Bonum Festum Sanctae Mariae Magdalenae

Christifidelibus lectoribus exopto./HGL

Apud Massiliam, in Gallia, natalis sanctae Mariae Magdalenae, de qua Dominus ejecit septem daemonia, et quae ipsum Salvatorem a mortuis resurgentem prima videre meruit.

Note on Crusades

As a friend of mine on FB noted:

The Most Recent Crusade Began in Spain 90 Years Ago Today

He seems to have been off by a few days, this was 20 July and the rising started on the 17 July. Never mind, up to today, I was confusing Niceto Alcalá-Zamora (the president who went into exile) with José María Gil-Robles y Quiñones (who was leader of CEDA, which I thought was the party in government and hence that of the president who would have been its leader ...)

Have Crusades involved abusive events?

The First Crusade involved the sack of Jerusalem and on part of the popular Crusade sacking of Jews in the Rhineland. The one approved by Pope Pius XI involved Badajoz.

Do abuses like these make a Crusade unjust?

Usually not, since the provocation (like harrassing of pilgrims by Seljuks or Red Terror involving the killing of Calvo Sotelo and José Antonio Primo de Rivera) is more typical of the régime one crusades against than the abuse of the leaders of the Crusade.

After Badajoz, Franco told Yagüe off. Nothing more like that, or Franco would even ally with the Reds to get rid of the Rifans.

At the sack of Jerusalem, Geoffrey of Bouillon did what he could to stop it, and succeeded on the third day. He marked his distance from the acts by refusing to wear a crown (also in reference to Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, not to forget).

In the Rhineland, he wasn't there to try to stop anything, the leadership was different. Peter the Hermit took his distance from that popular Crusade bc of such events.

Meanwhile, the Seljuk rulers of Palestine had harrassed pilgrims for long, and Manuel Azaña seemed to have no interest in repressing the Red Terror, though it was nominally peacetime and it would have been easier for him to do so, in theory, than for Franco to keep an eye on how Mola or Yagüe were behaving.

Please note, the bloodiest acts under Franco's own direct command in Spain were in the Asturias, 1934, where he was not remotely anything like chief of state. Once the Spanish Crusade began, with him taking over after Sanjurjo, things under his command were among the cleanest in all of the Spanish war, left or right sympathies, wrong or right sides.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Mary Magdalene
22.VII.2026

Apud Massiliam, in Gallia, natalis sanctae Mariae Magdalenae, de qua Dominus ejecit septem daemonia, et quae ipsum Salvatorem a mortuis resurgentem prima videre meruit.

Alex Yordanov Objected

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Spidey Fallacy Two Debunks · New blog on the kid: Alex Yordanov Objected

I'm right now in a library.

It doesn't allow viewing or making comments under youtubes, but does allow viewing notifications, including about comments.

Now, previously, the comments under this video, insofar as mine or adressed to me:

This Terrible Atheist Meme About the Gospels Must Stop
Testify | 16 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYULmDa_NSo

... have been posted on this post:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Spidey Fallacy Two Debunks
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/07/spidey-fallacy-two-debunks.html

Right when I left the cyber and went to the library, where I can't answer, Alex Yordanov made these points:

And why are you telling me this?!? A lot of fictional stories are taken as history, specifically atheist history like the baby crusades. Just saying, it's meant to be history, is ...

That's completely different text. You made the claim that,, Fictional writing doesn't explain institutions ", which I used this comment to say that you are wrong. I...

Ah, why didn't he say so earlier.

No, I didn't make the claim that fictional writing doesn't explain institutions. I made the claim that fictional stories don't explain real institutions. As an example, Spiderman features a newspaper called The Daily Bugle. If Spiderman had instead had Peter Parker as journalist on New York Times or New York Herald Tribune, Spiderman would have had to deal with real life owners and real life famous journalists on these papers. In 1941, or 1963, instead of J. Jonah Jameson, one would have had to deal with James Reston:

After working briefly for the Springfield, Ohio, Daily News, he joined the Associated Press in 1934. He moved to the London bureau of The New York Times in 1939, but returned to New York in 1940.

