Most people who think that never knew me (that would include psychiatrists involved in some stay at such hospitals, I do not confide in such persons).
Some who may be manipulating lots of others may be people who knew me more than 20 years ago.
My writing is not a monastic duty, it is not a byproduct of a monastic duty of contemplation. It is not a pastoral duty of a missionary.
My writing is writing ... as in engaged writing of a writer. I'm a Geocentric whether I prayed 153 Hail Mary's on a full 15 mysteries Rosary or I hurried past even saying three Hail Marys before going to bed, and woke up with a curse on the persons who woke me up too early. I'm a Young Earth Creationist, both situations. I enjoy writing for my convictions, I hate being censored. And pretending "he's sharing too much of his contemplation" from an Orthodox who thinks erroneously I have monastic duties, and pretending "poor guy, he thinks he has to be a monk to please God, even if he doesn't like it" are both incorrect.
If in 1998 I had been allowed to leave for a monastery, I would probably have made adequation to the private vow (made in a dangerous situation) by doing a year's novitiate, and I would probably have left or been told to leave and obeyed. If I had at least not been transferred from prison to forensic psychiatry, I could have calmly dealt with the issue when going out. In psychiatry, I was forced to give SOME kind of account (remember, that's not the same as confiding) about my intentions, and that involved telling I considered it my duty to try out a monastery. I was told to write then and there, and got a refusal.
As far as I am concerned, that refusal settles it. I'm free to marry. I did not feel a need to delve on it when I was getting liberated. Some guy may have got the idea I need to be cured of a scrupulous haunting of a ghost of a vocation that simply doesn't exist. That would explain a lot, and those types banding together with Catholic clergy in some kind of condominate, that has destroyed my life since I got out, in 2000. To be clear, I was not judged as too mentally ill to live a normal life when I got out, just to be too disturbed to be safe in prison. Per se, there was no need to get me a follow up, on any sane way of seing it.
However, the guys who pretend I'm a scrupulous guy, just like the guys who think I'm some kind of monk who hasn't learned the worth of silence, both have been active in isolating me, and therefore both have stopped me from marrying.
They kind of destroyed my position in Sweden just after I came out of prison, for instance by legislating (in 2000) that a man judged for a violent or sexual crime cannot be hired as a teacher. Maybe some think this makes sense. Does it still make sense if the "violent crime" either was or was at least seen as self defense? I got out free from the first trial, for putative self defense. I got 3 years 6 months in the second trial, for grave mistreatment alternatively attempt of unpremeditated homicide (what it would have been if the policeman had not been trying to get me into a mental hospital), and when I got out, I was not told to go to a psychologist or take medication, I was simply under a supervision that was supposed to end in 2006.
Now, 2006 is 18 years ago.
Keeping me under supervision when I have done no more violent crime, even presumed such, makes no sense. But my act of self defense clearly does make sense, I was defending myself against people who are as eager to keep treating a presumed "not quite sane" guy as the Wiesenthal Center is to catch a Nazi criminal of the type which the Denazification processes in the American Zone considered Hauptschuldige, but one who got away and has them for judge or jury instead of Patton's judges.
For those who think I actually made some sexual crime, I was in two court trials for one act, done 5th February 1998, and that act was the act of self defense. Not against the policeman as an agent of justice, but against the policeman as "lending his hand" to the process of psychiatry. It's called "handräckning" in Swedish. I do believe in justice, I do believe criminals often are people who deserve to be punished, and I do also believe that punishment is limited by ill deserts. But I do not believe in psychiatry. Those people know no limits, because they imagine their own acts totally beneficient and the least reserve their victim, "beneficiary" has of being their beneficiary just proves he is ill and needs even more help. I am aware psychiatry was a harder place to be in before the 1970's. But I am also aware, outside the East Block, much fewer people went there.
By bad guesses, they can ruin lives.
So can people who somehow get the idea that if they back off from someone they think is mad, that's because of some corruption. Trump just made a speech about Muslim Terrorists. I'd like to use similar words about Muslims who think I'm mad, who think they would do me a favour by getting me to a country where I would be likelier to get into conflicts with people who would (just as the people of a certain school district in the country-side) be likely to resolve the conflicts with psychiatry, that is by pushing me back to a neverending story of lost freedoms and imposed "friendships" I don't see as such. People who try too hard to fix someone else are likely to ruin him. By the way, Muslims are not alone, and not all Muslims seem to do that. But those who are not Muslims, how do they get such a talent for putting people in a Dhimmi status?
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Rufus and Zosimus
18.XII.2024
Philippis, in Macedonia, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Rufi et Zosimi, qui ex illorum numero discipulorum fuerunt, per quos primitiva Ecclesia in Judaeis et Graecis fundata est; de quorum etiam felici agone scribit sanctus Polycarpus in epistola ad Philippenses.
PS, I wonder how many of my readers from India are comparing me to a certain K. C. Paul.
The 24th KIFF honoured him by making a movie on him, named Surjo Prithibir Chardike Ghore (Sun Goes Around The Earth) directed by Arijit Biswas. According to the news article of Ei Samay Sangbadpatra published of 11 November 2018, the film concentrates more on the strong belief of K.C. Paul and his character rather than his concept. Paul's name in the film is TC Paul. KC Paul has promised to hand leaflets to all his audience and lecture on his geocentric concept.
I'd be horrified for that kind of thing to happen. I'm trying to mediatise my concept, not my person. Like Robert Sungenis. I actually became a Geocentric a year before the latter. I'm not offering a kind of reality show or contest about character. I'm offering debate about the arguments./HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment