dimanche 26 avril 2015

Pius XI, Dollfuss, Mussolini - a Debate with a Wholehearted Admirer of the Latter

Background
I had on a FB photo commented that Italian Fascism was better before introducing in 1938 Carta della Razza (before which moment there was no at least officially or directly racist policy, and that means the beginnings of Italian Fascism were in that respect better than later. Perhaps a few more things. I get a PM:

JW to HGL
April 12th, 1:34pm
On Benito Mussolini being a great Catholic and Italian hero Look these are some of the things that Benito Mussolini did for Italy! :

  • Mussolini ordered crucifixes to be put back in classrooms and courtrooms.

  • He made religious instruction mandatory in schools.

  • He brought respect back to the Church and to religion in a time when anti-clericalism dominated Italy.

  • He eliminated Freemasonry.

  • He eliminated the Mafia. "By the beginning of the Second World War, the Mafia was restricted to a few isolated and scattered groups and could have been completely wiped out... “- Michael Pantaleone

  • He decreased crime.

  • He created food packages for the poor.

  • He oversaw the Italianization of Italian territories.

    [Including of what he called Alto Adige and I call Südtirol]

  • He brought fear and respect back to Italy, after Italy had been treated as second-class by the English, French, and Austrians.

    [By Austrians? Here is some confusion. Austro-Hungarian Empire could have been considered to "look down on Italy" before 1870 or even up to WW-I - but Mussolini was not involved in changing that. In Mussolini's time such a large Austria no longer existed, so it cannot have done so either.]


The list is endless for what Mussolini did for Italy.

Benito Mussolini made Catholicism the official religion in Italy:

Citing Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, Capo 1., Art. 6:
"La religione cattolica apostolica e romana è la sola religione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana." (The Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion is the only religion of the State.)

Resuming his words:
Benito Mussolini made religious education mandatory in schools:

Citing Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, Capo II., Art. 86:
"La Repubblica Sociale Italiana considera fondamento e coronamento dell’istruzione pubblica l’insegnamento della Dottrina cristiana secondo la forma ricevuta dalla tradizione cattolica: perciò l’insegnamento religioso è obbligatorio nelle scuole pubbliche elementari e medie. La legge può stabilire particolari casi di esenzione." (The Italian Social Republic considers as the foundation and fulfillment of public education the teaching of Christian doctrine in the form received from the Catholic tradition: therefore religious education is obligatory in public elementary schools and secondary schools. The law may establish certain exceptions.)

[That was only in Salò Republic, and as much as Austrofascists did.]

Resuming his words:
Benito Musssolini made the Vatican an independent State. Without Mussolini there is no Vatican City. Benito Mussolini was actually the first Fascist leader to come to power as well! Benito Mussolini came to power in 1922, Francisco Franco in 1939, and Adolf Hitler in 1933. On February 13, 1929, Pope Pius XI praised Mussolini as the man "who was sent to us by Providence" and shortly after ordered the clergy to say a prayer "for the King and the Duce" ("Pro Rege et Duce") at the end of daily mass. Soon after the pope's speech, four weeks before the invasion, the cardinal's legate once again celebrated Mussolini as "the man of Providence" at the national Eucharist Congress. Many clergy also said this man was divinely appointed by God! :

Citations:
"Just as the "Divina Mens" sent Octavian; so also in Italy there arose the Man of Providence, the Man of Genius, who saved the State, and founded the Empire, and gave a more perfect consciousness of Italian national unity and religious peace." - Cardinal Schuster

The renowned Padre Pio also praised Mussolini: “Mussolini is one of the greatest politicians that I have ever seen, his views reflect the sake of what is written in the holy Bible and is the perfect driver of humanity." - Padre Pio

[Not totally doubtful, but a closer reference to where in their works or biographies would be appreciated.]

Resuming his words:
Mussolini was overwhelmingly loved, it is in fact a characteristic of his rule which non-polemical authors even admit. (Fact: His body was desecrated by Yugoslavian Communists and Italian Partisans that were also Communists NOT his own people)

Citing Luisa Quartermaine in 'Mussolini's Last Republic' (2000):
"I shall be very clear about this. Mussolini was loved by the people, but was hated by those who knew that his revolution would gradually destroy their privileges. He was hated also by a few ambitious politicians and officers, who could not accept their inferiority when compared with his genius, and aspired to take over from him."

Citing Sugata Bose in 'His Majesty's Opponent' (2011):
"It seems to me that the majority of the Italian people love the iron government of Mussolini."

Resuming his words:
Benito Mussolini even kept a confessor! A personal priest, Fr. Tacchi Venturi! It was Fr. Venturi who baptized Mussolini's kids in 1923, married him to his wife in 1925 (in a solemn religious service/ a Catholic marriage), helped with the Lateran Pacts in 1929, etc.

Regarding Mussolini being an atheist: His only time as an atheist was during his Socialist days, approximately the early 1900's to approximately 1919 or 1920 or so. A period of about 15 years. He was Catholic the entire rest of his life, both before and after that period.

He officially ceased to be a Socialist between 1914- 1919.

He was Catholic definitely by 1920. Possibly earlier.There is the fact that he married his wife in a religious ceremony, after having already been married to her civilly. He made it a sacrament.

[Though that could be because SHE was a Catholic, like his brother and his mother.]

I have a couple early quotes from him from 1920- 1923 or thereabouts:

Citing:
“I maintain that the Imperial and Latin tradition of Rome is represented today by Catholicism.”
-Benito Mussolini, Speech Before the Chamber, June 21, 1921

"Fascism is not an anti-religious movement. Fascism is not anti-religious in general, and is not anti-Christian or anti-Catholic in particular."
- Benito Mussolini, Article from Il Popolo d'Italia, July 27, 1922

"My spirit is deeply religious. Religion is a fundamental force which must be respected and defended. I am therefore opposed to anti-clerical and atheistic demagogy, which represents an old game. I affirm that Catholicism is a great spiritual and moral power, and trust that the relations between the Italian State and the Vatican will henceforth be very friendly."
— Benito Mussolini, Statements Made in Lausanne, November 21, 1922

"Fascism respects religion; it is not atheist, it is not anti-Christian, it is not anti-Catholic. It rarely happens that a Fascist funeral rite is secular."
-Article from Il Popolo d'Italia, May 25, 1922

Citing Other quotes:
"Just before I came out here I went into the church and knelt before the altar. That was not done to pay superficial homage to the religion of the State ; it was the expression of an intimate conviction, for I believe that a people cannot become great and powerful, conscious of its destinies, without religion ; unless it looks on religion and feels the need of it as an essential element of its public and private life. With this thought as motive for your actions you will see how country is served above all in silence, humility, discipline, without many or great phrases but with unfailing daily works."
— Benito Mussolini, Speech in Vicenza, September 23, 1924

The Doctrine of Fascism: Benito Mussolini (1932)
"Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only the forms of life but their content - man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this propose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway. Therefore it has chosen as its emblem the Lictor’s rods, the symbol of unity, strength, and justice."

