Monday, 28 July 2014

I am shocked by the evil of the Lithuanian Minister of Health.

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Some of these men deserve death, 2) New blog on the kid : Reviewing CMI's Review of a Book on Nazism and Darwinism, 3) I am shocked by the evil of the Lithuanian Minister of Health.

Saying Lithuania cannot afford palliative care for the poor is one thing. But suggesting it should afford Euthanasia is quite another one.

I have agreed with Belloc and probably been targetted as a Nazi for agreeing with Belloc, that having not too much medicine might be a very good thing. In the sense that medicine keeps people alive who then have to be kept further alive - as long as one is not killing them.

To Belloc and to me, killing them is not a solution. Not a real one. It solves the economic problem of burden, but it introduces a heavier problem of the omnipotent state or doctor being a burden to everyone they can threaten with Euthanasia as long as nobody hears about it and as long as nobody cares.

The point of Belloc was, it is not wrong to be a poor country. It is not wrong not to provide all solutions in medicine.

The survival of a people depends much more on mothers than on doctors, much more on children getting made and born, than on sick and ailing being kept alive.

This does not mean the sick and ailing should not be kept alive at all, but it does mean they should not be kept alive at all costs either, notably if interfering with the rights of children to get born. Small companies and low taxes - more opportunities to get married and get children, less opportunity for medical interference either for good or for evil. Huge companies and huge taxes - less opportunities to get independent or to get hired, more opportunity for medicine, for good - or for evil. For keeping alive - or for killing.

But not keeping alive and killing are two different things.

What Rimantė Šalaševičiūtė, Social Democratic Party of Lithuania, suggested was not doing less efforts to keep people alive and no more, what she suggested was killing.

Before suggesting the unnecessary and unjust expense of Euthanasia, even if it were lower than the not totally necessary and if given just expense of palliative care, one should perhaps look at other expenses than palliative care to cut down on. Has Lithuania banned abortion yet? Has Lithuania ceased providing sponsorised Condoms? Even if taxes are providing the state with less money, what about cutting budget posts of impiety before cutting budget posts of piety?

If more people were born in the young generations, more would be able to share the burden of keeping the weak and sick alive, and it would be less burdensome. At the same time, if Lithuania is so poor it "has to" suggest Euthanasia for its poor, obviously it is wrong to afford the thing that really damages a society from staying alive. Abortion and contraception really do damage childbirth. And childbirth really is the mainspring of continued life of a society.

I see the Czars and Smetona both banned the Social Democratic Party of Lithuania. Neither the Russian Orthodox autocrats, nor the Roman Catholic one would have dreamt of being so right and of the thing they forbade being so wrong.

Neither of them would have dreamt of making doctors and their paltry, dirty remain of honour after embracing organ transplants from dying and after embracing abortion, autocrats in Hitler fashion or Mengele fashion over life and death. So far Euthanasia has been presented as an option. But obviously were it is optional some patients are less capable fo expressing such a wish than others in a most coherent manner, and for these, in the Netherlands already a decade ago, I think doctors have become murderers condemning their patients to death, in notably mental hospitals. And recently here in France a doctor admitting to having killed patients was acquitted. Could walk straight back into the streets.

Rimantė Šalaševičiūtė, Social Democratic Party of Lithuania, has noted, as I recall the online article I read this morning, that Belgium already does the same, and even accepts in its so called legislation Euthanasia of children.

A horror is not less horrible because it has been committed elsewhere. Long before Hitler imitated them, was British Columbia right to introduce enforced sterilisation because South Carolina already had it? Or was South Carolina right to introduce it if British Columbia already had it? And in 1935 the evil spread to Sweden, through the Social Democratic government of Per Albin Hansson, shame on that name, as far as politics are concerned. It stayed a heavy burden on certain Swedish families for decades. Of course, as with the present proposition of Rimantė Šalaševičiūtė, Social Democratic Party of Lithuania, the ones most easy to target were the poor. It was finally, and I hope it remains finally, abolished in the 1970's. And the persons concerned were receiving damages from the state for having allowed the malpractise for so long.

Death is not a hitherto inevitable part of existence that one day may be eliminated. It is a punishment for Adam's Sin. It is not pleasant, usually, and often not even dignified. It is shame and pain. But it is, as long as souls that can be saved exist on earth, part of the cure for something worse, namely sin.

It makes no sense to sin, or to let others sin, so mortally sinful sins as murder, so as to fix death. God meant it the other way around. Death is there to fix sin. He even became a man himself so as to taste His own medicine. On Calvary. On the hill where Adam was buried. And His death was among robbers, He had no benefit of legbreaking euthanasia like the robbers, and His death was painful. He is our model for dying. Not some doctor's fantasy about "mending death" or treating it as some "unfortunate atavism" from lower organisms.

What was it C. S. Lewis said? What was it he had written on his tomb?

Men must endure · their going hence.

What exactly is it that the Lithuanian Social Democrats have missed? What is it that still needs to be clarified? Perhaps that Euthanasia of children reeks of Carthage and of Herod?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Sts Nazarius and Celsus, Martyrs, of Milan
Sts Victor and Inncent, Popes of Rome
a Martyr and a Confessor

Friday, 25 July 2014

Reviewing CMI's Review of a Book on Nazism and Darwinism

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Some of these men deserve death, 2) New blog on the kid : Reviewing CMI's Review of a Book on Nazism and Darwinism, 3) I am shocked by the evil of the Lithuanian Minister of Health.

CMI / Woodmorappe* on page:
It is incorrect to suppose that Darwin merely emulated the racist culture around him. As Professor David Hull has pointed out, Darwin was an independent thinker, not one who merely absorbed and echoed the attitudes of his society (p. 97). [Ironically, were Darwin merely an absorber and echoer of Victorian culture, he would not have promoted a view that denied creation.]
HGL comment:
Wrong. Old Earth was rampant. Denying Biblical inerrancy was rampant. A close to hundred errors against the Catholic Faith - many gross enough to be sensed as errors against the faith even by non-Catholic CMI - were rampant in 19th C. Hegel was a kind of emanationist semi-theistic close-to-deist, and if the atheistic version went into Marxism, the deistic / theistic one went into mainstream bourgeois non-revolutionary culture.

This was the climate in which Pope Pius IX issued the Syllabus of Errors. His defence of Papacy CMI is not agreeing with, obviously, likewise his loathing of Protestantism. But this Protestantism was largely already Modernist. Here is the Syllabus:


Some of the errors listed herein (it is an appendix to an encyclical that specifies all of the following are errors) were expressed and condemned by this Pope prior to Origin of the Species.

Darwinism is not the only way one can motivate racialism. A pantheist would perhaps argue (and 19th C. pantheists sometimes did argue, like certain Southron readers of Emerson, perhaps) that the divine though present in all the universe was differently present in different things, and though more present in man was less present in some men than in others. And a few more.
CMI on page:
While it is correct that racism long predated Darwin, racism never expanded and flourished as much as it did in the 19th and 20th centuries—now elevated and legitimized by the imprimatur of scientific authority.
HGL comment:
No doubt Darwinism helped to give a boost to very many of the errors of the Syllabus.
CMI on page:
Some atheists have advanced the silly argument that Darwin was banned in Nazi Germany. The exact opposite is the case. After the Nazis came to power, they promoted the teaching of Darwinism in the classroom as never before in Germany (see Bergman’s Chapter 16, pp. 265 on).

Historian Daniel Gasman points out that in no other nation did the ideas of Darwin develop as seriously (p. 79).
He could have added this was less true of mainly Catholic Austria and Bavaria than of Catholic/Calvinist Hungary perhaps (including Burgenland) and Lutheran Saxony, certainly, but even more, Prussia.

Chesterton in his book The Barbarism of Berlin describes Prussia as having well before WW-I, already at the time of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, an essentially Atheistic culture. OK, not as Atheistic, he was not foreseeing that, as Sweden has become since, but Atheistic enough.
CMI on page:
For instance, Luther called the pope the anti-Christ, and then-faithful Catholic King Henry VIII returned the favour by calling Luther ‘the worst wolf of hell’. Luther also exchanged scatological vitriol with King Henry’s Catholic adviser, Thomas More (author of Utopia).
HGL comment:
Was Henry VIII and Thomas More perhaps right?

In Luther's Saxony, the Landesbischoff - of the Lutheran-Evangelical Church! - of that time was a Nazi "Deutscher Christ" denying Christ was ethnically Jewish. An admirer of Harnack and such.

The present Landesbischoff of Saxony is, I think, a woman.
CMI on page:
Detractors of Christianity commonly point to certain of Hitler’s pronouncements that were favourable to Christianity as proof that Hitler was friendly towards Christianity, if not an active Christian himself. What are we to make of this?
HGL comment:
Not less, not more than a pre-Darwinian pro-Christian statement in not-so-Orthodox Christians, such as the Syllabus I linked to above targetted.