In 1942, he took a leave of absence to establish a U.S. Office of War Information in London. In 1945, following the end of World War II, he rejoined The New York Times as a national correspondent in Washington, D.C..

In 1948, he was appointed diplomatic correspondent.[5] In 1953, he became bureau chief and columnist.

Reston served as associate editor of The New York Times from 1964 to 1968, executive editor from 1968 to 1969, and vice president from 1969 to 1974. He wrote a nationally syndicated column from 1974 until 1987, when he became a senior columnist. During the Nixon administration, he was on U.S. president Richard Nixon's list of political opponents

Or with Ogden Mills Reid, Whitelaw Reid (one of his sons), Ogden Reid / Ogden Rogers Reid (who was also in the House of Representatives and an Ambassador to Israel), and John Hay Whitney (an Ambassador to the UK).

Of course the fictional writing in Spiderman could have included and explained either of these papers, but as their real story was already well established, Marvel Comics couldn't have replaced that real story with a fictional one. They would have had to give the real story or an approximation, or a conspiracy theory for which the real story could be presented as a front, credibly, they couldn't just make up a fictional story instead of the real one.

So, even in a fictional writing, there would be no fictional story to explain the real institutions of New York Times or New York Herald Tribune.

Now, Alex Yordanov (wonder if he's a Bulgarian politician*) made two claims that are visible in this preview. By the way, if he is that politician, I resent a man of 74 talking down to a man of 57 with comments like "your childish game" and things. I also find it less appropriate in a debate that cares for precise nuance, as mine does, to get intercepted by someone who is obviously using google translate.** Or not. I tried to translate and backtranslate, didn't give his resumé, so I'll assume he's simply resuming what he thought I meant. But here are the claims:

1) I'm wrong that fictional writing does not explain institutions (I presume he means real ones), no example given.
2) A lot of fictional stories are taken as history, example given the Children's Crusade.***

Now, it would seem the Children's Crusade is not actually a fiction. It may be fake news, or history that got distorted, according to the Dutch scholar Peter Raedts, but it isn't a fictional story that was then mistaken as a true history. If anything other than true history, it is a distortion of real history, and I never claimed real history never gets distorted.

The event is purported to take place in 1212, and the sources are, by Peter Raedts divided into:

1. Contemporary sources written by 1220;
2. Sources written between 1220 and 1250 (the authors could have been alive at the time of the crusade but wrote their memories down later);
3. Sources written after 1250 by authors who received their information second or third hand.

This obviously means, even according to an extreme sceptic of the story, there were contemporary sources. In other words, it is not fiction. After Peter Raedts one scholar came forward with this claim:

At least one source, that of a man simply known as Otto the last puer, was written by an individual who claimed to have participated in the Children's Crusade.

Sourced: Dickson, Gary (2008). Children's Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory

I don't know if Otto ultimus puer came forward before or after 1250, but obviously even if he had come out after 1250, given he was child or young teen in 1212, he could have been one participant who was still alive.

So, no, the example doesn't work. The Children's Crusade isn't a fictional story that got taken for real history, and the origin is not actually atheists trying to bash Medieval Christendom. Now, back to Peter Raedts:

It is only in the later non-authoritative narratives that a "children's crusade" is implied by such authors as Vincent of Beauvais, Roger Bacon, Thomas of Cantimpré, Matthew Paris and many others.

Vincent of Beauvais died in 1264. Even if his account is after 1250, he was a contemporary. And Beauvais and Cloyes, where Stephen of Cloyes started out, are both just a little further off from Paris than suburbs, Cloyes not too far from Orléans. Thomas of Cantimpré was about the same age as Stephen of Cloyes, but he was in Belgium. Cambrai is to Cologne, where Nicholas started a thing, a bit over 300 km, while Beavais is to Cloyes a little less than 200 on the shortest route. Matthew Paris, again, contemporary. Died 1259. Peter Raedt writing in 1977 wanted us to believe they understood an event of 1212 less well than he writing centuries later.

