cannot abide a central earth for that reason, and they say so. You may say that God’s majesty does not depend on the location or the uniqueness of Earth, but the propagandists for the Copernican narrative know the public mind and know what works in terms demystifying the Universe and thus eliminating the need for God. It is naive simply to assert that their propaganda is of no consequence.

3. Thus, modern cosmology—part science, part philosophy driving the science (as it does evolutionary theory)---threatens to erode the Faith, as does evolutionism, even if it cannot be called formal heresy.

4. Catholics are free to argue for some version of the geocentric model precisely in order to counter the pretensions of modern cosmology, whose “dark matter,” “dark energy,” string theory, multiverse, balloon-like expanding Cosmos (the only way to avoid a center of the Universe with all of the problems that entails for the Copernican narrative) and other gimmicks are no more or less contrivances than the ether that even the modern cosmologist is, at this very moment, trying to sneak in the back door under a different name.

5. Geocentrism is not per se a crackpot theory. Even atheist cosmologists such as Krauss admit that the CMB data suggest either that Earth is indeed at the center of the universe or that the Copernican model has to be rethought completely. You may say Krauss is wrong, but’s an argument, not a per se demonstration that geocentrism is crackpot stuff. If he (and others) can see the problems for the Copernican narrative, Catholics should admit them and also admit that geocentrism is still arguable on the basis of empirical evidence that suggests Earth is centrally located. Krauss calls this “crazy” only on the basis of his a priori assumption that it can’t possibly be true, because, as Wolfson puts it: "Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be “at rest”? On purely philosophical grounds, we should reject the notion that Earth alone could be at rest relative to the ether.” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1009-1010). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. ” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1005-1009). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Further, if serious problems remain for the geocentrist theory, they are no more serious than those confronting the opposing cosmology, whose continuous ad hoc additions border on the ridiculous. A universe whose constituent matter and energy are 95% undetectable? Really? Any Catholic geocentrist is entitled to reject that claim on the same philosophical plane as their opponents reject geocentrism. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. And even if some semblance of an evidential argument can be concocted for the missing 95%, that argument hardly renders geocentism per see untenable.

6. To eliminate endless bickering over various conspiracy theories unrelated to geocentrism, the geocentrist proponents of such theories should simply admit that they are mere speculation, are unproven, are not worth pursuing to the detriment of more important issues, and should be definitively abandoned.

7. All parties should devote themselves to defending the Church against truly massive threats to the integrity of her liturgy and her doctrine, above all the astounding ongoing general eruption of neo-Modernism lamented by leading Churchmen, including Msgr. Pozzo, Archbishop Lenga, and Bishop Schneider during the run-up to the next session of the preposterous “Synod on the Family.”

In short, enough already. And, frankly, the notion that geocentrism threatens the Faith of anyone in the Magisterium is hard to take seriously in the midst of a situation in which leading Churchmen everywhere appear to be abandoning fundamental dogmas of the Faith while the Pope presides over a Synod whose controllers are clearly attempting to overthrow the teaching of John Paul II only 33 years ago—an effort which, were it to succeed, would destroy confidence in the entire Magisterium overnight.

In view of the above, can’t we all just get along?


Christopher Ferrara to Robert Sungenis et al. including me
12/03/15 à 04h22
Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard.

Now, I feel that the two letters fulfill very exactly the criteria for my resuming them as above, again:

  • 1) [He] proposes a "truce", and proposes it be binding on all involved by their voluntary gentlemen's agreement;
  • 2) then asks the participants in a discussion I started and involving me to keep this secret.

And I will later, if not stopped by bad intrigues, from pseudo-rightists like Ferrara or from open leftists like Mayor of Paris, perhaps even today disclose the full correspondence.

But now, I will also give the exchange this caused between me and Ferrara:

Me to Christopher Ferrara and Robert Sungenis et al.
12/03/15 à 12h48
Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
"This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard."

No, your caution was NOT abundant.

Now, as to permission, that is a moral quandary.

Remarks as far going as yours and asking for agreements, are such that I consider the public held in the dark if it cannot have them.

In other words, Ferrara, I consider your social method to be that of Freemasons or of Jews from the Synagogue, and totally unworthy of a Catholic.

Do I make myself clear on this?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Christopher Ferrara to me, cc to Sungenis et al.
12/03/15 à 12h59
Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
The “public” has no right to know of private conversations between Catholics. If you cannot respect that principle, then this is the last email I will send.

[Note how he put "public" in quotation marks - as if the concept did not exist for him.]

Me to Christopher Ferrara, cc. Robert Sungenis et al.
12/03/15 à 13h20
Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
Christopher A Ferrara!

I did not consider this email exchange totally private in the first place.

I did not myself invite you. If you did not note, I was the one who took the initiative to this discussion.

If you wish to absent yourself, do so.