Jacob Grimm was certainly no Orthodox Christian, any more than Hegel:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "If God spoke a language" - to correct Grimm
CMI on page:
Politicians are prone to tell people what they want to hear, and what they say is commonly an act of posturing.
HGL comment:
Sure, but same was true of Lutheran early 19th C. clergy. Or most of it.
CMI on page:
Although the Nazis certainly used the teachings of Martin Luther when it served their purposes, it is manifestly incorrect to portray Luther as some kind of forerunner of Hitler.
HGL comment:
Chesterton disagreed. He considered that Luther was an impatient monk who had no patience for scholastic finesse, who burned the intelligent Thomas Aquinas with as much relish as Nazis burned books more intelligent than those of Rosenberg and Hitler, not to mention Harnack.
CMI on page, miscellaneous:
a) At least 400 German doctors are known to have conducted heinous acts against human beings, but only 20 of these were ever tried for these crimes (p. 142). No German doctor was ‘following orders’. Pointedly, no doctor was forced to participate in euthanasia. In fact, Hitler’s original 1939 memo, in this regard, was an empowerment (Vollmacht), not an order (Befehl) (p. 139). The physicians’ participation in the Nazi Darwinian program was hardly accidental. Already in 1933, according to Professor Michael Kater, German physicians had been overrepresented in the Nazi Party and its adjunct organizations (p. 133). Were these physicians, in spite of all their training in biology and related fields, all ‘misunderstanding’ Darwin?

b) What would have happened had Germany won WWII? Interestingly, Bergman calls attention to a lengthy item, dating from the Nuremberg Trials, documented by prosecutor William Donovan, found in the Cornell University archives. Called the Nazi Master Plan, it planned the eventual elimination of churches in Germany (p. 9).

HGL comment:
Thank you! Good points.

* CMI : The Darwinian core, and fundamentally anti-Christian character, of Nazism
A review of Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview by Jerry Bergman Joshua Press, Ontario, 2012
Reviewed by John Woodmorappe

Hebrew (link) was the language of these very early Christians

Who certainly knew some ancient Coptic as well. And their ancestors had some knowledge of Mesopotamia:

When You Believe - The Prince Of Egypt

Now their children speak Arabic in Bethlehem, Nazareth and Gaza./HGL

Thursday, 24 July 2014

Fr. Martin Fox on How to Help the Ninivites (link)

Bonfire of the Vanities : No more silence about extermination of Christians!

Despite some Sedisvacantist types of reservations about validity of his orders (I intended to put a question mark in parentheses after "father"), I can not other than largely agree with what he is saying./HGL

Credits to Mark Shea for linking.

Did Kepler (or if it was Newton) think God's thoughts after him?

In a sense, yes. For one thing, God beforehand knew, and in that sense "thought" every error that would ever be believed by fallible creatures, even errors that have only been believed by mere novel figures, like Eustace Clarence Scrubb thinking he could find a British Consul in Narrowhaven, because he was at sea and had not grasped it was in another world, or Gandalf, Aragorn and a few more believing that Sauron's men, orcs and ringwraiths held Frodo captive, because of that depersonalised, but very astute and cruel, wreck of a human person showing them the mantle and mailcoat of Frodo. God even knows all possible errors that are not even realised in novels.

And so, of course, God knew the errors of Kepler and Newton too - or at any rate of Newtonianism (it is a bit dubious if Newton shared the errors of most Physicians attached to Newtonian physics).

God did neither predetermine who should believe what error, nor ignore who actually does so. God watches every move, of every angel, man, beast, plant, mineral or even atom, but does not take away free will, except on limited occasions, rather arranging the other circumstances (animals, plants, minerals, water, atom, aether, time, timing and other circumstances of any coincidence) so as to make the will of each man yet capable of reaching salvation as free as possible.

But God, though not predetermining what we actually choose, did predetermine what was possible to choose, and so He did predetermine and formulate in advance what moves would be possible, either naturally, or by miracle, or by diabolical deceptions.

If a chessboard has eight by eight squares, no willing on part of any player will let him move ten squares in a single direction, even diagonally the limit is eight, without getting outside the board, nor straddling squares.

God made the chessboard of our free thought and our free will, but that fact does not predetermine the moves of the players - our selves, our guardian angels, our tempters like Devil, World or Flesh, or those of God Himself, though He made the chessboards with a view on what moves He was going to make.

Nor are the moves predetermined because God watches the moves we make now and will make tomorrow since eternity past. And because he sees - and in the better case arranges - what side will win, the white or the black, the "chessgame" about each act or the "chessgame" about our eternity.

So, in a sense every one who is in error - including Kepler and Newton - every and all are thinking God's thoughts after Him. But God thought these errors as errors, so the one who sees them as errors rather than believing them is even better thinking God's thoughts after Him.

In another sense also they were thinking God's thoughts after Him : namely insofar as they are partially true.

If Copernicus was partially right about Venus and Mars orbitting Sun, Tycho Brahe was more true in adding this was not so about Earth, but rather Earth was the centre that the Sun orbitted.

If Kepler and Titus and Bodes were partially right about Venus and Mars orbitting Sun so that they form elliptic orbits with Sun in one of the two foci, Riccioli was more right in stating that with Sun and Earth it was the inverse, Earth was (and remains) in one focus of the annual orbit of the Sun.

If Titus and Bodes were partially right about Venus and Mars forming a series of distances to the Sun of the orbits, a Geocentric accepting that would be even more right in saying but in the case of Sun and Earth it is the opposite relation of centre and orbit, of "circled" and "circling" body (or would you say "of ellipted and ellipting body", as per Kepler?), and of course Mercury is off either way, as Einstein ventured to explain with relativity, though I forgot the details.

And supposing Newton was partially right about Mass of Sun attracting, while previous movement was tangentially projecting Venus and Mars, which I am less sure about, Sungenis would in such a case be more right to say that Sun in its turn was attracted to the centre of Mass of the whole Universe, which providentially was the place where God placed Earth.

God does not need a discursion through simple steps to a more complex conclusion, but if he had needed that, Kepler, Titus and Bodes, and possibly also Newton would have been taking for the "final outcome" what was rather "next to final sketch", with an inversion to Geocentricity added. This inversion being of course conducive to very decorative patterns in the planetary orbits, if these are taken with Earth as a reference frame, which they should. You see, since God is a Catholic and not a Calvinist, He set the place in which the angels worship him more on decoration than on simplicity. Exactly as the Catholic Church (excluding Vatican II errors) is wont to do with places where we worship. Along with angels.

Two little additions, so as not to get confused about cosmology or metaphysics. One is, the movements here described or briefly alluded to are only abstracts, ignoring the daily movement of the Universe. The concrete movement of any celestial body any day is very close to a perfect circle - since the varying (and concretely as said florid) distances from Earth are those of orbits taking a longer time by far than a mere day. The other is this - whatever the nature of "gravitation" as it is called (no one doubts apples fall to the ground) the celestial bodies have have gravitational reasons to get where they are getting, but these would probably not be sufficient to get them there unless they were directed by angelic beings, in fact by good and unfallen angels (Satan being the "fallen morning star" was probably ex-conductor of either Venus or Mercury - and has been replaced as such, being himself now bound in Hell). In the case of a bicycle, its surface of contact, its speed, its weight, all contribute to getting it forwards, but without a driver, it would very soon have the steering wheel start wobbling and thus fall to the ground. Whether or not this is the reason, I think angels are in fact conducting the heavenly bodies, since this is how the Bible in three places (or only one of them if you rely on a Protestant Bible) describes them. But I think the consideration of why the orbits stay as they are would be enough to prove there are angels too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St James and
St Christina, Virgin and Martyr

Who of them said it? According to this site it was Kepler:

An "unorthodox" Lutheran, Kepler had a deep love for Christ and the inspiration and authority of Scripture. He is frequently quoted as saying, "O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee."

Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler
by Christine Dao
[Citing recommendation: Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler. Acts & Facts. 37 (3): 8.]

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Ceci est d'une source réputée non-partisane

Je cite:*

Depuis le début des hostilités, quelque 2.060 roquettes ont été tirées vers Israël dont près de 1.600 sont tombées en Israël et 396 ont été interceptées par le système anti-missile Iron Dome, selon l'armée.

Combien des autres ont tués des gens depuis l'installation de cet Iron Dome?

Mardi matin, au 15e jour des opérations israéliennes, 7 Palestiniens ont été tués à Gaza dans de nouveaux raids aériens israéliens, selon les services de secours locaux. Ils ont péri dans des bombardements sur le sud et le centre de la bande de Gaza, notamment cinq membres d'une même famille, dont quatre femmes, dans le camp de Deir al-Balah. Deux autres Gazaouis ont trouvé la mort à Khan Younès et dans le camp de Nousseirat.