“My labor had not been easy nor light; our Masonry had spun a most intricate net of anti-religious activity; it dominated the currents of thought; it exercised its influence over publishing houses, over teaching, over the administration of justice and even over certain dominant sections of the armed forces. To give an idea of how far things had gone, this significant example is sufficient. When, in parliament, I delivered my first speech of November 16, 1922, after the Fascist revolution, I concluded by invoking the assistance of God in my difficult task. Well, this sentence of mine seemed to be out of place! In the Italian parliament, a field of action for Italian Masonry, the name of God had been banned for a long time. Not even the Popular party the so-called Catholic party had ever thought of speaking of God. In Italy, a political man did not even turn his thoughts to the Divinity. And, even if he had ever thought of doing so, political opportunism and cowardice would have deterred him, particularly in a legislative assembly. It remained for me to make this bold innovation! And in an intense period of revolution! What is the truth! It is that a faith openly professed is a sign of strength. I have seen the religious spirit bloom again; churches once more are crowded, the ministers of God are themselves invested with new respect. Fascism has done and is doing its duty.”
- Benito Mussolini, My Rise (Autobiography), 1928

Resuming:
On the Fascist symbol, is it pagan? : First of all, just because a symbol is used by people who were pagans does not make it a pagan symbol. Not every symbol used by ancient people has a religious meaning. The Fascist symbol is the Fascio Littorio or Lictors Rods, also called a Fasces. It is a bundle of rods and an axe tied together with a rope. It symbolizes authority and unity in society. This has nothing to do with paganism or theology. It is actually a Protestant mentality, found very often in anti-Catholic literature.

"Pagans used candles, therefore Catholics are pagan; pagans invented the Roman institutions, therefore the Catholic Church practices paganism; pagans breathed oxygen, therefore true Christians should kill themselves"

etc.

What is Fascism? Fascism: A great political ideology! Fascism stands for Traditionalism; it believes in traditional social, family, and religious values. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre, to set up a "god" of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. Fascism indeed has its moral code; it proclaims true Catholic ethics as its moral character. It is for this reason that true Catholicism completes Fascism; for without it, Fascism would not be the same. In keeping with this moral code, Fascism opposes homosexuality, egalitarianism, feminism, contraception, abortion, pornography, etc. as against nature and as detrimental to society. Fascism is also not opposed to a Monarchy, for the first 20 years the Italian Fascist State was officially a Catholic Monarchy. Many Fascists are also strong supporters of Irredentism. No aspects of Fascism as an ideology are heretical.

[That depends on who defines Fascist ideology - a book of Gentile was on the index. By the way, I had NOT called the Fasces a pagan symbol.]

And neither Mussolini, nor any Fascist Party member, were ever formally excommunicated, like the Communists were.

Citing Emilio Papasogli, in 1923:
"In truth, Fascismo constitutes the reaction of the Latin mind and of Catholicism against the aberrations and the degeneracies of the modern spirit. The ascendancy of modern thought, born with the Protestant reformation and developed through the French revolution, is now at an end. With Fascismo, reaction and renovation, a new age begins."

And moreover:
"What is Italy defending? Italy is defending her Catholic faith with equal violence from 'Russian' Bolshevism on the one side, and the confusing and sectarian doctrines of the Anglo-Saxons governed by Jewry on the other."
— Carlo Scorza, Secretary of the National Fascist Party, July 18, 1943.

Pius XI felt the need to write against both Germany and Italy, and the Holy Office under him condemned anti-Semitism, but never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes. Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement.You can read the concordat/ Lateran treaty of 1929 here! :

THE LATERAN TREATY
11th February, 1929
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf


Regarding who was right Benito Mussolini or Pope Pius XI: Pope Pius XI was in the wrong. Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state). He was not content with the fact that Catholicism was mandatory in state schools. This was the main point of contention. The other point was the issue of Catholic youth groups, which were "hotbeds" of democratic and anti-fascist political propaganda. The groups were supposed to be purely spiritual and apolitical (non-political), but continued to privately promote anti-fascism. Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat.

There was no country in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's that was more Catholic than Italy. Italy was one of the few countries in Europe at the time that still had an official religion, and which also mandated religious instruction in schools. While Portugal (in the 1920's) and Spain (in the 1930's) were being overrun by socialists, anarchists, anti-clericals and Masons, the Church was flourishing in Italy; crucifixes were in every classroom; new churches were built; priests blessed the founding of new cities; every flag, banner and monument was blessed; Fascist funerals were solemn religious services; Fascists partipated in all Catholic ceremonies and observed Holy Days; Fascists advanced the cult of St. Francis and St. Catherine; Canon Law was the official law of the State. Name one State that was more Catholic in this period. People love to go on about Catholic Poland, but many people do not realize that Catholic Poland recognized Talmudic Judaism alongside Christianity in their constitution. People also love to go on about Catholic Austria, but even Catholic Austria, which had a very pro-Catholic government in 1934, did not make Catholicism the official religion of the State when they issued their new constitution.

[They had a strong Calvinist minority in Burgenland - which contributed to Nazism, btw. Hungary just East was NOT confessionally Catholic and Horthy was a Calvinist.]

Some extra sources for my "On Benito Mussolini being a great Catholic and Italian hero " article here:

[Lists:]
  • the Duce on religious matters generally." here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Tacchi_Venturi


    [I think the article has changed since he looked at it.]