However, a private conversation is private insofar as it touches private matters, not insofar as private persons agree on what reaches the public. Or especially that it do not reach the public. Chesterton and Belloc would not have liked your idea one bit, and I consider them better Catholics than you.

Hans Georg Lundahl

In case someone thinks the other team of US Catholics are playing open, like Chesterton and Belloc would have liked, how about checking on Mark Shea's blog, where a few days ago there was an article about Karl Keating's The New Geocentrics, under which article I posted links to answers? See if it was just temporary - unless you prefer suspecting my sloppiness - or if it is still down.

So, if you are curious what this exchange started about, it was an essay by David Palm. But this is a longer correspondence, and it will also involve my answer to the 7 proposals of Christopher Ferrara.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Gregory I

PS And now, Mark Shea has even blocked me again.

I tried to post this reply:

"had little trouble pointing to the Crusades and the Inquisition as evidence of why Catholics where not Christian but popish followers of a predatory manmade cult irreconcilable with True Americanism"

Actually, 19th C. Protestants might typically have been more upset about Inquisition and less or not at all about Crusades. I mean the kind of Protestants who had "crusaded against Popery" under Cromwell or Gustavus Adolphus.

Under this post:

Catholic and Enjoying it : News Flash!: Americans Fought in the Crusades and Conducted Inquisition
February 20, 2015 by Mark Shea

And I found out I was again blocked. Meanwhile, I had under another post of his, concerning Willy Herteleer, expressed:

  • What he positively said was correct;
  • but his inculpation of Pewsitters may just concern one "news clipper";
  • and wondered whether the ground where Willy was buried was not reserved for bishops. To this latter I got a satisfactory answer, it was not. Both bishops and princes, i e both bishops and laymen are buried there, and Willy being a layman is not in any way an obstacle to his getting buried there. I wanted to thank for the answer, but couldn't since I was - blocked.

Which probably goes some way to explaining why the post under which I had posted a link to a reply to Karl Keating was gone from the blog too./HGL

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

"outdated, inefficient methods"?

I was reading the 19 don'ts of language learning.* I totally disagree on 5:

5. Don’t use outdated, inefficient methods

Grammar-translation methods and tedious memorization of words and rules have been standard practice for centuries all over the world.

They’re outdated and totally ineffective.

I’ve worked in Georgia and Turkey for example where I’ve seen students who have been learning English for years – sometimes decades – and still can’t communicate ‘at all’. They can read and they know English grammar better than most of us do but they can’t respond to the most basic questions.

Whether you’re in a classroom or learning on your own, focusing on conversational, functional language use is crucial.

Learn in context through interaction with other people.

Sorry, but reading is more often done than responding to the most basic questions in the target language.

Apart from migration, and I have been in France for a few years, being able to answer the most basic questions may help you over a tourist situation or two, while reading ability in a foreign language is a gift for life.

Nonetheless, reading ability also involves learning in context, but it cannot be achieved without mastering paradigms. When you hit a form, you need to know if it is a simple past, a pluperfect, or a language where the distinction is only made by context.

And writing stories in French is still difficult for me, because I was not taught passé simple properly. Conversely, the conversation centred training I got certainly helped me part, but when I arrived in France I had to ask people often enough to speak slower. Since Belgians and Swiss speak slower than French, I asked them to speak to me "eeen Beelge ou eeen Suiiisse, s'il vous plaaîît".

And I got a reputation of not knowing the French I nevertheless write in. Partly from non-mastery of passé simple with adjacent subjonctif de l'imparfait (the form for conditional statements which would normally come most natural to me anyway, since I am Germanic), and partly through my initial slowness of conversation. And improving a conversational level in target language can be acquired by reading too : there are Comic books.

Here is a related better rule, but a very erratic one in results:

4. Don’t speak English (or any other language)!

Don’t speak anything other than your target language unless absolutely necessary!

This is such an important point.

I’m currently working as an English teacher in Korea so my job requires me to speak English.

Outside of work and apart from times like this where I have to write a blog post in English or communicate with English speakers (rarely), I use Korean.

I saturate myself in Korean every day.

If you’re not living abroad then you need to allocate as much time as possible every day to do this.

For those of you living in a city where your target language community can be found, make a habit of spending your spare time in that area.

In my home town of Brisbane we had a very small Arabic-speaking community who all lived around one particular area of the city and I used to hang around that spot constantly just to get as much language action as I could.

If you achieve the situation where you are doing the method, fine. As a second stage after an initial learning through rules and grammar, it is great. But achieving that situation is a point. I was in a language course for foreigners in Oxford, so the rule was not "don't speak English" but "speak English only" - and the Spanish men and women and a very pretty young lady had come in a crowd and never followed the rule. My mother was sent to Switzerland to learn French - but instead learned to speak her German with a slight Swiss accent. Yes, Lausanne is Suisse romande, but all of Suisse romande also knows Swiss German. And since she had already learned German, that is what they spoke with her. There is a rule which says people tend to speak their best common language together - the one that is best for both. There is a subrule, which only applies if they love secrecy and discretion : they can also speak their best common secret language, the one where they get an advantage of secrecy over surroundings. Obviously, apart from ma not being the greatest secrecy buff, that would not have applied to French in Suisse normande - since French is hardly a secret language there. So, method 4, while good if attainable, is so erratically attainable, that for most, especially for purposes of reading and of writing over internet, where accent is an extra, is not really a good substitute for the method rejected in don't n° "5".