Étaient-ils en train de tirer une missile sur les Civilistes d'Israël? Ou juste "une bonne leçon" genre "price tag"?

Depuis le déclenchement de la guerre, au moins 583 Palestiniens ont été tués et 3.640 blessés, en grande majorité des civils, selon les secours palestiniens. L'armée israélienne, elle, a fait état de 183 "terroristes" tués depuis le déclenchement de l'assaut terrestre.

Insécurité des maths? Ou 183 terroristes et 400 civils? Et combien des civils étaient Chrétiens?

Posons qu'il y aura une croisade pour Mossoul, que donc faire pour les Palestiniens de Gaza, sauf les coupables?

Pourra-t-on renoncer, des deux côtés, aux missiles? Autrefois, l'Église Catholique excommuniait quiconque tuait un autre même avec une arbalète, parce que c'était une tuerie à trop de distance pour savoir si on tuait un ennemi ou un innocent.

En Palestine, les Catholiques et les Orthodoxes sont les paisibles. Les Juifs et les Musulman ne sont pas tous, mais comportent parmi eux les guerroyers parfois impitoyables.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre
Ste Madeleine

* Gaza: les efforts s'intensifient pour un cessez-le-feu

** Corrigé peu après la publication.

Monday, 21 July 2014

Kosovo, Mossoul

Portail Catholique Suisse : Mgr Shimoun Nona déplore que l'Occident ne fasse rien pour protéger les chrétiens d'Irak
Archevêque chaldéen de Mossoul | chrétiens | Irak | Mgr Emil Shimoun Nona

Mossoul: "Nous sommes sûrs que l'Eglise du monde entier prie pour l'Irak, mais l'Occident et ses gouvernements semblent avoir oublié le drame que traverse la population de ce pays… comme s'il était normal d'entendre chaque jour les nouvelles des morts, des attaques, des violences", déplore Mgr Emil Shimoun Nona, archevêque chaldéen de Mossoul.

Notez - les premières paragraphes qui suivent étaient mon impression avant de vérifier sur la Guerre du Kosovo, j'avais manqué à certaines actualités, au début de 1999, peut-être parce que j'étais drogué en hôpital psychiatrique, peut-être parce que ça ne ressemblait qu'à une prolongation des actualités de la Guerre de la Bosnie. Bon, continuons, je vais me rattraper là-dessus:

En 1999, les Serbes n'étaient pas en train de dhimmitiser ou massacrer les Albanais de Kossovo. [Ehm, voyons plus loin] Il y a peut-être eu des morts, il y a eu des gens qui pointaient le fusil à la poitrine d'un Albanais pour le forcer de faire le signe de la croix, mais je ne me souviens pas qu'il y ait eu 290 morts.

On demandait aux Albanais en place de faire le bagage, d'aller à peu près une centaine de kilomètres en proménade, et par le fait qu'ils n'étaient pas permis de rester en place, on criait à d'actes quasi génocidaires, "nettoyage ethnique", et on bombardait Belgrade, et Slobodan Milosevic fut un homme chassé.

Pourtant, les Albanais surtout Musulmans n'avaient pas été totalement anodins. Slobodan avait commencé sa popularité parmi les Serbes un jour quand des Serbes en Kosovo (étudiants à une fac, peut-être?) se sont vus bombardés de pierres.

Pourtant, le nettoyage ethnique suffisait pour que Bill Clinton y aille avec une fédération internationale. Et si les bombes à Belgrade n'ont pas fait ...

Bon, avant de finir ceci, je fais une vérification sur la Guerre du Kosovo. Il semble y avoir eu, pas 10.000 victimes des Serbes, comme prétendu*, mais, en exhuman 2,788 corps, après la Guerre, on a refusé de dire combien avaient été tués selon les apparences forensiques, par des balles dans la tête à courtes distance. Ça, c'est quand même pire que je me souvenais.

J'avais pas entendu des massacres de Racak** et d'autres, j'avais trouvé le sujet au moment où il s'agissait de forcer les Albanais à travers la frontière.

Mais, aujourd'hui à Mossoul, on compte des victimes chrétiennes. Et on ne compte pas des 15-aines, comme à peu près à chaque massacre au début de 1999, on compte 290. Et le quartier général d'ISIS n'est ni bombardé, ni pris.

Et l'Occident n'a pas réagi.

Pourtant, cette communauté chrétienne de Mossoul est une des plus anciennes. Elle commence déjà comme communauté hébraïque, pendant l'Ancienne Alliance, quand les Ninivites font pénitence quand Jonah leur prêche.

Car Mossoul est tout aussi proche de Ninivé que l'Uppsale des Archévêques de l'Uppsale d'Odin et des rois Odinides, Yngling. C'est la même communauté, déplacé après une destruction de leur ville.

Et aujourd'hui, les Chrétiens de Mossoul (sauf les 290 tués) sont de nouveau en train de vivre à la localité de Ninivé. Sur les ruines d'une ville déjà quittée par eux, quand elle était prise, par les Mèdes, en 612 avant Jésus-Christ.

On a voulu faire la guerre pour les Kosovaresh? Pourquoi pas pour les Ninivites Chrétiens, alors, aussi! On a bombardé Belgrade? Pourquoi pas reduire le quartier général d'ISIS aussi?

Il semble que je suis un peu partiel contre les bombardements. Je deviens nostalgique de la meilleure épisode*** de général Bugeaud, la prise de la Smalla, décrite plus qu'une fois par Alain Sanders. Selon ce que j'avais compris sans pertes des vies civiles d'Algérie.

Par contre, on a passé les quinze ans depuis la Guerre du Kosovo en perdant la morale en des guerres dont la justice n'était qu'à moitié, au mieux. En Afghanistan, on a certes été opposé à des gens antichrétiens un peu comme ISIS, mais on a aussi été allié à Hamid Kharzai, qui mettait des Chrétiens convertis de l'Islam en prison. En Iraq, celui qu'on éliminait pouvait bien compter comme une ordure, mais il avait reprimé des gens comme ISIS, et on leur redonnait de la liberté, et malheureusement aussi la provocation de la prison d'Abou Ghraïb.

A-t-on encore le droit de faire la guerre où que ce soit, sauf chez soi? Si oui, alors c'est pour les Chrétiens de Mossoul. Aujourd'hui, ne sachant pas où les Chrétiens pourront être attaqués demain.

Et je ne sais pas par quelles étapes on doit escalader avant de faire la guerre contre ISIS. Je ne suis pas politicien, juste citoyen. Évidemment.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Daniel, Prophète, à Babylone

* Serb killings 'exaggerated' by west
Claims of up to 100,000 ethnic Albanians massacred in Kosovo revised to under 3,000 as exhumations near end
Special report: Kosovo
Jonathan Steele
The Guardian, Friday 18 August 2000 01.48 BST

** Case No. IT-99-37-I
[See point 24 for massacres, and point 23 for the forced deportations - worse details than I recalled, also.]

*** Quand à la pire, les Enfumades, je ne suis pas nostalgique du tout.

Mise à jour, deux liens:

L’archevêque chaldéen de Mossoul opposé à toute intervention militaire étrangère en Irak
[Notons la date:] APIC| 19 juin 2014 | 13h42

Média Presse Info : La France condamne l’ultimatum des djihadistes aux chrétiens de Mossoul
dans Politique / Par Marie -Madeleine Courtial / le 21 juillet 2014 à 3:12 /

Sunday, 20 July 2014

Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini

Praeterea* ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit, ut nemo, suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium, Sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimen consensum Patrum, ipsam Scripturam Sacram interpretari audeat, etiamsi huiusmodi interpretationes nullo umquam tempore in lucem edendae forent. Qui contravenerint, per Ordinarios declarentur, et poenis a iure statutis puniantur.

Nota duo: primum, quod ly "ut nemo" principaliter non est ad "suae prudentiae innixus", quia tunc esset "suae prudentiae innitat" or "inniti audeat", sed solum circumstantialiter est ad "suae prudentiae" quia "innixus" est participium et subordinatur sub ly "interpretare audeat"; et secundum notandum, quod prohibitio haec non est contra eos qui contra sensum loquuntur quem "ecclesia nunc tenet quamuis antea non tenuit", sed contra eos qui loquuntur contra eum sensum quem Ecclesia "tenuit atque tenet", scilicet per saecula, ut patet per ly "aut etiam contra unanimen consensum Patrum".

Sin autem aliquo tempore "Ecclesia, cuius est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sanctarum," ipsa sit quae interpretari audeat contra sensum "quem tenuit [...] Ecclesia" scilicet adminus antea, "aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum, tunc hic casus non praevisus fuit ab illo consilio. Sed bene mihi videtur illud sanctum concilium interpretari si dicitur: quodcumque audeat interpretari Scripturas contra sensum quem tenuit Ecclesia, vel contra unanimem sensum Patrum, non est Ecclesia, non potest esse Ecclesia, quia eius quasi dignitarii sunt ab illo consilio in hoc ipso canone puniandi per Ordinarios.