No, the Children's Crusade is not fiction, even if it has been abused by Atheists and even if some very legitimately wanting to counter them have claimed it is fiction.

His other point, I can only guess what institutions he meant. As said, I couldn't read his entire comment.

If he's a Christian, he might not mean the Catholic Church and Gospels + Acts, as an Atheist would. But he could mean things like Book of Mormon, Golden Plates, Rome founded by Romulus. I'll briefly deal with each.

The Book of Mormon is no more an origin story for the Mormon Church than the Gospels are. Mormons may claim both American Christianity up to Moroni and Apostolic Christianity as remote past history, but they do not claim either as direct origin contemporary to the start of the Church. By origin story of Mormons, I mean Joseph Smith, his claim to receive visions, his claim to receive Golden Plates.

Now Golden Plates. The claim could be totally fraudulent, it could also be demonic, it is nevertheless part of the real story of the origin of Mormons that the claim was at least made.

And Rome founded by Romulus, as a Catholic Christian, I must insist, in respect for St. Augustine and the Martyrology for Christmas Day:

Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo

And City of God, book III, chapter 3:°

There is no ground, then, for representing the gods (by whom, as they say, that empire stood, though they are proved to have been conquered by the Greeks) as being enraged at the Trojan perjury. Neither, as others again plead in their defense, was it indignation at the adultery of Paris that caused them to withdraw their protection from Troy. For their habit is to be instigators and instructors in vice, not its avengers. "The city of Rome," says Sallust, "was first built and inhabited, as I have heard, by the Trojans, who, flying their country, under the conduct of Æneas, wandered about without making any settlement." If, then, the gods were of opinion that the adultery of Paris should be punished, it was chiefly the Romans, or at least the Romans also, who should have suffered; for the adultery was brought about by Æneas' mother. But how could they hate in Paris a crime which they made no objection to in their own sister Venus, who (not to mention any other instance) committed adultery with Anchises, and so became the mother of Æneas? Is it because in the one case Menelaus was aggrieved, while in the other Vulcan connived at the crime? For the gods, I fancy, are so little jealous of their wives, that they make no scruple of sharing them with men. But perhaps I may be suspected of turning the myths into ridicule, and not handling so weighty a subject with sufficient gravity. Well, then, let us say that Æneas is not the son of Venus. I am willing to admit it; but is Romulus any more the son of Mars? For why not the one as well as the other? Or is it lawful for gods to have intercourse with women, unlawful for men to have intercourse with goddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible condition, that what was allowed to Mars by the law of Venus, should not be allowed to Venus herself by her own law. However, both cases have the authority of Rome; for Cæsar in modern times believed no less that he was descended from Venus, than the ancient Romulus believed himself the son of Mars.

Let me highlight the last sentence:

However, both cases have the authority of Rome; for Cæsar in modern times believed no less that he was descended from Venus, than the ancient Romulus believed himself the son of Mars.

In other words, it's not Patristic tradition to doubt Rome was founded by Romulus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Praxedis of Rome
21.VII.2026

Romae sanctae Praxedis Virginis, quae, in omni castitate et lege divina cum esset erudita, vigiliis et orationibus atque jejuniis assidue vacans, quievit in Christo, sepultaque est, juxta sororem suam Pudentianam, via Salaria.