There are languages for which the method of immersion is for most utopic. A Latin school of the 16th or 17th C. or a military academy teaching Russian, even among purely English speakers, discipline can be a substitute for what rarely occurs on personal levels of life : having to live among people speaking a language you haven't learned at all. But even there, ideally, rules and grammar drills will not be omitted, since they do contribute not just to correctness but also to understanding and to making it quicker through the necessary scale of expressions (what is the recipient like in verbs meaning give - is it a dative form or word order, is it same with pronouns and nouns or diversity between them?** - does the same apply to damage sufferer of verbs meaning rob, or not? etc).

But if it is Latin and not Russian, if it is now and not 16th C. you will hardly find very many environments for total immersion. Conversely, your main use, like nearly always for older stages of modern languages (like Middle High German*** written the century of St Thomas Aquinas or Middle English of Chaucer written a century later), the only total immersion you are likely to get outside live role playing is - books, usually written in epoch and printed and edited in 19th or 20th Century when it comes to earlier stages of modern languages, and when it comes to Latin or Greek, you may lay hands on volumes printed back in 1500's or 1600's and can easily get hold of volumes from 1700's or 1800's.

The total immersion ideology works pretty well even without grammar and rules between English, French and Spanish. Because their grammars are so similar. But when it comes to Slavic languages, the grammar is really dissimilar, and so it works less well. Even so it may work, partly by military discipline, partly by dsiguising grammar as sth else.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Rosina of Wenglingen

* The Mezzofanti guild : 19 Things You Shouldn’t Do When Learning A Foreign Language

** Latin has dative form (not dative-accusative, but purely dative) both nouns and pronouns. Chinese has word order or preposition (not sure which) for both of them. English and Swedish have word order for nouns and dative/accusative for pronouns. In English and Swedish the sufferer of verbs meaning to steal is expressed as beneficiary of verbs meaning to give, in Chinese I have no idea, in Latin they aren't usually. "Aufero librum a te" is better than "aufero tibi librum."

*** A language in which "der Tag, des Tages" was "der tac, des tages", and in which "der Frühling, des Frühlings", unless more usually expressed as "der Lenz, des Lenzes" was "der friulinc, des friulinges" - to give you a feeling for the level of its difference with Modern High German.

1954 was Before the Clerical Scandals

From the biography of Alec Guiness, as condensed* in Wiki:

While serving in the Royal Navy, Guinness had planned to become an Anglican priest. However, in 1954, while he was filming Father Brown in Burgundy, Guinness, who was in costume as a Catholic priest, was mistaken for a real priest by a local child. Guinness was far from fluent in French, and the child apparently did not notice that Guinness did not understand him, but took his hand and chattered while the two strolled; the child then waved and trotted off. The confidence and affection the clerical attire appeared to inspire in the boy left a deep impression on the actor. When their son was ill with polio at the age of eleven, Guinness began visiting a church to pray. A few years later in 1956 Guinness converted to the Roman Catholic Church. His wife followed suit in 1957 while he was in Sri Lanka filming The Bridge on the River Kwai, and she informed him only after the event. Every morning, Guinness recited a verse from Psalm 143, "Cause me to hear your loving kindness in the morning".

I saw him not as Father Brown, but as Obi Wan Kenobi in 1977. What an irony that by 1987 I would be a great Father Brown buff, and only now know that Alec Guiness had played Father Brown as well. Further irony : if Father Brown actor Alec Guiness recited Psalm 142 (the wiki goes after protestant numbering of Psalms, Catholic / Orthodox 142 = Protestant / Jewish 143), the next psalm 143 is recited by the Protestant version of Father Brown, police inspector Hans Bärlach of Bern. Because Dürrenmatt just had to be a Protestant version of Chesterton.

142:8 Cause me to hear thy mercy in the morning; for in thee have I hoped. Make the way known to me, wherein I should walk: for I have lifted up my soul to thee.

Auditam fac mihi mane misericordiam tuam, quia in te speravi. Notam fac mihi viam in qua ambulem, quia ad te levavi animam meam.

143:3 Lord, what is man, that thou art made known to him? or the son of man, that thou makest account of him?

Domine, quid est homo, quia innotuisti ei? aut filius hominis, quia reputas eum?