  • Regarding Catholic action violating the Concordat we read "and when Fascists said that catholic action was disloyal they were right to the extent that some real opposition to Fascism in Italy grew with time" even though Pius XI denied it, here:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=nqloAAAAMAAJ&q=and+when+fascists+said+that+catholic+action+was+disloyal+they+were+right+to&dq=and+when+fascists+said+that+catholic+action+was+disloyal+they+were+right+to&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hwPnVIWqMYevogTt2YLgDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA

  • In 1924 a law was passed mandating crucifixes in all schools , courts and hospitals. It's a well known law that became controversial a few years ago when crucifixes were banned. Here is a classroom from the Fascist period:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/0/0f/Aule_nel_1930.JPG

  • This is simply a matter of looking up dates. I don't know why this can not be done without me having to do all the work. The most notable church is the Chiesa di Sant' Antonio da Padova built in Predappio, Mussolini's birthplace, thanks to donations by Mussolini's family. It can be viewed here:

    http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_Sant%27Antonio_%28Predappio%29

  • Just one example, the new city of Aprilia being blessed:

    http://lnx.lepinimagazine.it/lepini/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/posa-prima-pietra-Aprilia.jpg

  • As for banners, flags, etc. being blessed, there are hundreds of examples.

    Here is a gonfanon (banner) being blessed by Cardinal Gasparri:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i5aVkUXctU

  • Mussolini himself said that Fascist funerals were very rarely secular. One example of a solemn Catholic service here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qoGSvZQK8s

  • Mussolini himself speaks of the salary of priests in his Autobiography, here:

    https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography

  • The advancement of the cult of Saint Catherine of Siena in Fascist Italy can be read about here:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=18DBLbQ8kpEC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=it+was+against+this+background+that+the+promotion+of+the+cult+of+saint+catherine&source=bl&ots=PbzBxm1qPh&sig=0J1S7fRSK4AbITt_y-5gZWKtgM0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7__mVIm1L5CwogSj_YCgDw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=it%20was%20against%20this%20background%20that%20the%20promotion%20of%20the%20cult%20of%20saint%20catherine&f=false

  • It is well known that Fascists celebrated the 700th anniversary of St. Francis in 1926, with Mussolini honoring him in his speech, and urged the Vatican to make him the Patron of Italy, which it did in 1939. Mussolini praised Saint Francis of Assisi as the "the most Saintly of Italians, and the most Italian of Saints." Mussolini also declared October 4th a National holiday in the Saints honor. This can be read here:

    Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy
    Christopher Duggan
    https://books.google.com/books?id=Lkuo4RmOncoC&pg=PA109&dq=%22the+most+Saintly+of+Italians,+and+the+most+Italian+of+Saints.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MgHnVILgOZHWoASi-4K4Dw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20most%20Saintly%20of%20Italians%2C%20and%20the%20most%20Italian%20of%20Saints.%22&f=false


  • Benito Mussolini made Canon Law (Church disciplinary laws) the official law of the State: The references to Canon Law can be found in theLateran Accords of 1929, here:

    THE LATERAN TREATY
    11th February, 1929
    http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf


The May Constitution is from 1791. That's two centuries prior to what we're even talking about. We're talking about the Poland of the interwar period, the Poland which is defended and extolled as a great Catholic country, while Italy is condemned. The Polish Constituion of March 1921 was very controversial, and Catholic clergy at the time were outraged. It is written about here:

[Link given as: http://books.google.com/books?id=RUOMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92... =?=]

Poland in the Modern World: Beyond Martyrdom
Brian Porter-Szücs
http://books.google.fr/books?id=RUOMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&redir_esc=y


Citing Article 114 of the Constitution states:
"Wyznanie rzymsko-katolickie, będące religią przeważającej większości narodu, zajmuje w państwie naczelne stanowisko wśród równouprawnionych wyznań." "The Roman Catholic religion, being the religion of the overwheliming majority of the nation, will have a primacy among other religions which all have equal rights."

Resuming his words:
Therefore there was no State religion, and all other religions, including Judaism and Protestantism, were considered to have equal rights. All that is awarded to Catholicism is a sort of "primacy of honour" ("first amongst equals") because most of the populace was Catholic. This is word for word the same policy of Napoleon, who is also criticized and condemned by traditional Catholics for his religious policies. Yet these same people give their undying devotion and support to "Catholic Poland" and condemn Italy -- which was undoubtedly more Catholic at the time than Poland. And while the Polish Constitution was met with outrage in 1921, the Italian Lateran pact was met with universal praise in 1929.

My friend a true Italian Fascist gave me this information.

[I think he might have gotten my reference to Pilsudski wrong. I had said nothing implying that Pilsudski régime was more Catholic, though I considered Austrian was, since Austrofascists considered themselves obliged for societal organisation by the Popes' words. I said that if Mussolini had not invaded Ethiopia, which was anyway an ambition inherited from the bad old anti-Catholic days of Risorgimento, Mussolini and Pilsudski instead of Hitler could have led sth like Operation Barbarossa to deliver Russia and Ukraine and Belorussia from Communism - and they would have done a better job. That is a compliment to Mussolini too, not just to Pilsudski.]

HGL to JW
April 12th, 9:22pm
"He brought respect back to the Church and to religion in a time when anti-clericalism dominated Italy."

I'd like this to be true. But he upheld some kinds of anticlerical activities, as Pius XI complained in Non abbiamo bisogno.

"He eliminated Freemasonry."

One of the viceroys of Italy, I think Badoglio, was a Mason.

Generally speaking, his mother and his brother Alessandro were pious Catholics, he not so clearly, or at least at times very clearly not.

This does not mean a Catholic cannot be a Fascist or admire him.

"He brought fear and respect back to Italy, after Italy had been treated as second-class by the English, French, and Austrians."

In my book, first of all Austria had not treated Italy as second class up to any act of Mussolini, second, Austria owes a mixed gratitude to Mussolini, he defended Austria against Anschluss in 36, but no longer in 38, third and most important, Austria was a far more Catholic country than influential parts of Italy.

"Benito Musssolini made the Vatican an independent State. Without Mussolini there is no Vatican City."

Owed back to Popes was in reality all of Papal States. He wiggled that out of Pius XI.

"Benito Mussolini came to power in 1922, Francisco Franco in 1939, and Adolf Hitler in 1933."

Engelbert Dollfuss became a Fascist dictator in 1933. I hold Engelbert Dollfuss far over Hitler, and somewhat over Franco and Mussolini as well.

Not meaning I hate Mussolini or anything like that, he's just more problematic than Dollfuss.