PS, excuse an oversight, here is the article on Children's Crusade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade

PPS, next day I'm able to access the full comments:

That's completely different text. You made the claim that,, Fictional writing doesn't explain institutions ", which I used this comment to say that you are wrong. I also said in my previous comment that CONTEXT IS VERY IMPORTANT. You did something I like to call , target change. We know Joseph Smith existed since there are historical records of him outside the Book of Mormon, just like there are outside records confirming the Bible. If anything Joseph Smith not understanding events of which he is outside observer as much as anyone else, (a lot of people didn't know the official date of Independence) , proves he wasn't fictional character, we never made claim it PROVES HIS WORD. You are attacking a claim we never made. Testify himself saying multiple times in the video ,, That's not prove", the video never was trying to prove anything, it was answering why the Spiderman falacy was illigatimate.

1) I was not attacking the idea that historicity proves the divinity of Jesus, since I didn't find it, I was just distinguishing what a good grasp on my answer to the Spiderman fallacy can and can't establish, historicity in a general sense, yes, inerrancy or divinity, no.
2) The thing is, Joseph Smith is part of the Mormon account of how the Mormon Church as such, as distinct from the Apostolic Church and the supposed American covenant people, came about. The content of Book of Mormon is irrelevant, like the Gospels, because it's not about immediate origins, but about supposed predecessors in the far off past. Mormons are as restorationist about Nephite Church as they are about the Apostolic Church, affirming unbroken continuity with neither.

And why are you telling me this?!? A lot of fictional stories are taken as history, specifically atheist history like the baby crusades. Just saying, it's meant to be history, is unnecessary to say , It's obvious, but I guess pseudo-intellectuals with nothing important to say must always point obvious factor we all see . The Baby crusades is also meant to be taken as history, does this give it any credit.

Again missing a distinction of mine. Fiction is in fact not meant to be taken as history. Real history is, fake history is, fiction isn't.

Children's Crusade may or may not involve a gross misunderstanding, but is not even fake history, it's real history.

Then there is "taken as history by the first [known] audience." If the first known audience about the Children's Crusade had been pupils in Communist Bulgarian schools, the fact it was taken as history would not have mattered, it would not have made any argument for the history being real. But when the thing taken as history is either close to (purported) events or the origin story of the audience taking it for history, when that audience is a community, it matters. Vincent of Beauvais was close enough in time for fake history to be a tour de force needing explanation in the case of the Children's Crusade. Earliest known late OT readers and commenters on Genesis viewed this as the origin of the people which from Exodus became their own. Gospels fit both criteria where "meant as history" makes "fake history" hard to argue. Book of Mormon fits neither./HGL

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandar_Yordanov

If it isn't he, the politician might do well to state he has no youtube or the youtuber to state he's not the politician.

** English to Bulgarian:
Fake origin stories don't explain real institutions. / Фалшивите истории за произход не обясняват истинските институции.
Back:
False origin stories do not explain real institutions.

To Macedonian:
...Лажните приказни за потеклото не ги објаснуваат вистинските институции.
Back:
False origin stories do not explain real institutions.

*** That he called it the "baby crusade" is an indication that he's not familiar with the English term. In fact, he could have been reading up in Italian:

fanciulli = children, boys, little ones, infants, babes, young, and Children's Crusade = Crociata dei fanciulli

° https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120103.htm

Est-ce que les Noirs du quartier croient en Dieu ?

Parce qu'ils semblent imaginer, un sdf qui dort mérite d'être réveillé.

Ce n'est pas le Dieu Chrétien qu'ils croient, au moins, alors ...

St. Paul a dit "qui ne veut pas travailler, qu'il ne mange pas" ... notez très bien deux choses.

1) Il s'agit de vouloir, pas d'avoir un travail.
2) Et il s'agit de bouffe, pas de repos.

Quand à vouloir travailler, certains ignorent peut-être que pas seulement je veux travailler, mais je le fais aussi. Quand j'avais d'argent, j'écrivais pas mal de mois une moyenne de 3000 mots par jour. Maintenant, depuis, c'est juste 2000 mots.

Publiés. Stephen King fait 2000 mots crus, avant de couper certains dans le travail de rédaction. Pour moi, 2000 c'est, 3000, c'était, après ce travail.