At si dixerint aliqui, accipere longissimas aeones aetatis terrae vel universi, subvertere ordinem quo ante creavit Deus terram quam lucem visibilem et ante lucem visibilem quam solem, vel et accipere quod in praeclaro illud momentu Iosues non revera solem ordinavit cessare ambitum circa terram sed potius terram cessare ordinaverit cessare de gyro circa seipsam,** haec accipere et huiusmodi non condemnatum esse, quia re agitur de scientia potius quam de rebus fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium, ipso facto, ipso dicto et absolvunt eos qui interpretantur contra sensum quem "nunc tenet sed non antea tenuit" Ecclesia.

Sed dato quod essem culpabilis - quod non do - et dato etiam quod Ordinarius tenens Heliocentrismum et Darwinicam Explicationem de diversitate generum entium non esset culpabilis - quod etiam non do - hic Ordinarius (si sit!) per hunc canonem nullum jus recepit me clanculum et furtim exponendi maledictionibus excommunicationis*** ad correctionem per me faciendam, sed solum me aperte excommunicandi vel minoribus poenis puniendi, eas quas statuit jus.

Ioannes Georgius Lundahl
Bibliotheca Pompidoliana
Dominica VI (?) post Pentecosten
et Sancti Eliae Prophetae in monte Carmelo
Tertiodecimo die Kalendas Augusti.

* Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)

** Quamutsi justi esset velle uni imperare et verbaliter alium vel alia duo jubere, secundum errorem communem, vel quamutsi verba Iosues nulla editio et nullus textus receptus Sacrae Scripturae dedisset recta ut ea dixit.

*** Vel et utendo kabbala - quia in ecclesia Sancti Iohannes de Malta Aquis Sextiis vidi vel audivi paroechiam habituram cursum introductionis in kabbalam.

Friday, 18 July 2014

A Comparison?

Es como si nosotros por cada atentado de la ETA hubiéramos matado vascos, y derribado hospitales y escuelas por efectos y daños colaterales porque allí, "viven terroristas".

My translation: It is as if, for each attentate by the ETA we had killed Basks and destroyed (?*) hospitals and school by collateral effects and damages, because there, there "live terrorists" - a Carlist summing up of what Israel is doing in Gaza.

Here is the article, for those knowing how to hablar y leer el castellano:

LEGITIMISTA DIGITAL : viernes, 18 de julio de 2014

There is perhaps one difference. ETA considered Spanish police as invadors for patrolling in Euskadi (and perhaps still do). They do not consider Spaniards as invaders for living in Madrid.

And the Spaniards that live in Madrid are not invaders into Euskadi either. BUT : One can argue whether Israelis who when in Europe heard Israel had been founded and took advantage of that and meant no ill to Palestinians, hardly even knew they existed, only heard Zionist propaganda, can count as invaders. One cannot deny some in Hamas or perhaps even further out count them as such. And this, though uncharitable, is considerably less unrealistic than it would be to count Madrileños as invaders into Euskadi for living in Madrid. After all, there has not been a large Basque populace displaced or selfdisplaced from Madrid before the Spaniards came there, perhaps ever in all history, or if at all, it was so far back that it is forgotten and counted as a curiosity.

When European and American and Oriental non-Palestinian Jews came to Tell Aviv is not at all so far back. Romans and Iberians have mixed over centuries, no difference left. This is not the case for the three religious communities (or four, if you count Jewish Christians as separate from Palestinian Christians) in their present proportions in the area.

If you have a past that may look as that of a bandit, even if that is only to some people, it may be wise to try to look no more like a bandit than you need to.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Camillo de Lellis

* Knocked down, demolished, brought down, after checking.

More Good News From Detroit

Best of Cain : Detroit Police Chief says private gun ownership is lowering crime rates.

Thursday, 17 July 2014

Here is Someone Really Standing Up for Children (or two: a mother and a lawyer)

Mark Shea stated he loved Bergoglio because Bergoglio had spoken up for a welcome for children who flee from - was it poverty and violence? - when they come illegally. But has Bergoglio spoken up for those oppressed by psychiatry? No. Two women have. A mother for her daughter, and a lawyer for both. Meet the Detroit Mother Maryanne Godboldo and the Atterney Allison Folmar:

The Fight Against Forced Psychiatric Drugging & Illegal Seizure of Children- Attorney Allison Folmar

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology)

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds, 2) With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds, 3) Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether, 4) New blog on the kid : Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien, 5) Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology), 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence

A vector due East is a vector tangentially upward
A Satellite a) above Earth,
b) drawing its distance to centre of Earth,
c) getting it due East from original pos[ition], continuing three quarters distance
d) then it should be 5 units above Earth at new location [the diagonal on diagram is physically also a vertical].
e) But it is actually only as high, due to gravitation.
Rotation East is compensated by daily rotation, whether that of Earth East or that of æther West, Geographically
α = theoretical angle, the one physically gone through by satellite through space
β angle of daily turning, heliocentric model, place on Earth [also] turning East
β angle of daily turning, Geocentric model, æther/space turnig West
@ diagram: α satellite / β space
Geographic angle [Eastward] = α - β

Sunday, 13 July 2014

À Cergy, on prépare une manif

1) Une Plaque mémoriale et une actualité, 2) Et Benoît Hamon en tout ça?, 3) À Cergy, on prépare une manif

L'expression était en honneur de l'institutrice tuée, Fabienne.

Au début je croyais que c'était une autre institutrice, que Fabienne était de Cergy.

Non, c'était celle d'Albi.

Dans les journaux je vois le portrait de la décédée. Une bien-pensante. Parfaitement incapable de se dire ou de dire aux autres "je vais faire du mal à la fille de Rachida". Mais, par là aussi, parfaitement incapable de se rendre compte si par négligeance ou nonchalance ou irritation elle faisait quand même mal à la fille d'une mère qu'elle trouvait, vraisemblablement, mauvaise pour sa fille.

Et la manif sera aussi bien-pensante, un seul message pourra être passé: "jamais plus ça".

Faire de la politique - que ça soit contre les immigrés (dont celle qui tua l'institutrice) ou ... ce que je trouve mieux ... contre l'obligation scolaire (sans laquelle Rachida avait eu d'autres options et aurait pu s'en ficher de Fabienne, sans aucune violence physique), non, la politique n'est pas bienvenue.

Et ceci se fait dans toute la France, donc. Et après on pourra enrégistrer, pour les vœux de Benoît Hamon de faire de l'appaisement, de la protection, mais pas des fermetures, ce "jamais plus ça" - seul message, sauf les roses blanches, donc seul message verbal permis dans la manif.

Orchestré? Et comment!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
V. Dimanche après Pentecôte

Pope Michael Takes on Pope Francis: Exiled Pope is Living In America (link to video)

1) New blog on the kid : Pope Michael Takes on Pope Francis: Exiled Pope is Living In America (link to video) , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Yet Another Puritan as in Stupid Attack on Christmas

Pope Michael Takes on Pope Francis: Exiled Pope is Living In America
Josh Tolley

Excuses for momentary taking down of above, I needed to add this, and might need to add more:

About one possibly weak moment of Pope Michael "these things need to be looked into", before 22:25.

Here are my answers to allegations by Josh Tolley:

In general:

Here is the Pope's website:

Here is my proof why Protestants cannot constitute the true Church:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt

More specifically:

1) Ishtar was indeed the "goddess of love" or if you prefer of sex in Babylon.

"Her" name in Germanic has NOTHING to do with Eostre/Ostara. In Norse mythology she was indeed present, but as Freya.

That name is the name of "east" (as point of the compass) and of "dawn" (as natural phenomenon, and nature goddess possibly too).

2) The words Ostern in German and Easter in English do not mark a feast date that everywhere has even a fortuitous audible connexion to Ishtar, in Latin and most Romance languages as well as in Greek, as well as in Nordic countries, as well as in Netherlands, the feast is known by diverse versions of Pascha - a transliteration of [Pesach=] Passover.

3) Easter eggs have a purely practical purpose. As mentioned, fasting laws have changed. In St Thomas Aquinas' time, not just East but also West, not just meat, but also dairy and eggs were forbidden during the meal. A lot of eggs were left over till Easter, since chickens do not stop laying eggs just because it is Lent. And as someone thought the eggshell reminded of the open grave, you get this Christ symbolism about Easter eggs.

4) "we know" is not an argument. It is an appeal to a consensus, which is NOT accepted by all the world, NOT accepted by all who call themselves Christian, and is therefore obviously NOT based on what is simply self evident.

Bad scholarship masquerading as "we know" or "we now know" is baleful for rational discussion of anything.