"On February 13, 1929, Pope Pius XI praised Mussolini as the man "who was sent to us by Providence" and shortly after ordered the clergy to say a prayer "for the King and the Duce" ("Pro Rege et Duce") at the end of daily mass."

And a bit later, as this was fulfilling his part of agreement, Pope Pius XI, without abrogating these measures, complained Mussolini had not kept his side of the bargain. Non abbiamo bisogno, as said.

He praised Dollfuss more by agreeing the latter was applying Quadragesimo Anno correctly. And he never took that back.

JW to HGL
April 12th, 10:36pm
Pius XI felt the need to write against both Germany and Italy, and the Holy Office under him condemned anti-Semitism, but never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes. Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement.You can read the concordat/ Lateran treaty of 1929 here! :

THE LATERAN TREATY
11th February, 1929
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf


Regarding who was right Benito Mussolini or Pope Pius XI: Pope Pius XI was in the wrong. Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state). He was not content with the fact that Catholicism was mandatory in state schools. This was the main point of contention. The other point was the issue of Catholic youth groups, which were "hotbeds" of democratic and anti-fascist political propaganda. The groups were supposed to be purely spiritual and apolitical (non-political), but continued to privately promote anti-fascism. Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat.

HGL to JW
April 13th, 9:09am
"never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes."

  • 1) He condemned eugenic crimes in Casti Connubii.

    Racial legislations about marriage are also a Jewish crime, originated in synagogue saying "you may marry someone of Jewish origin whether they are baptised or not" and imitated by Hitler in Nuremberg laws of 1936 and alas by Mussolini too in 1938, which Mussolini had condemned as late as his interview for Chesterton, see the latter's The Resurrection of Rome (1930).

  • 2) He condemned Capitalistic crimes in Quadragesimo Anno. Dollfuss, whom he supported, had removed Jews from administartion with individual exceptions and also forbidden them access to Catholic Universities;

  • 3) He condemned Communism;

  • 4) Killing Christian children had hardly been done since back in the Beyliss case in Russia [1911];

  • 5) Zionist crimes were not yet being done on a large scale, and if any Church officials in Palestine were condemning such, they probably enjoyed full support of Pope Pius XI.


So, Pope Pius XI was condemning Jewish criminality everywhere where it was to be condemned.

[If we were to extend list of Judaeo-Typical crimes to 6, religious crime of Judaism, it was Pius XII who started loosing up the condemnation for that in some respects, not Pius XI, and to 7, psychiatry, this crime was shared by Mussolini.]

"Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. "

That is not really the version I think Pius XI would have agreed to.

"Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement."

If a Catholic group in US would say "you must not vote for pro-abortion politicians", would it be doing "politics"? Or would it be doing catechism, thus religion?

I think the latter!

[Of course, Mussolini was not as bad as abortion liberals!]

"Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state)."

  • 1) Parents as in neither Church nor state is FULLY realised when parents decide without any State interference who they hadn their children over to for education.

    Catholic parents would homeschool, give children over to Catholic artisans for apprenticeships or give them over to schools of the Church. Protestant or Atheist parents would not do so, and neither would state enforce them doing so anyway, nor would Church ask that, as long as it was not a group the Church asked to suppress anyway (like Albigensians in 1300). As long as they had a right to exist in civil liberty, they also had a right to decide freely on schools.

    In the Papal States before 1870, Jews were NOT required to send children to Catholic schools. The one Mortara case, the baptised Jewish child was practically homeschooled by Pope Pius IX of venerable memory.

  • 2) This was NOT the case in Italy. The Excommunicated Kings of the robber state which had violated Papal States, Austria and Two Sicilies had instituted school compulsion of some sort.

    This being so, Church had a right to defend the conscience of Catholic parents within schools it was not directly running. Namely those which the State was forcing Catholic parents to send their sons and daughters to.


So, Pius XI was perfectly in the right.

Moreoever, Italian schools under the 19th C. liberals were certainly, and under Mussolini at least still possibly honouring men like Galileo and Giordano Bruno. This was possibly a breach of Lateran Treaty on part of Mussolini, and certainly, if continued under him, a breach against the natural law and the respect due to the conscience of parents.

You said he "got greedy". Well, I say the Lateran Treaty was his NOT being "greedy" enough. He committed basically a crime of treason against the Papal States by handing most of them over to Italy.

That said, my take on Mussolini is his one problem was being too loyal to Italy as established by the excommunicated Sardinian tyrants. And that means I hate Vittorio Emmanuele II and Cavour and the Roman Mayor Nathan in a way I do not hate Mussolini.

Mussolini could also have avoided the Ethiopian misadventure, if he hadn't been inheritor of the ambitions of 19th C. idiotic liberals of nationalist bent. AND if the freemason Badoglio had not been sent as viceroy there. At least possibly.

If anything, Pius XI was too weak against Italy.

"Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat."

If this is so, that means that Pius XI may have been ignorant of what was going on.

[Other explanation, see below after I actually looked up article 43 - I had considered JW as a man capable of reading with reading comprehension up to giving this answer, and then later - see below - found I was wrong.]

That would mean that part of his complaints (that part) in Non abbiamo bisogno, was due to his being misinformed about fact.

Let us hope he was so, rather than hypocritical.

JW to HGL
April 14th, 3:01am
""Italy illegally took the Pope's land, Pope Pius IX excommunicated all those who supported Italy."

I think that the person who said this needs to mind their own business; that matter was settled nearly 100 years ago, move on.

It is funny that the people clamouring for the restoration of the papal states are people who do not come from Italy, and apparently are not well versed in history.

The Vatican State is the modern papal state, and the pope in 1929 (Pope Pius XI) relinquished all claim to other parts of Italy, and was given compensation. In other words, THE PAPACY HAS ALREADY RENOUNCED THE TERRITORIES IN EXCHANGE FOR MONETARY COMPENSATION AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE VATICAN CITY-STATE ON THE PART OF ITALY.

Who are you (or anyone else) to start claiming for the popes what the popes themselves have renounced?

Yes, the siezure in the 19th century was illegal, but that makes no difference now, because today (and ever since 1929) Italy has legally possessed all the territories, and the popes have recognized this fact.

And if these people want the pope to have more land, then go ahead and offer him their own country.

This siezure wasn't even under Mussolini either, it was during the Italian Wars of Independence in the 19th century, which led to the Roman Question, which was solved in 1929 by Benito Mussolini.