In France, someone has called Ouellebecq a pessimist version of Chesterton, but the honour already belongs to Dürrenmatt. Which brings us back to Chesterton, to Alec Guiness playing his Father Brown, to Catholic priests in 1954 being people one could leave one's children with without any fear. Most are still so, those who weren't came around, mostly, by Vatican II softening of discipline.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Eulogius of Corduba

* Wiki cites, for this section:

  • Pearce, Joseph. Literary Converts: Spiritual Inspiration in an Age of Unbelief. London: Ignatius Press, 2006. ISBN 978-1-58617-159-9., p. 301.

  • "Sir Alec Guinness." Telegraph (Obituaries), 8 August 2000. Retrieved: 26 August 2009.

  • Sutcliffe, Tom. "Sir Alec Guinness (1914–2000)." The Guardian, 7 August 2000. Retrieved: 26 August 2009.

  • Pearce etc. 2006, p. 311.

  • The invisible man, by Hugh Davies, originally published in the Telegraph and reprinted in The Sunday Age, 13 August 2000. (no link to online versions)

Marine LePen n'est pas un Djihadiste, M. Valls ...

Je l'ai de GalliaWatch, mais je viens de vérifier en LeFigaro*:

"Je revendique la stigmatisation de Marine Le Pen, le Front national n'apporte aucune solution", a insisté le premier ministre. "J'en appelle à tous ceux qui sont sortis dans la rue le 11 janvier, je leur dis "allez voter!"".

Mais, la marche du 11 janvier était une marche contre le djihadisme, non?

D'ailleurs, j'ai pas vu l'utilité de me rejoindre à cette marche là. Le djihad en France, ce n'est pas, au moins pas ouvertement comme 7 et 9 janvier, les politiciens! Ni le patronat. Ni une quelle-conque fonction publique ou "privée mais publique quand même" qui se laisserait impressioner par une manif. Peut-être que j'ai tort. Peut-être que tel ou tel djihadiste se soit dit qu'un nouvel attentat rendrait sa religion impopulaire et qu'il se soit abstenu pour ça. Je ne sais pas. Je sais, par contre, que la marche en tant que telle n'était pas anti-LePen. Elle était anti-djihadiste.

La wikipédie** en dit qqc:

Une controverse naît également concernant l'éventuelle participation d'élus Front national à la marche parisienne : une majorité des dirigeants des partis de gauche est hostile à la présence du FN, tandis que l'UMP ne s'y oppose pas, au nom de l'union nationale. Le PS est lui-même divisé : son premier secrétaire, Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, contredit ainsi l'avis de la majorité des cadres du parti en déclarant que « vient qui veut et qui se sent concerné ». Certains responsables socialistes redoutent que l'exclusion du FN donne à ce parti l'occasion de se poser en victime. Le président de la République François Hollande déclare que « Tous les citoyens peuvent venir (...), il n'y a pas de contrôles ». Marine Le Pen appelle ses partisans à manifester en province mais pas à Paris, dénonçant « les partis politiques sectaires » qui ont exclu le Front national de la marche parisienne, et opposant « le peuple français » à la classe politique qui a « récupéré » le cortège parisien. Elle-même manifeste le 11 janvier à Beaucaire, l'une des mairies FN. De son côté, Jean-Marie Le Pen, président d'honneur du Front national, juge la manifestation « orchestrée par les médias » et dénonce les responsables politiques présents lors de la manifestation comme des « charlots qui sont responsables de la décadence de la France », semant l'embarras au sein de la direction du FN.

Donc, non, même si un Le Pen a été contre la manif, c'est sûr que la manif n'a pas été contre Le Pen.

Sauf d'une manière marginelle qui pourrait être récupérée comme plus importante qu'elle n'était à cette époque. Une récupération que je trouve M. Valls en plein délit de commettre.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Euthyme de Sardis,
évêque et martyr

Le Figaro : Manuel Valls : "J'ai peur que mon pays se fracasse contre le FN"
Par Le avec AFP
Mis à jour le 08/03/2015 à 10:47
Publié le 08/03/2015 à 10:21

** Wikipédie : Manifestations des 10 et 11 janvier 2015

Qui renvoie à (pour cet extrait en haut):

Vous l'avez peut-être entendu en Quatrième

1) Il y en a qui trouvent la Suède un modèle · 2) Vous l'avez peut-être entendu en Quatrième · 3) Monsieur N'Diaye, êtes vous malhonnête ou juste un peu ignorant? · 4) Une nouvelle ministre du Travail : Myriam El Khomri

1) New blog on the kid : Vous l'avez peut-être entendu en Quatrième, 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les vraies valeurs de l’église ?

Je cite kartable*:

La contestation de l'esclavage

A partir de la fin du XVIIIe siècle, des voix s'élèvent contre l'esclavage.

Les Lumières dénoncent, par l'intermédiaire de l'Encyclopédie par exemple, une entrave aux lois naturelles et à la liberté de chacun. La Société des Amis des Noirs est créée à Londres (1787), puis à Paris (1789).