5) ENGLAND has had for over 4, soon 5 centuries a "Church" which has no common doctrine, in which common words of confession are verbal compromises covering different meanings. One can very truly describe Anglicanism as a harlot "Church" just because of that. Now, the less Catholic faction in it, the Puritans,* have had some cultural impact, and it was not good, on the New England where you find Harvard and a few more. This includes a large ear for calumnies against Catholic tradition and a deaf ear for the defense of such.

6) On top of that Freemasonry is a real harlot. And it hates the Catholic Church. And it loves to pretend to philological knowledge far beyond its capacity of learning.

Now, Kent Hovind has admitted being friends with freemasons (he called them do-gooders). Tom Horne has admitted having had, while a pastor, not excommunicated more than one 32:nd degree mason. He has also admitted to having had the courage to go to the masonic lodge to check up on one rumour, but not having any corresponding courage to go to a Catholic Church or contact the Vatican (even now!) about the obelisk.

Trusting those people on Catholicism is ASKING for being involved in bad scholarship.

7) The claim that there is "even now" a priest of Tammuz is obviously as phoney as the claim of some masons to be "even now" druids. Note one Archbishop of Canterbury has had no problem masking himself as a druid, but not even Bergoglio has so far done so. On the other hand, Paul VI has been photographed with an ephod if that is not photoshopped (or montage as it used to be called).

EVERY Pagan cult was outlawed by Emperor Theodosius, at the same time when he outlawed Arianism, unless his predecessor had done so. There is no way Tammuz worship could have survived openly in the Roman Empire, and there were a few centuries to go before Persians and then Omar came.

The info gleaned from present day Tammuz priests is worthless as antiquarian information about Tammuz or Ishtar cults.

[8] Then there is a difference between Pagan tradition as Gentile customs and Idolatrous traditions as practises guilty of idolatry.

We use the Roman year, as it was in the main instituted by a Pagan and even idolater named Julius Caesar, and corrected in very minute detail (3 days every 400 years) by a Pope much later, one Gregory, I think the XIII.

This does not make us idolaters. Having March and April - even if March does refer to the Pagan "god" of War - instead of Adar and Nisan does not make an idolater.

This, in turn, gives us another hint of where the attacks on Catholic and Orthodox Easter come from. Some Christians think Judaism as in the Synagogue was the people of God even after Christ. They also imagine Jesus is not a proper transliteration for Yahshua (I would rather have spelled the Hebrew version Jeschua, but you see what I mean). It is. S instead of Shin is because Greek and Latin are overall Sibboleth dialects. Languages without the S / SH distinction, usually thought to pronounce the letter as modern S. And -ous is due to Greek grammar. Ending a word in -oua in the nominative would have made it feminine.

* Since then the Modernists have emerged as an even less Catholic faction of Church of England.

Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds, 2) With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds, 3) Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether, 4) New blog on the kid : Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien, 5) Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology), 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence

As Tom Trinko asked me to post such an admission on the blog with our discussion, I must on my part admit I was tired and irritated and forgot to or even neglected adding an explanation which would have helped him, perhaps.

But before going into it, I will ask you first to consider these two statements by him:

His Quote from St Augustine, in context (with my highlights):
By the way Augustine clearly condemns Sungennis's misuse of the Bible--and endorsements by saints for geocentrism-- when Augustine says:

" Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2

His admission:
I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.

So, was it hard or easy for him to prove me wrong according to what, along with even non-Christians, he knows, and that from experience? The issue he took a stand on and did not convince me in was geostationary satellites.

Obviously it is not like proving a Biblical or would be Biblical flat earthist* wrong by appealing to journeys made by the thousands. It is not as if denial of thousands of calculations based on Heliocentric assumptions were the same thing as thousands of journeys taken together proving the Round Earth geography even without assumptions. And here it shows. When Tom Trinko cannot prove his point, he thinks life is too short for him to get into detail and he resorts to making assumptions about who of us who is ignorant - and exaggerated such.

But this does not mean I have a right finally to omit my improvment of the discussion, though it comes, for reasons of fatigue and irritation, after the discussion is already over.

Here it is.

I am not sure Tom Trinko has read Lord of the Rings. I have.

At the near end there is a scene in which Elrond and Gandalf and Sam and Frodo go off in ships, in the Grey Havens. At a certain point, the "bent road" of earth's "now" round surface (here: of water, of the sea, of the Atlantic) starts sinking below the ships, and the ships go on straight forward.

I do not think this scene happened. But it is an interesting model - like so much else in fiction, when it is worth reading.

Supposing it had happened, restating it in terms of physics would imply that the ships were unaffected by earth's gravity.** Not unaffected by gravity directly and therefore light, therefore indirectly affected by the gravity as heavier air pushed them up, since air was affected by gravity, no, rather unaffected by gravity either way. Meaning the speed westward they took while sailing was the vector - in Newtonian terms - of their trajectory after leaving the curved water surface behind too.

This means their trajectory is a great model for any trajectory of any object getting either due east or due west without gravity.

But this in its turn means that such a vector by the fact of being straight east or straight west is obliquely up, in the tangential way. And this in its turn means that this is the direct effect of the inertial vector of a satellite too, as long as you do not mix in gravity.

This means, that just as for the ships to have, in Tolkien's fiction, stayed on the bent road of the real surface of the sea, they would have needed gravity, so also, for a satellite to orbit anywhere, rather than take off tangentially, it needs gravity. This means that gravity is involved when satellite stays same height, since the eastward vector is involved in a potentially tangential raising of its height.

I might be adding a scan of this, showing a comparison where satellite would be going if obeying only eastward vector and where it actually goes, obeying also gravity. I have already drawn it.

And this remains true when the daily turning of whatever turns daily geographically cancels the orbital angle. For this I have not yet drawn any diagram. Whether it is thus geographically cancelled because the locations on earth are turning eastward same speed (Heliocentric model) or the aether which is turning westward same speed (Geocentric model as I take it along with aether) - this cancelling of motion considered in relation to localities is another matter yet.

This means that the real discussion that is worthwhile is whether aether can conceivably be non-vectorial in its movement, and yet cause atoms or agglomerations of such moving with aether to be vectorial in their movements along with the aether.

That aether needs be non-vectorial is, since if aether simply was a westward vector at any point, though turning by its attachment to earth, the westward vector of the aether and the eastward vector of the satellite would be cancelling, and gravity would be only relevant vector left, thus pulling geostationary satellite down. But if aether is non-vectorial, its movement is cancelling the local movement of the satellite as relative to earth, but at same time the satellite is really moving eastward through the aether, just as the aether is moving westward with it, so that the vectors have a due result of same height and real orbit, namely through aether.

On the other hand, why one might think aether would be vectorial to a Geocentric believing it, when aether turns westward, so do equatorials winds and oceanic currents.

This Tom Trinko refused to discuss. Life is short and I known really nothing about the universe and so on. Which does not dispense me from making reflections about it.

I would say that it is possible the uppermost atoms and molecules moving in the aether and with the aether westward do so without being vectorial either in themselves or in relation to the aether. But should an atom or molecule under it - directly, as it is not the case, or really indirectly, as is the case - attached to earth collide with its westward movement, the atom or molecule or whatever other body it may be, would immediately be vectorial in relation to the less moving, more earth attached of the two bodies. And the fact that there are infinitesimal intermediates between uppermost waters in the universe and the surface of earth which is attached to a non-moving and non-turning centre, does not very much interefere with the principle, only modify it in detail.

For we do know that winds of passage and equatorial streams in the Oceans are really vectorial. Even if the turning of the aether that causes their turning is not. But this problem, to Tom Trinko was uninteresting detail compared to the conception that an eastward vector would not be tangential and therefore would not be an upward vector.

And even this was not interesting enough to him to defend in detail against my presumably dishonest reasonings (and therefore normally easily exposed reasonings) about vectors being tangential when they are horizontal.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
[V Dim. après Pentecôte]
V:th Sunday after Pentecost

*I think "Biblical" means either denying the modern geography as well as cosmography or accepting a round earth with the geography: I can as round-earthist point to the four corners, not forming a flat, but a so called non-Euclidian rectangle, whereas the most up to date maps of flat earth society with North Pole in Centre and South Polehaving become a rim seem more three cornered than four cornered to me, and thus un-Biblical.

** Tolkien's choice of the words "bent road" for the trajectories normally affected by gravity and straight road for the one not so affected, may imply he was thinking in terms of an Einsteinian model of gravitation, where gravity bends (or curves) space.

Saturday, 12 July 2014

Et Benoît Hamon en tout ça?

1) Une Plaque mémoriale et une actualité, 2) Et Benoît Hamon en tout ça?, 3) À Cergy, on prépare une manif

Il faut faire en sorte que demain, on protège mieux l'école, on l'apaise. On la préserve de cette violence, des conflits qui peuvent s'y nicher.