The pope was given millions in compensation, he was given a library by Mussolini, the Vatican State was recognized as independent and sovereign. And in exchange the pope relinquished all claims to Rome and Italy.

So, it really doesn't matter what Pius IX said or did, because Pius XI made his own political decisions in the name of the papacy."

HGL to JW
April 14th, 12:23pm
"I think that the person who said this needs to mind their own business; that matter was settled nearly 100 years ago, move on."

If so, why don't you move on about Mussolini's honour and the breaches of the Lateran Treaty?

Either we can or we can't take sides in past conflicts.

I'm not the one saying we can't.

But you are basically saying you can and I can't.

"Who are you (or anyone else) to start claiming for the popes what the popes themselves have renounced?"

Cardinal Stickler claimed there were according to Canonists three things even a Pope cannot touch. One of them is "Status Ecclesiae". He did not decide what it means. I think it means "Kirchenstaat" = "Papal States".

In other words, Pope Pius XI overstepped his competence in granting Papal States outside Vatican City and Castel Gandolfo to Italy.

Moreover, Papal States had subjects which had families. This means that up to 1870 Popes were showing how a state should deal with family rights.

Italy has taken a wrong turn in several items, like school compulsion, and like 18 year age limit for marriages (these crimes were committed by other states, Soviet Union and by now most European States have imitated this evil). It is true that the criminal pseudolegislation hurt Italy before Mussolini. But it is also true that it did hurt.

Maria Goretti and Alessandro Serenelli might have had a decent married life under Popes in Papal States, if, for instance, he could have instead of proposing to make her pregnant to get a dispensation to marry her before she was 18, he could have said "you are soon 12, shall we engage with your mothers' consent and marry in a few months?"

Saint Maria Goretti is really in a way IL CIELO sopra la palude, but it was replacing Papal States with Italy which provided la palude.

And did so for the poisoning of Serenelli's mind with anticlerical stuff too.

Oh, one more thing, look which article Paul VI and Italian police broke:

Citing Art. 4 of Patti Lateranensi, 11 Febbraio 1929, Trattato:
La sovranità e la giurisdizione esclusiva, che l’Italia riconosce alla Santa Sede sulla Città del Vaticano, importa che nella medesima non possa esplicarsi alcuna ingerenza da parte del Governo Italiano e che non vi sia altra autorità che quella della Santa Sede.

Resuming own words
Abbé de Nantes came to Vatican to depose an accusation dossier against Pope Paul VI for heresy before Pope Paul VI as judge.

Abbé de Nantes was impeded from deposing this, illegally against all Canon law, since evicted. But there is more to it. He was not evicted by Swiss Guards, but by Italian policemen clearly breaking article 4 of the Lateran Treaty. but that was of course a fault of Montini/Paul VI, of which Pius XI is innocent.

After going from Trattato to Concordato [Patti Lateranensi, 11 Febbraio 1929], here are a few things (not quoting whole articles) which struck me:

Citing Art. 37
I dirigenti delle associazioni statali per l’educazione fisica, per l’istruzione premilitare, degli Avanguardisti e dei Balilla, per rendere possibile l’istruzione e l’assistenza religiosa della gioventù loro affidata, disporranno gli orari in modo da non impedire nelle domeniche e nelle feste di precetto l’adempimento dei doveri religiosi. …

Resuming own words
This was broken by Fascists, which is one reason for Non abbiamo bisogno. And stated as such in the text thereof.

Citing Art. 36
L’Italia considera fondamento e coronamento dell’istruzione pubblica l’insegnamento della dottrina cristiana secondo la forma ricevuta dalla tradizione cattolica. …

Resuming own words
This means that the Church needed a right to say stop if part of the public instruction was in any way against “the Christian doctrine according to the form received by the Catholic Tradition”. As I argued earlier.

Citing Art. 34
Lo Stato italiano, volendo ridonare all’istituto del matrimonio, che è base della famiglia, dignità conforme alle tradizioni cattoliche del suo popolo, riconosce al sacramento del matrimonio, disciplinato dal diritto canonico, gli effetti civili. … Quanto alle cause di separazione personale, la Santa Sede consente che siano giudicate dall’autorità giudiziaria civile.

Resuming own words
I left out a big chunk, but the problem is that the Church seems not to have insisted that a priest marrying a fourteen year old young man to a twelve year young lady, should be able to not only do so, but have this recognised and of course not rescinded in any civil court. Here I think Pius XI was simply weak.

Oh, yes, the question of Azzione Cattolica ...

Citing Art. 43
Lo Stato italiano riconosce le organizzazioni dipendenti dall’Azione Cattolica Italiana, in quanto esse, siccome la Santa Sede ha disposto, svolgano la loro attività al di fuori di ogni partito politico e sotto l’immediata dipendenza della gerarchia della Chiesa per la diffusione e l’attuazione dei principî cattolici. La Santa Sede prende occasione dalla stipulazione del presente Concordato per rinnovare a tutti gli ecclesiastici e religiosi d’Italia il divieto di iscriversi e militare in qualsiasi partito politico.

Resuming own words
But since “Democrazia Cristiana” was NOT a political party at the time, simply criticising Fascism for totalitarian tendencies did not constitute a breach of the article.

[And White Horse media also does not quote the article other than forbidding political parties. The requirement was not verbally to be totally apolitical in every respect, that would have been an reinterpretation, like First Amendment (or was it second?) is reinterpreted as "separation of Church and State" in US.]

lundi 20 avril 2015

Debating Mainly on Trutherism, part III, in which I come out as an Austrofascist and Distributist, While Defending Myself

AO
DRP Hans crossed the line, finally. I'm a Jew. Read what he just wrote. NOW I WANT HIM BANNED! HE'S A NAZI. Please read everyone!!!

EY
Read the line, thought it was excessive. Not delineating on Israel policy, but lumping Jews together was not warrented.

AO
Excerpt from Hans-George : "But Chomsky being a Jew, he might have taken his infor about me..." I hate Nazis.

RF
AO, these Chomsky Facebook pages are crawling with anti-semites and paranoid, foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorists.

The logic of the 9/11 conspiracies doesn't even make sense. They say that the US had to attack itself on 9/11 to provide justification for war (although I'm sure we can conceive of easier ways to justify wars, as the US has, than planning and executing an elaborate conspiracy involving literally thousands of people who would have to keep their mouths shut, and successfully and carefully rig three skyscrapers with explosives without anyone seeing them).