Statistiques toutes les périodes, production et pages vues, hormis pays./HGL

PS. Aujourd'hui (le lendemain) deux rappels. 1) Des Noirs chrétiens existent, un m'a donné 5 €. 2) Des impies non-noirs existent, si ma somme ce midi n'était que d'une heure, les interrompeuses étaient a) un groupe de beurettes, b) une mamie bien gauloise avec un portable et un enfant et c) une beurette avec un portable./HGL

If You Watch a Sport I Don't Write About Here, They Also Have an Article About Ferrán Torres

Ann Widdecombe · Yes, She Was Targetted · If You Watch a Sport I Don't Write About Here, They Also Have an Article About Ferrán Torres

I was most interested in what they had to say about Ann Widdecombe:

British Catholic politician’s death investigated as murder, police say
Daniel Payne | EWTN News | 7/10/26
https://www.catholicherald.com/article/global/british-catholic-politicians-death-investigated-as-murder-police-say/

“For years I had been disillusioned by the Church of England’s compromising on everything. The Catholic Church doesn’t care if something is unpopular,” she told the outlet.

Wish this were truer, but have misgivings about the Vatican II Sect on this point.

She obviously converted for the right reason (previous paragraph mentions CoE "ordaining" women), I hope she'll pray for me./HGL

Cheapest Method to do Black Magic

Obviously, any way of doing black magic, or for that matter even "white magic" will damage your soul.

In some cases, when those who make the distinction consider the task as black, it will probably be somewhat costly and painful as well.

Do Satanic warlocks, do Wiccan witches have an easier way to get such things done?

I think they do and have used it. It is making Catholic priests or "Catholic priests" do it for you.*

How so? Well, no, I don't mean priest totally that corrupt that they will take a bribe to pray for someone's damage.

I mean such people would try to convince the priest that the prayers would really be for someone's correction or benefit or keeping him out of harm or sth.

Why do I think this may have happened to me? Because things have been going wrong for quite a while, and if they are getting better, I'm bad at seeing it, and I don't think I gave that much of an opening to actual demons./HGL

---

* In case the ordination is invalid, the parishioners are likely to include people who can pray because they think their priest is Catholic and validly ordained and should be obeyed.

Argentine, lignée généalogique

Eight millennia of continuity of a previously unknown lineage in Argentina
Published: 05 November 2025 | Nature volume 649, pages 647–656 (2026)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09731-3

Individuals dating to 4,600–150 bp primarily descended from a previously unsampled deep lineage of which the earliest representative is an individual dating to around 8,500 bp.

Des individus datés à il y a 4600 à 150 ans, primairement descendus d'une lignée profonde auparavant pas échantillonnée dont le plus ancien représentatif est un individu daté à environ il y a 8500 ans.

8500 - 1950 = 6550 a.J-C.
4600 - 1950 = 2650 a.J-C.

2396 a.J-C.

60,027 pcm, daté en 6615 a.J-C.

2391 a.J-C.

Arphaxad meurt

2373 a.J-C.

61,194 pcm, daté en 6433 a.J-C.

1700 a.J-C.

87,541 pcm, daté en 2800 a.J-C.

1687 a.J-C.

Joseph meurt

1678 a.J-C.

89,449 pcm, daté en 2600 a.J-C.

Les 3900 ans de la lignée profonde avant de se fondre dans la lignée plus générale et mélangée correspondent donc en réalité à 704 ans. Entre les décès d'Arphachsad et de Joseph. Je viens de citer les tables en Newer Tables Flood to Joseph in Egypt et Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

Les valeurs en pcm, "pourcent de carbone [14] moderne" ne sont pas celles des échantillons maintenant. Les spécialistes non-créationnistes et moi nous sommes d'accord qu'en 2396 a.J-C. un échantillon daté à 6615 a.J-C. avait 60,027 pcm, pour les spécialistes parce que l'échantillon avait alors déjà 4219 ans, pour moi parce que le taux de carbone 14 dans l'atmosphère était là et pas encore plus haut que ça, de manière de donner à des échantillons récents l'âge apparent de 4219 ans.