En 1791, dans la colonie Française de Saint Domingue, les esclaves se révoltent. Guidés par l'esclave Toussaint Louverture surnommé le « Napoléon noir », ils obtiennent leur liberté en 1793.

Il faudra néanmoins attendre le XIXe siècle pour que les pays abolissent la traite et l'esclavage. La France, par exemple, n'abolit l'esclavage qu'en 1848 par le biais de Ferdinand de Schœlcher.

Le problème avec cette présentation est qu'elle est incomplète. En France métropolitaine il n'y a pas eu d'esclavage dans le XVIIIe siècle. Un français qui emmenait un esclave des colonies ou un anglais ou portugais ou espagnol qui le faisait était tenu de le libérer en France, s'il réclamait sa liberté. Des dispenses étaient à la limite possibles, mais comme on sait de la lettre de Benjamin Franklin, on ne pouvait pas compter dessus.** Et le ou plutôt la "de Schœlcher" pour la France métropolitaine de son époque s'appelait Bathilde. C'était une sainte qui est honorée dans l'église catholique.

Puisqu'elle était une reine Mérovingienne, on n'est pas encore dans la France comme entendue maintenant, mais dans une région à majorité bilingue/trilingue/quatrilingue entre français, occitan, allemand et flamand/bas-allemand (sans compter les minorités, comme Breton, Basque, plus tard quand le Saint-Empire s'élargit Hongrois, Czecque, Sorabe, Slovène). Et à différence de la France, certains d'autres états successeurs de la Francia n'ont ni eu de colonies, ni d'esclaves.

Donc, l'esclavage aboli par de Schœlcher n'était que l'esclavage colonial - à moins qu'après la Révolution on ait eu une libéralisation pour des maîtres d'esclaves des colonies se voulant rendre en métropole. Oui, on a effectivement eu des lois diverses pour la métropole et la colonie, et ce n'était pas la dernière fois ou l'esclavage la seule matière, d'ailleurs. Ni la France n'a été le seul pays d'avoir une telle différence entre lois de métropole et lois de colonies.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Euthyme de Sardis

* kartable : 4e : histoire : L'esclavage au XVIIIe siècle,403011

** Voir le billet-de-blog précédent, en anglais:

[ce blog ci] : Freedom if he claims

Sunday, 8 March 2015

How do Esquimaux Learn Tlingit?

If they do, that is. Presumably same way as Greeks learned Latin. And speakers of Tlingit, presumably, if they ever learn an Esquimaux-Aleutish tongue do so like the Romans and Latins learned Greek. By studying comparable paradigmata. By stadying comparable phrases.

[1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Rahan linguistics, 2) New blog on the kid : How do Esquimaux Learn Tlingit?]

Nom  hic gubernator  ουτος κυβερνητης
Gen  huius gubernatoris  τουτου κυβερνητου
Dat  huic gubernatori  τουτωι κυβερνητηι
Acc  hunc gubrenatorem  τουτον κυβερνητην
Voc  o gubernator  ω κυβερνητα
Abl/Gen  ab hoc gubernatore  εκ τουτου κυβερνητου
Loc/Dat  in hoc gubernatore  εν τουτωι κυβερνητηι
Instr/Dat  cum hoc gubernatore  συν τουτωι κυβερνητηι
   gubernator it in navem (suam)  ο κυβερνητης βαινει επι την (εαυτου) ναυν

I am not sure how to say any of these things in Esquimaux or Tlingit, but if an Esquimau can say it in Tlingit, (without ignoring his own language), he can teach Tlingit to other Esquimaux.

This makes the Rahan story so hard to believe, linguistically.

No doubt, the authors had a feeling that the age of Rahan was too primitive to have as yet different languages. But, if anything, it was too primitive to have as yet invented this method of teaching languages. Which is of course sth we do not know. And, if it wasn't invented, Rahan would have been stuck with each new tribe or "clan" speaking a language foreign to him. Even if the method was invented, Rahan would have needed time to adapt by learning the language in each case. He never does.

The authors basically tell a story which means he gets along throughout the world and even crossing the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean on a raft at one point, simply by speaking his own language, like a Frenchman would throughout the French Colonial Empire.

If there ever was a time when all spoke one language - Faith assures us this is the case - it was spoken by a far more unified and civilised humanity than that of the stone age tribes of this comic book. As far as the Bible text goes, there could have been diverse languages before the Flood and the linguistic unity could be a new, post-Flood, situation.

This is not very likely, as people before the Flood lived several hundred years, but it is just barely possible. However, this possibility having actually occurred is not born out by Tradition.

But once humanity split up due to linguistic change, and a miraculously fast one, it dispersed so that it was very hard for most to learn all foreign languages; now there are about 6000 instead of 71, it is impossible on Earth. That is the kind of situation one can picture for stone age, though after some centuries, just before recovering agriculture (for in Creationist models the stone age is a short affair), many of the original nations would already have spread into diverse clans (!) or tribes, there would have been territories inside which the Rahan scenario of linguistics was roughly valid - but in these, he would not have been the perpetual stranger he appeared in the comic books.