The US didn't invade Iraq until March 2003, after it concocted ludicrous tales about WMD in order to get in there. Why would the US blame and embarrass its closest ally, Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Why not just blame Iraq immediately and then go in?

There's not even an internal logic to the conspiracies.. They're messed up...

SSm
People who start becoming anti-Semitic here I, and several others, are going to be right up in your face, so shut the fuck up.

AO
"Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis." The Blue Brothers

SSm
I just hate Nazis, period. They have a collective IQ of minus 1000

AO
"...but I sure as hell didn't come down from the goddamn Smoky Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half of Sicily and jump out of a fuckin' air-o-plane to teach the Nazis lessons in humanity. Nazi ain't got no humanity." Inglorious Basterds.

I'll stop now. I've made my point.

SSm
Inglorious Basterds was an amazing movie. I want to watch it again now that your mentioned it.

Anyway, I think most of us would agree that 911 truthers are nutters and safely can be ignored. The rest of us who are involved in real social justice work can carry on without them as all of them can fit inside phone booth.

AO
RF, I personally wouldn't underestimate the Bush family. Look into their history in American politics. George Sr. was head of the CIA for years. Also, we didn't "embarrass the Saudis." We put frickin' air bases there for convenience. Nope. They were our "friends." I don't claim to know what they knew or did, but I wouldn't put anything past them.

RF
This is an original scalped Nazi head/bust from INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. In my original movie prop collection.

[Not reproducing picture he showed on thread.]

AO, no one doubts the US can commit atrocities, and has. Says nothing about atrocities perpetrated AGAINST the US. If the US had attacked itself in order to get into Iraq, why would they embarrass themselves and their ally Saudi Arabia? Why not just blame Iraq?

DRP
I don't agree with chomsky 100%. But racial/ethnic slurs are not appropriate.

Block anyone you find offensive and do not engage them.

RF
Peer reviewed science:

Reddit : Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions (self.skeptic)
"soumis 9 mois de ça * par benthamitemetric"
http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/


NIST [ National Institute of Standards and Technology's web site.] : Page Not Available
http://www.nist.gov/.../disaster.../wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm


NIST : NIST NCSTAR 1A
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610


HGL
"I'm a Jew. Read what he just wrote. NOW I WANT HIM BANNED! HE'S A NAZI."

No, I am not. I am Austrofascist and Distributist, but not Nazi.

Being critical about Jewry does not add up to being a Nazi.

However hysteric some networks in that precise ethnicity may be about the subject.

I think Hitler did some good things and bungled some other good things. Dealing correctly with Jewry and dealing correctly with Communism are in my view two things he seriously bungled.

In "Antisemitism" as one can no longer call it, Hitler should have been content with lectures given by Karl Lueger, without adding Prussian or Progressive or both "efficiency" to it. In Anticommunism, he could have taken a few lessons given by Pilsudski.

EY " but lumping Jews together was not warrented."

I have been dealing with quite a few different portions of the "lumping together" the last ten years to my loss, so far.

Like "But Chomsky being a Jew, he might have taken his infor about me..."

First of all, the word MIGHT means there might also be Jews who do not do so, second, this way of dealing with information about persons is one I have found very prevalent in Jewry as far as I have seen it.

I am NOT saying they are alone. Muslims, Protestants, Freemasons are about the same, and add some Vatican-II-ists to that lump too.

RF "AO, these Chomsky Facebook pages are crawling with anti-semites and paranoid, foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorists"

I guess "paranoid, foaming at the mouth" was the way in which any critics of Nelson Rockefeller's project between 1962 and 1973 were discredited.

If there were ANY kind of purported leaks from purported insiders to the kind of plot we deal with according to Truthers, such purported leaks were extremely probably dealt with exactly same way.

Since some guys here took up "Inglorious Basterds":

deretour : Libération de Paris 1944 ... et après?
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/liberation-de-paris-1944-et-apres.html


Due to a spelling mistake (whether original or added by hacking), I could not find it searching on Inglorious. I have now to correct a fault "inglourious". But I found it searching "basterds".

[was it a fault or was the title already misspelled?]

Point is, I am a bit allergic to the idea "Nazis are bad. Therefore any Nazi is bad. Therefore all and each and every Nazi is bad".

A Swedish diplomat may have contributed at one point to saving Paris from destruction, but certainly on one point so did Ernst Jünger. A Wehrmacht officer stationed in Paris and one whom Hitler respected enough ("In Stahlgewittern" was his alternative to Erich Maria Rémarque, if that means anything to you) to at that point listen to him.

In Assisi also, there was a Wehrmacht officer who pretty actively looked through the fingers when Father Ruffino Niccacci was the local version of Schindler (perhaps more efficient than Schindler too) and the local Mayor, who was of course a Fascist, helped too.

If you enjoyed Schindler's List, go and see The Assisi Underground.

[I read it as a pocket book, heard there is a film too.]

SSm "Anyway, I think most of us would agree that 911 truthers are nutters and safely can be ignored. The rest of us who are involved in real social justice work can carry on without them as all of them can fit inside phone booth."

I am very sure someone objected to building of Twin Towers. Some occasion between 62 and 73.

I am also very sure they were totally ignored and I am equally sure the tactics making them ignorable are exactly the same you are using against Truthers.

PLUS I am very sure Nelson Rockefeller was on some level in the know about that and condoned it.

An intellectual back then (also a linguist, though as an avid reader of Beowulf and of Gawain and the Green Knight he preferred the term philologer) in a Letter wrote "we are all in God's hands. But he does not look kindly on Babel builders". He wrote about founding of United Nations, in which Nelson Rockefeller was also involved, not yet about Twin Towers.

He died the year Twin Towers were completed.

He had many readers.

SOME one of them might have lived in New York State. SOME one of them might have tried to tell people it was a bad idea.

And that one reader of The Two Towers may have been "fitted inside the phone booth" as SSm had the finesse to put it.

"The logic of the 9/11 conspiracies doesn't even make sense. They say that the US had to attack itself on 9/11 to provide justification for war ... The US didn't invade Iraq until March 2003, after it concocted ludicrous tales about WMD in order to get in there."

You forget that the Afghanistan War broke out very shortly after 9/11.