LaDépèche : Actualité > Grand Sud > Tarn > Albi
Benoît Hamon : «Il faut protéger l'école mais pas la fermer»

On pourra mieux apaiser l'école en fermant les établissements où les élèves sont tous en présence forcée (par l'état plutôt que la volonté des parents) et en laissant ouvertes les écoles où on trouve des élèves par la volonté des parents.

Malheureusement, en caractérisant l'acte comme "épouvantable" il n'est pas gagné en avance pour une idée de respecter davantage les parents réfractaires.

Et avec ça, il risque de protéger mal l'école, de la protéger par davantage de sécurité et avec moins d'appaisement./HGL

Thursday, 10 July 2014

Statistica Multoties Lectorum Bloggatorum in Hoc Bloggo

New blog on the kid



Most read blogposts/Les messages les plus lus/Maxime lecta bloggata.

In each level like day, I except the posts that make it to next or further levels.

À chaque niveau, comme jour, je donne ceux seulement qui n’y se trouvent pas à des niveaux supérieures.

Last/Dernières 24 h.


Remynde me to traunslate sum thynge smal nexte tyme, lyk the DIVYNE COMEDYE

Cornelius and Assisi Meeting


Moïse en doute? Non.

Last Week/Dernière Semaine


Mackerel Snapper Missing Another Point

Did God create ALL?

In Answer to Mr. Obama's question from a long time ago

Two Reasonings on Abortion


Observations sur un Père Barnabite

Last Month/Dernier Mois


On Karl Keating's Course

Schools in Church Doctrine (Pope Pius XI vs "Vatican II")

Answering two points raised by Dr Neville Jones PhD et al.

Is peace brought about, when infidels pray together?

Ipsa conteret, by Heinz Lothar Barth, German Book Tip

"Nobody believes in Geocentrism these days ..."


Différence entre Capitalisme et Distributisme

Une Plaque mémoriale et une actualité

All time/tout le temps/Omne tempus


Il vous est arrivé de plier un papier?

Fiabilité de la Tradition

Sur le concept de l'ésotérique et sur les sociétés secrètes


St Augustine was - Literally - a Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, and he was Right

Proximate causes are not always secondary

Quarterlife is a Bad Term

Phil Provaznik / Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...)

John Cornwell's Incompetent Fan Club Claims Vatican went Nazi

Yesterday Bergoglio seems to have thrown me out of the Church - insofar as he was Pope he did

grafted, not graffed, Levi Price

Do not support World Childhood Foundation!

A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien

Hans-Georg Gadamer was of the "Frankfurter Schule" - get Inklings for me please!


Statistica bloggorum vii vel viii ultimarum xxiv horarum in die Sancte Lucie

Alii bloggi, other blogs, autres blogs

"nov9 blogg9"?

"You care about me, right?" (Linking)

You Care About Me, Right?
An open letter to abortion advocates.

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Mackerel Snapper Missing Another Point

Here is the link and quote on Mackerel Snapper:

Pope Francis and Admonishing the Sinner. More on ‘Who Died and Made You Pope?”

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece dealing with the current trend of Catholic laity calling for certain politicians and public figures to be denied the Eucharist.


And I also heard from a few dissenters who felt it should be our Christian duty to deny the Eucharist to certain politicians.

They were quick to say that this would be “admonishing the sinner” which is something that Christ himself instructed us to do.

Let’s take a look at that Scripture:

If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. (Mt 18:15)

Calling someone out on the Internet does not fit that bill, does it?

Well, what exactly DID Christ say in Matthew 18:15?

Gospel According to Saint Matthew Chapter 18 : [15] But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. [16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Two observations on the general note: offend against thee sounds like a private sin. The escalation procedure implies it need not remain private. And there is an escalation procedure foreseen against obstinate sinners, and it ends up with - if he will not mend - considering him as a heathen and a publican.

Like, denying him the Eucharist.

So, any pro-abortion politicians out there, if "Catholic", should have been given a chance to mend in private and then correct their public stance in next public speech. "Sorry, I was a bit carried away by one view point my last speech, here is what I think on better consideration" (i e that abortion should be illegal and defunded). If however the politician has been going on defending legality and funding of abortion for years, he should definitely be considered as already having had his chance and as being a heathen and publican.

Plus, making a speech or a vote in favour of abortion is very much not the kind of private sin against a superior that would have absolutely warranted starting with private admonition.

Here is anyway what Haydock Comment has to say on these verses:

Ver. 15. Offend against thee. St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome understand from this verse, that the injured person is to go and admonish his brother. Other understand against thee, to mean in thy presence, or to thy knowledge, because fraternal correction is a duty, not only when our brother offends us, but likewise when he offends against his neighbour, and much more when he offends God. It is moreover a duty not peculiar to the injured, but common to all. When the offence is not personal, our advice will be less interested. This precept, though positive, is only obligatory, when it is likely to profit your brother, as charity is the only motive for observing it. Therefore, it not only may, but ought to be omitted, when the contrary effect is likely to ensue, whether it be owing to the perversity of the sinner, or the circumstances of the admonisher. (Jansenius)

Ver. 17. Tell the church. This not only shews the order of fraternal correction, but also every man's duty in submitting to the judgment of the Church. (Witham)

There cannot be a plainer condemnation of those who make particular creeds, and will not submit the articles of their belief to the judgment of the authority appointed by Christ. (Haydock)

I am actually reminded of a parallel. Adolf Hitler was never told by public authorities of the Church in front of all, that he was excommunicated not only latae sententiae, but even by ecclesiastical judgement as a person, for his involvement in euthanasia, eugenic abortion, killing tramps in labour camps if found stealing soup or refusing to work (at least that evil reglement was in legal "force" since November 33 in the labour camps), and similar things, or later for deporting Jews en masse into a captivity of inhuman and sometimes mortal conditions. After the conflict Pius XII was severely criticised, sometimes by backbiters, for not having publically discredited Hitler with an excommunication. He had however followed the advice of Jansenius (which is here given in Haydock) that "This precept, though positive, is only obligatory, when it is likely to profit your brother, as charity is the only motive for observing it. Therefore, it not only may, but ought to be omitted, when the contrary effect is likely to ensue, whether it be owing to the perversity of the sinner, or the circumstances of the admonisher." And applied it as if this was also the case about the final stage of the escalation foreseen by Christ. That is, as if when a man should normally be excluded from Communion, he should nevertheless be admitted, unless he could himself profit from the correction.

So, a pro-abortion politician is not comparable to Hitler? Or Pius XII did the right thing in not condemning Hitler in such great public and was even wrong the other way round, he should have given Hitler Communion if he had approached the rail, rather than stopping Hitler from visiting churches when the latter was in Rome?

If neither is the case, that abortionist politician should have been publically denied Communion too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Elisabeth Widow,
Queen of Portugal

Mark Shea Missing the Point

When I get letters like this…
July 8, 2014 By Mark Shea

Anyway, a reader whose email handle is “syllabus.errorum” writes coyly in that “just wondering” way:
Quoting Letter
Mr Shea, Recently Pope Francis bowed and received a blessing from The Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal O’Malley received a blessing from a Female minister at a Methodist Temple. What’s going on? Thanks!
Don’t know anything about either story, but Jesus had his feet washed by a prostitute–and she wasn’t ordained at all. Bottom line: They are humble men. That’s the problem?

Er, no. A blessing formally given (not as in "God bless you" but as in using one's hands on the head or above the head of someone) and a service performed are two different things, the one implying superiority (at least occasional one) of giver of the blessing and the other implying rather inferiority and acknowledged such of performer. Isaac did not bless Abraham, nor bow down to Jacob so Jacob could bless him.

If Bergoglio were really Pope, he would definitely be superior in all ways to the Archbishop (improperly so called) of Canterbury. And if the latter wanted to wash the feet with tears, and dry them with his beard, that might be one thing. I really do not think a Pope should resort to accepting so extreme gestures from heretical clergy submitting - the problem being that giving a blessing was hardly a submission. It is the contrary. It is claiming a superiority.

If Bergoglio is not Pope, then he is not superior to the non-Archbishop of Canterbury. Oh, wait, if his sacerdotal ordination is valid, he is. So, if he is neither Pope nor even priest, then he is not superior to the non-priest and non-Archbishop of Canterbury, and in that case he could receive the blessing, if not in confidence at least without doing injury to his own office.

However, since he appears before so many Novus-Ordo Catholics as being a priest, a bishop, and their Pope, he is doing injury to the offices he appears to them as upholding.

However, if Mark Shea's defense of "Pope Francis" is very incomplete, he got one thing right: the woman who washed the feet of Our Lord wasn't ordained at all. And that is at least something. A clear parallel to Anglican "clergy" of either sex.*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Elisabeth of Portugal

*Certainly so if Pope Leo XIII was right about Anglican orders.