Pour les objections qu'avait Antoine Bret contre la théorie d'âge apparent, je viens de les réfuter ici :

Antoine Bret imagine avoir réfuté la théorie de l'âge apparent (c'est un homme de paille)
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/06/antoine-bret-imagine-avoir-refute-la.html

Comme le montre cet exemple, en 2396 a.J-C. l'atmosphère était en 60,027 pcm, et en 1678 a.J-C. elle était en 89,449 pcm.

Les périodes du passé (avant 100 pcm) sont systématiquement exaggérées, parce qu'en 2396 on a 4219 ans apparents, et en 1678 juste 922.

4219 - 922 = 3297
3900 - 704 = 3196

La différence ? Pour la longueur, j'ai pris les années au milieu, les décès, pour les montées de carbone 14, les années extrêmes, la première pour le premier terme et la dernière pour le second terme. Prenons l'inverse, l'année carbo-datée après le décès d'Arphachsad et celui avant le décès de Joseph.

4060 - 1100 = 2960
3900 - 704 = 3196

Donc, oui, mon modèle n'a pas besoin d'ignorer l'archéologie.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
VIIIe dimanche après Pentecôte
19.VII.2026

This Story Seems Possible to Check

Too Catholic To Be French Officers
Hélène de Lauzun — July 13, 2026
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/too-catholic-to-be-french-officers/

Horridest anti-Catholic scandal of the French military since the Third Republic and the "vlm" notes.

VLM = va la messe. = Practises Catholicism. Back then = no promotion.

The brighter side for me is, if Trad Catholics are excluded from the army, as officers, they may be less eager to adapt to people who seem to have made Young Earth Creationism some kind of "red flag" for the Islamist enemy. Even in a Catholic./HGL

Help Him Against Canadian Doctors (If It's True)

Disabled Canadian Begs for Help as Doctors Push to Euthanize Him
Frank Bergman | July 17, 2026 - 12:59 pm
https://slaynews.com/disabled-canadian-begs-help-doctors-push-euthanize-him/

I have seen some say that the story is not true.

I have also seen the name appear on top of a paper against Euthanasia in Québec:

https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/432/LCJC/briefs/LCJC_C-7_Brief_RogerFoley_f.pdf

And, if it isn't true, be vigilant and tell Canadian doctors to be vigilant against something like this coming true./HGL

PS, here is an interview, in French:

Les entretiens mortels - Ep.20 : Roger Foley : Un Cri pour la Vie face à l'Euthanasie au Canada
Réinfo Santé | 7 sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNoFXJvt4DM

Is it illegal to spell the Swedish V sound in four ways?

I was just taking up the question on what the law actually required in 1906.

You know, the law which famously respelled "vet du hvem som gåfvan gaf" as "vet du vem som gåvan gav" (without changing the pronunciation).

For my part, I'd have no qualms braving that law if it had required of all citizens (or subjects as we are a kingdom) to spell it the newer way. Why? Because of a certain exchange at Constance between an Emperor and his Latin scholars.

It so happens, "schisma" is not a word like "rosa", which has the genitive "rosae". It is rather a Greek loan, which in Greek has the genitive "schismatos" and in Latin can either keep that or slightly latinise to "schismatis".

You can imagine what genitive the Emperor used after "crimen" for the phrase "the crime of schism". I'm not repeating it. He was corrected.

His reply was:

"Cæsar supra grammaticos" — "Caesar is above the grammarians"

Their reply to that was:

"Cæsar non supra grammaticam" — "Caesar is not above the grammar"

So, if the law had required of me to spell "vet du vem som gåvan gav" (ugh), I'd have replied "nah, Caesar is not above grammar, and that goes for a Senate as well" ...

But in fact it doesn't.