When - much later - Ulysses travelled : how much did he speak Mycenean Greek? How much Hittite (the nation forgotten between events and Homer, in just 400 years)? How much Phoenician (which he could have learned in Kadmean Thebes)? We do not know. Homer doesn't tell us. A naive reader would get an impression roughly like the Rahan scenario (as with the Ivan Czarevitch riding through 29 kingdoms and 30 countries), but in reality that would not have been the case. However, unlike the Rahan scenario, Ulysses would have known beforehand of at least some of the peoples he was going to meet and some of the others spoke for instance Phoenician or Nesili Hittite. Or even Mycenean Greek. Romanides may even have been right when he considered Aeneas and Latinus spoke (Mycenean) Greek, if Latinus was son of Faunus, son of Picus son of Saturn who was an exiled Greek king (unduly deified by the Pagans, even as deposed father of the "most high", like his son Picus and grandson Faunus were also unduly deified). On the other hand, Saturn being Greek may have been a stand in for his being some other kind of Hittite. These credibilities are sth which more sophisticated readers of Homer and Virgil may read into the text, without violating it. But in the Rahan case, the son of Crao is supposed to grow up in total ignorance of other tribes than his fathers' and perhaps one or two neighbouring ones.

Imagining the Palaeolithic stone age is a somewhat arduous adventure, intellectually, and storytellers are in the forefront. Lecureux and Chéret have succeeded in a noble but - to a linguist - obvious fail. And supposing the scenario were set in the centuries after a bottleneck, well, in that case a linguistic unity like Rahan meets might be less hard to understand, but in that case nearly every tribe would recall the catastrophy that caused the bottleneck - as in reality all tribes and nations over the world, with very few exceptions, have some recollection of the Flood of Noah.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
III Sunday of Lent

Saturday, 7 March 2015

In Memoriam Willy Herteleer

1) New blog on the kid : In Memoriam Willy Herteleer, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Dwight Longenecker on PewSitters

Less seriously:

Lee Marvin - Wand'rin Star (ReMastered Audio) (1969) (HD)

More seriously:

+ abbey roads : Screenshot: FrancisChurch: Bum given bishop's resting place ...

“Keep yourself a stranger and pilgrim upon earth, to whom the affairs of this world are of no concern.” - Imitation of Christ

(cited by abbey roads blogger under photo of Willy Herteleer)

One place he did found to abide on earth before the grave : Rome, for praying. RIP.

Et la Bpi alors ...

1) Non, je ne méprise pas les Français ... (fut publié hier sur un autre blog), 2) Et la Bpi alors ..., 3) Et Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou (persiste en filtrage abusif ...), Persistait! 4) La Bibliothèque Municipale Heureusement ne filtre pas le blog de Red Cardigan, 5) Georges Pompidou a rectifié


La consultation du site est interdite sur les postes informatiques de la Bpi, conformément aux prescriptions de la Charte d'utilisation d'Internet que vous avez acceptée en vous connectant.

L'url est dans la catégorie : Sexe, Pornographie


Service de filtrage Olféo de la Bpi

Sexe? Pornographie? Quelle idiotie sublime! Voici le lien que j'ai voulu regarder:

Destroying the family is good for business
Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea - 12 hours ago

Nouvel URL du message:

Destroying the family is good for business
Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea - 12 hours ago

Our elite puppetmasters have come out of the shadows to admit the real reason they want to impose same-sex “marriage” on those of us who will never believe that marriage is anything but a union between one man and one woman--it’s good for business: AT&T and Verizon. Dow Chemical. Bank of America. General Electric. Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. And the San Francisco Giants. They’re among 379 corporations and business organizations that have signed onto legal arguments offering the court another reason to declare a nationwide constitutional right for sam ....

Sexe? Pornographie? Encore une fois, quelle idiotie!

[Mise à jour : après d'avoir vu le message sur son nouvel URL, j'ai constaté qu'il n'y a même pas d'images dessus. L'image d'un chaton et d'un bouquet de roses appartiennent au blog comme tel, et si ces images ont pu provoquer le filtrage, je crois que le système Olféo est assez seul en "considérant" que ce genre d'images sont pornographiques.]
J'ai évité la voie d'un homme que je soupçonne d'être un psychiatre.

Ensuite, j'ai eu le déplaisir, après de dire "bonjour" à un accueillant, d'entendre "vous allez bien?" et de devoir répliquer "oui, pourquoi?"

À cause de ce que j'ai vécu avec la psychiatrie, je déteste cette question.

Et le fait que je l'entends après d'avoir presque croisé et soigneusement évité un homme que je soupçonne d'être psychiatre, me met à le soupçonner un peu davantage. Et la Bpi avec lui.

[Ça aussi a été rectifié, mais plus vite.]