On the very flimsy excuse that Osama was behind it (which he had not admitted and one had no publically declared way of knowing) and Taliban had given him hospitality. The Taliban on the other hand answered that Osama was no longer there.

You forget that it involved declaring a "war on terror" (which has not been won and very likely won't, because it is conducted in ways which will provoke new terrorists and which will provoke acts which may be stamped as terrorist acts) and grand talk (like Nelson Rockefeller back when pre-founding UNO in 45) about a "new world order".

You also forget that this talk was equally made by Woodrow Wilson when he blamed Austria for the kind of Ultimatum against Serbia about Gavril Princip, which Bush made against Taliban about Osama Bin Laden.

"There's not even an internal logic to the conspiracies.. They're messed up..."

When they are quoted by you, they sure are!

DRP "I don't agree with chomsky 100%. But racial/ethnic slurs are not appropriate."

It was meant as an excuse, if the speculation should be true.

Some habits die hard in their native soil. Asking Jews not to depend on oral information from dependable sources might feel to some of them as if I had asked Scotsmen not to wear kilt.

And by dependable sources, I of course mean "dependable sources".

[I think I have detected that habit in Catholics of such extraction as well – unless I would in that case be prejudiced and wrong about the « extraction » part.]

RF, I thank you very much for a link to NIST which, if correct, on the one hand proves Mgr Williamson, Pope Michael and a few other men I respect more than most here wrong on a point which I don't think the less of them for being wrong on, they were not pretending to be physicists, and on the other provides I think more than 40 names proving Nelson Rockefeller took a technical risk, which cost about 5000 lives. I e proves that Governor of New York Rockefeller was incompetent at best or a crook at worst.

I don't think Pope Michael will excommunicate me for going on this line rather than on more Classical Truther lines.

You see, Catholicism does not function like "Pope sneezes, everyone has a cold" or one has to agree with each and every opinion he has.

Even if "Pope Francis" might seem to be trying subreptitiously to change that in his version of the Catholic Church.

By the way, Rockefeller is not Jewish, his ancestors are Huguenots.

French Huguenots, as I heard from a French Canadian priest who spoke out in 1983.

Debating Mainly on Trutherism, part II, in which I point finger at John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller (not forgetting Percy Sutton)

HGL
"The original World Trade Center featured landmark twin towers, which opened on April 4, 1973, and were destroyed in the September 11 attacks of 2001, along with 7 World Trade Center. The other buildings in the complex were severely damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, and their ruins were eventually demolished. The site is being rebuilt with six new skyscrapers, a memorial to those killed in the attacks, and a transportation hub. One World Trade Center, the tallest building in the United States, is the lead building for the new complex, reaching more than 100 stories[16] upon its completion in November 2014."

To me this means, they are not learning.

1973, what architects were around then and what politicians were in NYC?

Wiki : World Trade Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center


Mayor of NYC in 1973 was:

Wiki : John Lindsay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lindsay


He was then a Democrat:

"He switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party in 1971, and launched a brief and unsuccessful bid for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination as well as the 1980 Democratic nomination for Senator from New York."

Borough President of Manhattan in 1973:

Wiki : Percy Sutton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Sutton


Switching from Lieutenant Governor to Governor of NY that year:

Wiki : Malcolm Wilson (governor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Wilson_(governor)


And governor UP TO that year:

Wiki : Nelson Rockefeller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller


On this latter one, being Governor of NY was perhaps not his biggest job:

"Rockefeller was a member of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco in 1945; this gathering marked the UN's founding. At the Conference there was considerable opposition to the idea of permitting, within the UN charter, the formation of regional pacts such as the Act of Chapultepec. Rockefeller, who believed that the inclusion was essential, especially to U.S. policy in Latin America, successfully urged the need for regional pacts within the framework of the UN. Rockefeller was also instrumental in persuading the UN to establish its headquarters in New York City."

Here is on the Jap who was architect:

"On September 20, 1962, the Port Authority announced the selection of Minoru Yamasaki as lead architect and Emery Roth & Sons as associate architects. Yamasaki devised the plan to incorporate twin towers; Yamasaki's original plan called for the towers to be 80 stories tall, but to meet the Port Authority's requirement for 10,000,000 square feet (930,000 m2) of office space, the buildings would each have to be 110 stories tall."

So, if he had had them built only 80 stories high, that would have been below where the impact was?

Well, even so, the hijackers might have flown lower instead ...

Wiki : World Trade Center, a linea: Architectural design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center?#Architectural_design


Back in 1962, we are btw dealing with another Mayor.

"At the time, ridership on New Jersey's Hudson and Manhattan Railroad (H&M) had declined substantially from a high of 113 million riders in 1927 to 26 million in 1958 after new automobile tunnels and bridges had opened across the Hudson River.[50] In a December 1961 meeting between Port Authority director Austin J. Tobin and newly elected New Jersey Governor RF J. Hughes, the Port Authority offered to take over the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad to have it become the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH). The Port Authority also decided to move the World Trade Center project to the Hudson Terminal building site on the west side of Lower Manhattan, a more convenient location for New Jersey commuters arriving via PATH.[49] With the new location and Port Authority acquisition of the H&M Railroad, New Jersey agreed to support the World Trade Center project.[51] In compensation for Radio Row business owners' displacement, the PANYNJ gave each business $3,000 each, without regard to how long the business had been there or how prosperous the business was.[46](p68) After the area had been purchased for the World Trade Center in March 1964,[52] Radio Row was demolished starting in March 1965.[53] It was completely demolished by 1966.[54]

"Approval was also needed from New York City Mayor John Lindsay and the New York City Council. Disagreements with the city centered on tax issues. On August 3, 1966, an agreement was reached that the Port Authority would make annual payments to the City in lieu of taxes for the portion of the World Trade Center leased to private tenants.[55] In subsequent years, the payments would rise as the real estate tax rate increased.[56]"

Oh, sorry, actually same one, just this was back when he was Republican.

Sorry again, looked on office years. The one who was mayor in 1962 was:

Wiki : Robert F. Wagner, Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Wagner,_Jr.


A lapsed Catholic, who'd have thunk it (remarried twice, first time lawfully after his first wife died, second time after a divorce, i e unlawfully, living in mortal sin to his death).

And in 1962, Nelson Rockefeller was already Governor of NY.

DB
Chomsky is my hero!