Den 7 april 1906 antog riksdagen den nya stavningsreformen. Det innebar att man slutade lära ut gammalstavning i skolorna och myndigheterna skulle använda ett mer modernt språk. Om inte denna reform hade gått igenom så hade vi kanske fortfarande skrivit "hvirfvel" (virvel), hvalf (valv) och hvi (vi). Hvem skulle hvilja ha det så?*

7 April 1906 the Riksdag accepted the new spelling reform. It involved stopping to teach the old spelling in schools and that authorities should use a more modern language. If this reform hadn't passed, we might still have been spelling "hvirfvel" (virvel), "hvalf" (valv) and "hvi" (vi). Who would whant it like that?

The spelling mistake in "whant" is deliberate and reflects the probably ignorant "hvilja" which doesn't exist in Swedish after or before 1906. The only words with "hvil-" in Swedish are "hvilken", "hvilket", "hvilkendera", "hvilketdera".

Other ignorant proposition: we would be spelling "vi" as "hvi" ... well, in fact, there are two "vi" in that sense in Swedish, namely the older "hvi" which means "why" and which disappeared before 1906, apart from:

Jungfru Månstråle, hvi gråten I

in a (1970's,) translation from Carl Barks. Where "hvi" for "hvarföre" is as deliberately archaic** as "gråten I" for "gråter ni".

The other "vi" was already spelled "vi" before 1906. Just as "hvi" means "why" (a word with hv corresponding to one with wh) so also "vi" means "we" (a word with v corresponding to one with w).

The other two spellings, as in "gåfvan gaf" ("the gift gave"), Swedish allowing to finalise the verb in a subsidiary clause, are spellings with f after a vowel and fv between vowels (you can also have l or r before the f). These correspond to words which in English have a v (except when English has a loan word, like "Viking" from Norse or "very" from French). Or sometimes English even has an f here.

The point is, it is perfectly legal to spell Swedish with the older spelling, as long as:

• you are not teaching Swedish in a school in Sweden and
• you are not doing in in the quality of a Swedish administrator.

The latter is ignored by the military. A certain form there is called "afse-blankett" and "blankett" means "a form leaving blanks for writing what you are supposed to write in them" and "afse" is short for "afseende" — now spelled "avseende". It means "concerning" and the form is used when some object of equipment has been lost and needs replacing.

"Concerning the spade — it broke when we used it as a lever to get the car up" / "Afseende spaden — den gick sönder när vi använde den som häfstång för att lyfta bilen"

That kind of form, as said, is an "afse-blankett" and not an "avse-blankett" ...

The point is, when I'm writing Swedish as I do, I'm doing nothing illegal.

I'll still get harrassed for it by Swedish authorities, who'd pretend I'm doing something childish by not cooperating with the hopeless progressivist social leverage this reform has produced in many parts of the population. Like, some will ignore my actual response, pretending I responded in some fit of madness, because I didn't change the spelling I normally use to fit their hysteric fanaticism for modernism and for state above the people. This very much explains why I'd hate the idea of going back to Sweden.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Camillus of Lellis
18.VII.2026

14 Julii Romae natalis sancti Camilli de Lellis, Presbyteri et Confessoris, Clericorum Regularium infirmis ministrantium Institutoris; quem, virtutibus et miraculis clarum, Summus Pontifex Benedictus Decimus quartus in Sanctorum numero recensuit, et Leo Decimus tertius caelestem hospitalium et infirmorum Patronum renuntiavit. Ipsius tamen festivitas quintodecimo Kalendas Augusti recolitur. — 18 Julii Sancti Camilli de Lellis, Presbyteri et Confessoris, Clericorum Regularium infirmis ministrantium Institutoris, caelestis hospitalium et infirmorum Patroni; cujus dies natalis pridie Idus Julii recolitur.