Monday, 7 July 2014

Une Plaque mémoriale et une actualité

1) Une Plaque mémoriale et une actualité, 2) Et Benoît Hamon en tout ça?, 3) À Cergy, on prépare une manif

Les deux faits:

DÉPORTÉS DE 1942 À 1944

14 juin 2003  NE LES OUBLIONS JAMAIS : Institutrice tuée à Albi : la mère d'élève mise en examen pour "assassinat"

Le rapport commun: Milieu scolaire.

Allons un peu plus loin avec le milieu scolaire. Un lycéen malheureux d'Irlande du Nord en école internat en Angleterre, un internat qu'il va plus tard surnommer "Belsen" en référence, certes pas aux tueries perpétrés là, mais aux humiliations subies par les survivants, écrit à son père. Il a le révolver. Il promet que si le père ne le sort pas de l'internat, il se tuera. Le père le sort, effectivement, de l'internat.

Il sera un grand écrivain. Nous lui devons pas mal d'apologies du Christianisme (il était athée ou presque au moment de faire le menace, son instituteur privé, qu'il aura grâce à son père le perfectionnera en athéisme, avant qu'il ne rencontre encore plus tard, après la guerre de 14-18, un autre officier de l'armée académicien à Oxford, Tolkien; qui est Catholique) ainsi que Le Monde de Narnia.

Ce bon tour de la vie du jeune "Jack" Lewis ou Clive Staples Lewis n'aurait pas eu lieu, si son père n'avait pas eu la liberté légale de sortir le fils de cet internat. Ni non plus si le père au lieu de le sortir l'avait mis en soins psychiatriques. Mais on est avant la guerre de 14, et la psychiatrie avait, très heureusement pour lui même, pour ses beau-fils qui vivent encore, et pour ses lecteurs qui se comptent en millions, pas encore ce genre de pouvoirs.

Pour retourner en Albi, de nos jours, la psychiatrie a davantage de pouvoirs. Qui pourront être néfastes pour la mère de 47 et pour la vie future de sa fille. Encore plus important, si cette mère avait eu (et sû qu'elle avait) la liberté de sortir sa fille de l'école, elle aurait fait ça, si l'institutrice était méchante avec elle, ou même si elle l'imaginait seulement, au lieu de tuer l'institutrice.

Au lieu de ça, elle avait moins de pouvoirs que quiconque d'autre à prendre une telle décision pour sa fille et contre le système scolaire.

L'expertise avait mis en évidence des "troubles mentaux sévères sous forme d'idées délirantes de persécution", alors qu'elle avait déjà été placée en hospitalisation sous contrainte en milieu psychiatrique en début d'année.

Si elle était persécutée par la psychiatrie, l'idée de persécution n'était pas si délirante que ça.

Si une persécution réelle avait touché la fille, elle était peut-être la seule à y faire attention. Donc, la fille a été mise en position affaiblie par le fait que la mère y était vis-à-vis une éventuelle persécutrice sur le plan social.

Et cet affaiblissement avait deux côtés: les soins psychiatriques subies contre sa volonté plus tôt dans l'année, et l'impossibilité de sortir sa fille de l'école. Pour le premier côté, une mère quelleconque qui a été mise en soins psychiatriques est par là affaiblie dans la liberté de prendre des décisions pour elle-même ou pour sa progéniture. Pour le second côté, peu importe qu'à l'époque où le jeune Lewis sort de son internat, si l'école avait été publique, si le parent avait été pauvre, déjà à l'époque une sortie de l'école aurait été aussi impossible que maintenant. Avant cette époque là, il y a eu d'autres époques, où un parent même pauvre n'a pas eu à subir l'arbitraire pédagogique de l'état.

Cet autre côté là avait aussi son côté néfaste pendant l'Occupation.

On pourrait faire des analyses, peut-être je le ferais plus tard, pourquoi cette plaque n'est pas de la crédibilité exemplaire que certaines autres plaques mémoriales. Par exemple aucun nombre précis donné, aucune date précise donnée, et s'il y a une plaque avec les noms du 12° Arr. déportés, alors elle n'était pas là.

Prenons, toutefois, la plaque à un maximum de véracité exacte. C'est au propos de l'école.

Une première déportation avait donc eu lieu en 1942. Pourquoi y aura-t-il d'autres? Parce que les parents juifs ne peuvent pas absenter leurs enfants de l'école publique, ça donnerait des soupçons. Pourquoi ne peuvent-ils ne pas absenter les enfants pour quelque motif légal sans donner des soupçons? Parce qu'il y avait l'obligation scolaire. Qui avait mis en place cette obligation scolaire? Pétain ou Laval pour plus facilement persécuter les Juifs? Ah non, quand même. Les coupables en cette question étaient une série de législateurs de la III° République! Jules Ferry et les autres.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre/Paris X
Sts Cyrille et Méthode

Saturday, 5 July 2014

Différence entre Capitalisme et Distributisme

SI dans un secteur comme les chaussures cent hommes sont les employés de cinq, dont

  • le premier emploie un apprenti, il fait les réparations
    (restent: 5 - 1 = 4, 100 - 1 = 99)

  • le deuxième fait des chaussures de luxe pour les dames et emploie cinq hommes, anciens cordonniers maître de métier
    (4 - 1 = 3, 99 - 5 = 94)

  • le troisième fait des chaussures d'enfants, il emploie vingt personnes
    (3 - 1 = 2, 94 - 20 = 74)

  • et les quatrième et cinquième sont deux concurrents qui font des chaussures pour tout le monde sauf les femmes qui achètent la version luxueuse (ou même pour elles en dehors de gala) et sauf les enfants, ils emploient 36 et 38
    (2 = 2, [36+38=] 74 = 74)

ALORS ce secteur est un secteur fortement capitaliste.

SI par contre les cinquante emploient les cinquante-cinq

  • le premier n'emploie aucun, il n'a plus son apprenti, il fait les réparations
    (50 - 1 = 49, 55 = 55)

  • les autres quarrante-huit emploient un apprenti ou compagnon de métier chacun, ils sont cordonniers de métier et font tout type de chaussures, hommes, femmes, enfants, et leurs apprentis ou compagnons seront souvent des cordonniers maîtres, donc libres entrepreneurs, du futur
    (49 - 48 = 1, 55 - 48 = 7)

  • le dernier est cordonnier de luxe, il emploie deux apprentis, trois compagnons, et deux partenaires subsidiaires ayant été cordonniers libres mais ayant perdu leur atelier suite à des dettes
    (1 = 1, [2+3+2=] 7 = 7)

ALORS ce secteur est distributiste.

On voit assez bien que le distributisme n'est ni anarchiste (105 cordonniers autoemployés sans avoir fait les étapes d'apprenti ni de compagnon de devoir, probablement tous capables à faire une seule variante de chaussure), ni communiste (105 salariés sous un administrateur non-cordonnier qui n'est pas propriétaire mais désigné par l'état-propriétaire).

On voit aussi assez bien que la situation distributiste est plus proche des anarchistes que des communistes (50 non-salariés est plus proche de 105 non-salariés que d'aucun non-salarié du tout, sinon arithmétiquement au moins moralement), tandis que la version capitaliste est plus proche des communistes que des anarchistes (être un employé peut-être parmi 20 et certainement parmi 36 ou 38 peut éventuellement rappeler en termes du stress et de l'aliénation le fait d'être un parmi 105, dans les deux cas sont à craindre les lignes de montage. Avec une spécialisation qui n'est plus celle du savoir, ni du savoir-faire mais du réflexe acquis.

Mais le communisme est une radicalisation normalement révolutionnaire de l'idéal capitaliste d'efficacité, et l'anarchisme est une radicalisation normalement révolutionnaire de l'idéal de l'autosuffisance.

Or, le capitalisme et le distributisme ont les deux fonctionné sous des conditions non-révolutionnaires. En fait, entre les deux, on peut bien dire dans le cadre de la Chrétienté, que c'est le capitalisme qui doit le plus aux révolutions, notamment celles du protestantisme, du colonialisme ou du libéralisme.

Ceci étant le cas, je vois avec consternation que ma déclaration depuis ma jeunesse, en tant que verbales, et depuis mes débuts sur internet en écrit aussi, d'être distributiste aient pu être interprêtées comme des déclarations d'une idéologie révolutionnaire, comme le communisme ou l'anarchisme. Ça veut dire que les gens ne savent plus lire. Une conséquence lourde du fait que l'école est majoritairement communiste et pour une minorité des élèves presque capitaliste. Rarement aussi petite qu'elle puisse être qualifiée de distributiste.