No, I do NOT know where the Antarctic Entrance to Hollow Earth Is ...

... more importantly, I don't believe in a hollow earth in that sense. Nor do I believe in a solid one, the other modern option.

[1) Esoterism and Conversion, 2) No, I do NOT know where the Antarctic Entrance to Hollow Earth Is ... ]

As a Medieval (not by birth, as if born in 1212 or 1313 - I'd rather take 1212 btw - but by election) I believe Earth has in its inmost centre the spot where Satan fell down to and where damned souls go to. It is called Hell.

Note, the word "inferi" means lower parts. In a box shaped universe, where height is always 180° against lowness and never 180° against height, this means somewhere lower than Earth as we know it. In a Geocentric Universe, this means inside the surface. The latter is what I believe in, if you were for a second in doubt.

Note also, "inferi" does not only cover that lowermost and presumably innermost part where the damned go, it also covers the part where Abraham went, also covers where unbaptised children go, also covers purgatory. All of which are higher up and therefore further out, closer to the surface than the Hell of the damned sinners and demons.

Note even further, the Hebrew word for "inferi" also seems to mean netherworld.

"Sheol (n.) 1590s [in English, that is], from Hebrew, literally "the underworld, Hades," of unknown origin. Used in R.V. in place of Hell in many passages."

Some people really seem to have trouble understanding I have intellectually more in common with St Thomas Aquinas and Dante Alighieri than with Adolf Hitler, much as I regret he never made it as a painter (unless he escaped and became a painter under another name). But, really, I regret even more how he seems to have preferred the wildest theories, which, if Middle Age theology is true, are also the most dangerous to simply staying with Catholic theology. At least if it is true he sent an expedition to Antarctica to find the entrance to that other kind of netherworld I do not believe in.

And also, some people seem to have real trouble understanding they ought to talk to me if they consider me wrong (not meaning people I have already rejected the company of as nuisances, but in decent debate over internet) and NOT just pray along for me to get yet another chance to see what they mean by avoiding to read what I write.

Chesterton in his book about Catholicism and conversion considered a certain kind of fiction very ridiculous (the one which Jack Chick has kept up about the Catholic Church): "the priest can say anything, because the writer can say anything about the priest" basically.

Today it seems among some priests (yes, Catholics) that I can say anything, because the priest can believe anything about me.

So, any priest who thinks I am into Nazi theories or pre-Nazi semi-occultist theories of "hollow earth", quit praying for me to get confronted with your "seeing me through" and start reading what I write instead. Praise or condemn that, not rumours of what my ideas are. With more than 3000 articles on my blogs by now, it should be possible to find out what I believe on a given subject, if I have given it enough thought to think I should write about it, or even sometimes if you only want to know my spontaneous reaction.

And any Illuminato who wants to know how much I am into the know, the answer is as simple as not at all. Except about such people existing and insisting, contrary to both fact and decent presumption about fact, that I am in the know, and therefore spying on me and lying about me to priests.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Thomas Aquinas

Oh, just in case someone gets some association with a recent film première (or it was even intended) : 1) I am NOT technically Jewish, since neither circumcised nor having made a Bar Mitzvah, nor intending to either; 2) I do NOT want to be taken for a Nazi, since I am Austrofascist; 3) I am technically a Catholic, since I am baptised and converted, and ... wow ... I actually also want to be taken for a Catholic. Like most Austrofascists I know of./HGL

Friday, 6 March 2015

David Palm Prefers a Petrified Sun?

Geocentrism and the Pitfalls of Over-literal Interpretation

Next the sun is said to be, “like a strong man [who] runs its course with joy.” Attribution of emotions to the sun reminds us that we are still firmly in the realm of metaphor. The image of a vigorous and swiftly running strong man indicates again that the poet is speaking of the daylight hours, of a swift passage that has a beginning and an end – sunrise and sunset. It hopefully goes without saying that the sun does not literally have a tent in the sky, does not literally run, does not literally rejoice. And the metaphorical language continues.

Let me highlight:

It hopefully goes without saying that the sun ... does not literally rejoice.

So, shall we suppose, if the sun was as dead as a doornail, David Palm would be more pleased? He said hopefully, after all!

I do not know if the real text is God making a tent FOR the Sun or God making His tent ON the Sun, but I have no problem at all taking both the running and the rejoicing literally. And presumable, somewhere somewhen we might find out the tent was literal too in some way we didn't know.

Saint Francis would certainly have taken it literally or very nearly:

Laudato sie, mi' Signore, cum tucte le tue creature,
spetialmente messor lo frate sole,
lo qual'è iorno, et allumini noi per lui.
Et ellu è bellu e radiante cum grande splendore:
de te, Altissimo, porta significatione.