* Posted on Facebook:

Svenska Öden & Äventyr
7 april 2020
https://www.facebook.com/odenochaventyr/posts/den-7-april-1906-antog-riksdagen-den-nya-stavningsreformen-det-innebar-att-man-s/1559494404202318/

** There is a clear difference between clearly archaic Swedish and a clear refusal to join the consensus around the new spelling. The latter obviously doesn't require competense in a period's typical diction, simply in the older spelling and grammar.

Refeaturing

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: John Lennox' Failure to Show He's Christian
Monday, February 5, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 10:27 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/john-lennox-failure-to-show-hes.html

Le créationnisme, est-il une minorité insignifiante, comme le dit William Lane Craig?

Pour les États-Unis, non.

Though diminished from the early 2000s, the largest segment of Americans, 37%, are creationist purists, saying God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years.

Bien que diminués depuis les débuts des années 2000, le plus grand segment des Américains, 37%, sont des puristes du créationnisme, qui disent que Dieu créa les hommes dans leur forme actuelle durant les 10 000 ans passés.

Twenty-four percent of U.S. adults accept the scientific theory of evolution, that humans evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years without God’s involvement.

24 % des adultes (le tout doit être des adultes, mais Gallup le marque ici?!) acceptent la théorie scientifique de l'évolution, que les hommes se sont développés de formes de vie moins avancées sur les millions d'années sans que Dieu soit impliqué.

One in three, 34%, straddle both theories, saying humans evolved, but with God’s guidance.

Un tiers, 34%, chevauche entre les deux théories, disant que les hommes se soient développés, mais sous la guidance de Dieu.

37 + 24 + 34 = 95 %. Les autres 5 % devraient comprendre des indécis et des théories très minoritaires. Ce que le Créationnisme n'est donc pas.

Les citations sont de Gallup:

Majority Still Credits God for Humankind, but Not Creationism
Politics | by Megan Brenan | July 22, 2024
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx

Or, vu que les chiffres se rapportent aux adultes ... aux États-Unis, ça veut dire les gens ayant passé le 21e anniversaire. Mais pour le pyramide d'âge, plutôt passé les vingt. En 2024, la population était 345,426,571.*

9,49 millions / 9,01 millions (0—4)
10,29 millions / 9,79 millions (5—9)
10,91 millions / 10,3 millions (10—14)
11,73 millions / 11,04 millions (15—19)

Ajoutons, et déduisons ça des 345,43 millions.

345,43 - 82,56 = 262,87 millions dont 37 % = 97,26 millions de créationnistes adultes, en 2024.

Ce n'est pas ce que j'appelle une minorité insignifiante. Est-ce que ça correspond à la partie la moins éduquée ? Non plus.

Les créationnistes sont 26 % des diplomés, 43 % des non-diplomés. 51 % des Protestants, 32 % des Catholiques. 16 % des sans religion.
Les évolutionnistes théistes sont 39 % des diplomés, 31 % des non-diplomés. 34 % des Protestants, 46 % des Catholiques. 20 % des sans religion.
Les évolutionnistes tout court sont 30 % des diplomés, 20 % des non-diplomés. 9 % des Protestants, 16 % des Catholiques. 58 % des sans religion.

Non, le créationnisme n'est pas une position insignifiante minoritaire.

Peut-être dans les cercles que fréquente William Lane Craig, localement, et parmi les diplomés en sciences naturels, mais pas sur la population en large ou même les diplomés ou Catholiques en large.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alexis de Rome
17.VII.2026

Romae sancti Alexii Confessoris, ex Euphemiano Senatore progeniti. Hic, prima nocte nuptiarum, sponsa intacta, e domo sua abscedens, ac, post longam peregrinationem, ad Urbem rediens, decem et septem annos tamquam egenus in domo paterna receptus hospitio, nova mundum arte deludens, incognitus mansit; sed post obitum, et voce per Urbis Ecclesias audita et scripto suo agnitus, Innocentio Primo Pontifice Maximo, ad sancti Bonifatii Ecclesiam summo honore delatus est, ibique multis miraculis claruit.

* https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2024/