Pour un secteur condamné par la nature des choses d'être capitaliste, je suis syndicaliste ou corporativiste. Mais dans le général pour le gros des secteurs, je soutiens la préférabilité des petits entrepreneurs ayant la décision dans les entreprises à des gros entrepreneurs la partageant avec un syndicat, et des deux à des gros entrepreneurs ne la partageant pas avec un syndicat.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Antoine-Marie Zaccaria
Confesseur, Fondateur des Barnabites

Observations sur un Père Barnabite

J'allais faire une remarque sur une plaque commémorative, mais ça peut attendre à demain.

Aujourd'hui on fête St Antoine-Marie Zaccaria. Il était le fondateur des Barnabites. Comment donc pas penser au Père Père Redento Baranzano?

E - rue du collège [sur un plan* de Nessy:]

Emplacement du collège fondé par Eustache Chappuis en 1549 et où François fut élève. Le Père Redento Baranzano, religieux barnabite, y défendra quelques années plus tard les thèses de Copernic et les idées de Galilée, alors mises en question par l’Église. François de Sales, évêque, le soutient en 1617 quand il est rappelé par ses supérieurs à Milan, et obtient qu’il revienne dès l’année suivante à Annecy poursuivre son enseignement.

Vrai dedans est que le savant Barnabite fut rappelé à Milan chez ses supérieurs, et ensuite soutenu par l'évêque de Genève (résidant à Nessy, justement, puisque Genève même était occupé par les Calvinisants).

Et, qu'il était Barnabite et qu'il s'appelait Redento Barenzano est aussi vrai, ainsi que l'emplacement de ses mots devant étudiants.


  • il ne défendait pas la thèse de Galilée comme vraie, il défendait - ainsi que Copernic - que l'idée de celui-ci était possible. C'est différent, vrai et possible.
  • quand il s'agit de la vérité (plutôt que juste la possibilité) de l'héliocentrisme, la Sainte Église ne l'avait pas remise en question, mais condamné (toutefois, en 1616, sans une quelleconque censure contre son défenseur humain Galilée, comme l'a attesté St Robert Bellarmin)
  • St François de Sales n'a nullement défendu la thèse du Barnabite, comme une description de la réalité qui soit vraie, il a soutenu qu'il avait besoin des Barnabites qui parlaient bien le français. Celui-ci avait réussi à faire comprendre son système philosophique bien curieux et ça en langue française - quel exploit linguistique!

Donc, le texte est assez peu correct historiquement.

À part les fautes directes, il convient de noter encore quelques choses, auxquelles ne pense pas le lecteur modernisant.

  • les supérieurs à Milan étaient contre Barenzano parce qu'il était soupçonné d'être héliocentrique. Or, eux, et non lui-même, c'étaient les successeurs dans l'ordre du Saint Antoine-Marie;
  • la thèse, même comme hypothèse sur le philosophiquement possible ("si la lune est faite du fromage ..." de nos classes de philo) était curieuse et en fait inouie à Nessy;
  • la thèse héliocentrique n'était donc nullement une thèse "par défaut" que l'Église ou quiconque d'autre avait à respecter ou remettre en question, elle était une thèse inouie, qui remettait les thèses "par défaut" en question.

    Ceci nous mène à une autre observation:

  • St François de Sales était bien plus tolérant dans son jour vis-à-vis un Barnabite suspect d'Héliocentrisme, que certains modernistes le sont de nos jours, vis-à-vis un laïc suspect du Géocentrisme (et qui se confesse en fait Géocentrique).

    Et à ce temps là, un Géocentrique comme St François de Sales pouvait avoir la culture et la curiosité philosophique de comprendre la possibilité philosophique de l'Héliocentrisme. De nos jours, les Héliocentriques ont assez mal à comprendre même la possibilité (à part la facticité) du Géocentrisme.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Antoine Marie Zaccaria
Fondateur des Barnabites
5 - VII - 2014

* Plan d'à Nessy par la Diocèse

Parcourir les rues et ruelles du vieil Annecy, c’est un peu suivre François de Sales et Jeanne de Chantal dans les rue de la“Nessy” du XVIIesiècle les jours demarché (mardi et vendredimatin) où se côtoient paysans, commerçants, artisans, ménagères, touristes... Microcosme de la société appelée à la sainteté, avec ses haltes spirituelles, ses églises ( la cathédrale Saint-Pierre aux Liens, les églises Saint-François, Saint-Maurice, Notre-Dame de Liesse), son château et ses vieilles prisons.

Friday, 4 July 2014

Did God create ALL?

Specific series of questions on the theme:

  • tectonic plates? (As in what causes earth quakes and tsunamis...)
  • viruses?
  • diseases?

It might seem the pre-Flood world had a single tectonic plate for all earth, which thus caused neither earth quakes nor tsunamis until the Flood. Part of the immediate causality (thus contemporary Flood geologists argue) was a breaking forth of the wells of the deep (Bible text itself), and since (here is the reasoning) they had been covered with that one plate, it had to break for them to get through it. Every earthquake and every tsunami is thus a minor tiny reminder:

  • of the Flood
  • of futire judgement.

So tectonic plates are neither outside God's creation, nor totally as the state like which He first created it all.

And the same in a way foes for viruses and diseases.

I was once challenged on retroviruses as a proof of evolution. Such and such places in the genome look, to evolutionists, like remnants of virus infections suffered by ancestors. Some of these parts are even in corresponding places between man and apes. So, they argue, it had to have been virus infections in ancestors common to us and them.

There is an obvious way of turning this around: viruses come from broken off bits of such genome sequences. Perhaps Rob Skiba would suggest sth else about the pre-Flood genetic engineering, if demons doing it would have used viruses. But to get back to my idea, the corresponding places are places where they have some use in human and chimp genomes, known to God, and virus infections may break forth from those (after the Fall of Adam) or from similar sequences in other beasts.

So, as to viral infections, this is accounted for by viruses being broken off bits of what was earlier all healthy. What about the bacterial infections?

There are two obvious ways in which an originally totally good creation could - once Adam had fallen - start bringing them about.

Innocent bacteria can develop into hurtful ones. We know salmonella and Escherichia coli are very similar. We know one of the differences (among some others too) is how salmonella can use citric acid and Escherichia normally cannot or will not in same amount. And we know Escherichia have mutated (during a great laboratory experiment) into using citric acid or doing so more exuberantly, thus getting one step more similar to salmonella.

I can very easily imagine salmonella is a mutated Escherichia. There are even other mutations of Escherichia which are pathogenic, though still identified as Escherichia rather than as salmonella. But then there are Escherichia variants that are good for our intestins as well. Obviously the one that existed before the Fall of Adam was so.

Another way is variation of host: a bacterium that is harmless on one host will be harmful or even killing on another. Fleas are not bothered by the Yersinia bacterium which due to its effect on rats and men is called Yersinia pestis. Some flu virus that is not painful to birds will be more painful on men. Weakening of man after Fall and after Flood is also a kind of change of host: not between different kinds of host, but between different varities of same kind of host. Imagine a heavy weight boxer giving two litres of blood per month. It won't bother him much. But he should'nt do it if he gets old and loses much of his weight. Nor should a skinny fakir do so.

Some bacteria can, without changing at all, have become pathogens to us, simply because we are now weaker. Weaker than before the Flood, and weaker than before Adam fell. We aren't getting any stronger, at least not mankind as a whole, not before the day of Resurrection.

To return to the tsunami in Christmas 2004, it was where sex tourists were going and where local authorities were callous about the corruption of poor children in their own countries. One scenario (not Rob Skiba's or not his main one) for what could be meant with "all flesh was corrupt". And the tsunami of Fukushima came after a Japanese manga lampooning Our Lord (by putting "Him" and "Buddha" together in a modern apartment) was published in a Christian country, namely France. I think God was patient when it was only in Japan, since the Christian view point would have been less obvious to Japanese author or original Japanese readers.

Want to avoid bad things happening? Well, Rosaries for penance and stopping blasphemy, abortion and sodomy would perhaps be useful. Will all that come, or will Harmageddon come first?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Hosea and Haggai, Prophets
4th of July, 2014

One could add a question about "homosexuality". God very obviously did not create the act of sodomy, that is a twist on sex that evil men have invented or been inspired by demons to commit. But in some cultures some people seem to be from very early on predisposed to affactions that can either lead to such wicked acts or to asexuality, and, since the latter is more difficult, often leads to sodomy. However, I think in such cases traits that are in that culture seen as typical of one sex but are not tied to the one or other sex chromosome may come through in ways that are seen as too typical of the opposite sex in the eyes of very machist cultures and too much suspect in advance of sodomy in cultures with homohysteria. Romans ties homosexual passions to idolatry and machism and homohysteria may be tied to idolatry of some sort. For instance, Judaism is more machist and homohysterical than Catholicism (though also more homotolerant) and this can have roots in Jewish idolatry and fruits in Jews becoming more often homosexuals, self described or described by others as inept for a normal marriage.