And if his "spiritual nephew" St Thomas Aquinas had been asked about its literal truth, he would have said sth like the following:

I distinguish: for the word "sun" is used both about the visible material celestial body as such and about the angel who carries it about, (or whatever else is cause of its movement, daily and yearly, but probably God gives most of teh daily movement and an angel modifies it by the yearly, as we have explained elsewhere). Now, as to the material body we can reasonably be sure it can neither run of itself, nor rejoice, nor be compared to a strong man. On the other hand, it is fittingly said by Blessed Francesco to be "bellu e radiante cum grande splendore" in the literal meaning of these words. However, considering its mass, whatever angel carries it, must be so strong that the strongest men are weak, and it certainly runs if we consider how high it is and hence what distances it lays behind Eastward, in relation to the Prime Mobile, which in its turn is going even faster Westward, but that is done by God. Also, the angel is above the moon and hence cannot be a demon, it is therefore a blessed angel and therefore very certainly rejoices, for the glory of God and for contributing to it to our gross eyes, for himself as being saved with Michael and not lost with Satan, for us who, partly thanks to his action, can live the lives we need to live in order to serve God and in order to get to the eternal glory with God. Which is why Blessed Francesco called him "messor lo frate sole", "messor" for reverence of angelic dignity and "frate" because he is fraternally minded to all who are making their salvation or who maybe will be making it by a future conversion. But as to "the tent", diverse authors have explained this diversely ...

David Palm however seems to prefer a petrified sun. Athenians killed Socrates, ergo Socrates is great. If Athenians then accused Anaxagoras of crime, Anaxagoras must have been great too.

But what author of any sect is so approved in this demon-worshipping city, that the rest who have differed from or opposed him in opinion have been disapproved? The Epicureans asserted that human affairs were not under the providence of the gods; and the Stoics, holding the opposite opinion, agreed that they were ruled and defended by favorable and tutelary gods. Yet were not both sects famous among the Athenians? I wonder, then, why Anaxagoras was accused of a crime for saying that the sun was a burning stone, and denying that it was a god at all; while in the same city Epicurus flourished gloriously and lived securely, although he not only did not believe that the sun or any star was a god, but contended that neither Jupiter nor any of the gods dwelt in the world at all, so that the prayers and supplications of men might reach them! Were not both Aristippus and Antisthenes there, two noble philosophers and both Socratic? Yet they placed the chief end of life within bounds so diverse and contradictory, that the first made the delight of the body the chief good, while the other asserted that man was made happy mainly by the virtue of the mind.

And if the "great" Anaxagoras was accused for crime precisely for teaching "that the sun was a burning stone, and denying that it was a god at all", it is of course the duty of any Christian to teach "that the sun is a burning gas ball, and deny that it is an angel at all"? Since when?

I have elsewhere also concluded that Pius VII giving respectability to Heliocentrism (but without dogmatising it!) was caught, not in an intrigue by such and such a courtier like Olivieri or like the future Pope Gregorio XVI, but simply in an atmosphere, where the explanation which was commonplace to Riccioli had become awkward to repeat - because of the materialism which had meanwhile pervaded physics. Instead of superior angels ruling inferior bodies, superior and inferior are all in the bodily ...

Prima Pars : Question 110. How angels act on bodies
Article 1. Whether the corporeal creature is governed by the angels?


Objection 2. Further, the lowest things are ruled by the superior. But some corporeal things are inferior, and others are superior. Therefore they need not be governed by the angels.

[In other words, physical effects are caused by physical causes only, as far as thinkable. Not as far as applicable of a set application, but in the theory itself, as far as thinkable.]


Reply to Objection 2. The reason alleged is according to the opinion of Aristotle who laid down (Metaph. xi, 8) that the heavenly bodies are moved by spiritual substances; the number of which he endeavored to assign according to the number of motions apparent in the heavenly bodies. But he did not say that there were any spiritual substances with immediate rule over the inferior bodies, except perhaps human souls; and this was because he did not consider that any operations were exercised in the inferior bodies except the natural ones for which the movement of the heavenly bodies sufficed. But because we assert that many things are done in the inferior bodies besides the natural corporeal actions, for which the movements of the heavenly bodies are not sufficient; therefore in our opinion we must assert that the angels possess an immediate presidency not only over the heavenly bodies, but also over the inferior bodies.

[This materialist physics is therefore a relapse, if not in detail at least in spirit, to the astrological determinism of Aristotle, which astrological determinism St Thomas, reputed "Aristotelian", did not share.]

In order for Pius VII to have had courage to oppose Heliocentrism, he would have had to have courage to insist that concretely, the details of the physical world are on some level taken care of by spirits. And that courage he did not have. And neither David Palm (obviously) nor Robert Sungenis (more surprisingly) have that courage either. As far as I have seen so far.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Perpetua and Felicitas

Links if not fully spelled out in text above:

test d'italien n°59699: Cantique des créatures (Le)

hanslundahl - Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor

[A little anthology of Thomasic quotes, by me, some of which quotes related to this question, some of which to nephelim question.]

City of God : Book 18

[For quote, scroll down to chapter 41]