DAC
HGL not sure what end the wikipedia links serve. its best to address the fundamental question asked very precisely by chomsky in the initial post of this thread, since this is specifically a chomsky interest group. so review his question, but stay on target...eg. points about obscure claims that bin laden was seen in nyc etc are quite irrelevant to chomsky's proposition in this video. so are the physics. so are facts about the buildings.

HGL
DAC, I really and truly dislike people who tell me to "stay on target".

My wiki links serve to illustrate what set of guys has an interest in truthers being right about physics.

Say they are wrong, that means Nelson Rockefeller was a nincompoop.

Now, he is not a nobody, and that not just in the New York State where he was Governor when Twin Towers were both decided and finally built. If he were alive, he would have an interest in getting expertise from Truthers really well supported to his lawyers.

But, how convenient for him, he died the year before 9-11.

And, before he built Twin Towers he was along with building United Nations as an ideological concept. After they fell, this has been used as an argument to make international cooperation, ultimately his UN, stronger. Couldn't that be called convenient too?

Now, that's a certain view for a conspiracy theory which Truthers are not yet up to.

Also, everyone involved, State Governor, City Mayor, Borough Responsible for Manhattan, both year of decision and year of opening of Twin Towers was, excepting one of them the first year, a Democrat.

[Except John Lindsay who was not yet a Democrat in 1962 was not yet mayor of NYC either, and Wagner, who was, was the Democrat who ended Tammany Hall system. But John Lindsay got involved later and was the first year not yet a Democrat.]

Also seems this kind of people are - as Chomsky or one of you mentioned an idiocy by Jung - too busy pursuing ideals to avoid security hazards and even very major ones, by taking some though in advance. In Jung's case, he for one thing considered UFO Sightings a "Mass Psychosis" (something which unlike Mass Hysteria, which he has spread about the concept of Mass Psychoses), but on top of that considered it an irrational reaction of people fearing Nuclear Power. And yet they were also right if they did that, see Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

But when it comes to what Chomsky's central point was, I did not miss it. I answered it first, then some of you got into arguing about Truthers and pros and cons, and I had something to answer.

As to Chomsky's central point, I don't think Truthers are his main target. I think Geocentrics, Creationists and a few others, where I am very much more involved, by the way, than with Truthers, would be somewhat similarly open - or NOT as the case might be - to his naive objection. When it comes to Creationists like me and Hovind, his objection either is really naive or really amounts to pre-publication review and getting into the "right" channels is what matters most for scientific integrity. As to that claim, it stinks.

Hovind has given permission to free copying of all of his videos, it would be possible for mainstream scientists in each field to show appropriate video to all staff and students and afterwards have a free debate, perhaps construct a few rebuttals.

My own material has these conditions, which also makes such a thing possible without committing copyright infringement (though right now I would appreciate voluntary royalties):

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/


And here are a few links which include intellectual discoveries of mine which were known on my blogs years ago, and which has not been adressed:

[First two in line with usual YEC, but not yet used by others:]

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html


[Online since "mardi 3 décembre 2013", not post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it.]

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html


[Online, excepting marked later edits, and excepting comments, since "lundi 7 novembre 2011", not published in Nature ... Genetics, who probably argued on technicality that I should have sent a pdf rather than a blog link, not otherwise post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it. Originally includeded still visible short link to a blog post by PZMyer, under which there was a discussion with heavy involvement from me. Discussion not visible any more. URL burner first went down, then up again, but only for non-public use, and without my urls, including this one. Academic establishment open to reviewing controversial ideas? Sure ...]

[Now two on Geocentrism:]

Creation vs. Evolution : Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes out one Heliocentric YEC explanation
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/03/dr-jonathan-sarfati-takes-out-one.html


[Online, not so long, since "mardi 10 mars 2015" only, but also not post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it.]

New blog on the kid : Duhem and TOF Spot
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/12/duhem-and-tof-spot.html


[Online, not so long, since "Thursday, 18 December 2014" only, but also not post publication reviewed since then, despite my conditions making it very generously possible to study it.]

And instead of adressing it, the complaint that people like Hovind and I are not going through the right channels, not being professional etc. And, worst of all, a man with Chomsky's pretentions of being an intellectual mouthing them!

So much for his pretence of "explaining the science of making credible claims", his own claims are not credible.

DAC
HGL i looked through this thread again and didnt see where you answer his question regarding the bush administrations main goal of invading iraq. i think thats a central question. also, you quickly dismissed his point about publishing in leading academic journals...he is right about that. if you want to convince people of your theories, and if you have truly good evidence for them...it should be easy. scientists do just that with controversial theories all the time.

AO
Can we try to present facts or ideas rather than just heated angry opinions, please. I think that's what intellectual discourse is about, right? I'm not naming names. Just a good rule of thumb we should have learned in school.

EY
I wonder what the pressures of the Military-Industrial complex has on this matter. Are University studies, professors careers possibly be stifled by pulling of federal funding. I would think someone would speak out still considering the magnitude of the claims.

AO
HGL you pissed me off for the last time, as well as others. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy in America. You don't live here. You have no clue, or frame of reference. I was a New Yorker. I knew New Yorkers who died. If you have real facts, present them. You're stepping on the graves of my friends, and you don't know anything.

DRP
Please stay on topic OP...Hans-georg...admin

HGL
DAC, "here you answer his question regarding the bush administrations main goal of invading iraq"

I have't heard the video yet.

[Link on status was not to video, but to a page with a link to it and with text, so far I am answering things brought up in text on link OR brought up by others on thread.]

9-11 is more related to Afghanistan than Iraq.

I answered his point about "making credible claims". I thought that was his main one.

AO, I am not stepping on anyone's grave.

I am giving a lesson in logic. Whichever physics theory about 9-11 is true, there are two of them and they are mutually exclusive:

  • Truthers say the plane hits could NOT have made all the skyscraper in each of the towers topple down;
  • official report says it COULD.


Tertium non datur. Pissing you off or not, fact remains that the SECOND alternative has controversial implications as well. It means Nelson Rockefeller and a few more were nincompoops.

That is back in 1962 up to 1973.

DAC again "if you want to convince people of your theories, and if you have truly good evidence for them...it should be easy."

My theory is that non-Truther scenario implicates Nelson Rockefeller in incompetent management of public space within his State while he was governor. And for a long time.

My theory is therefore that if you like seeing conspiracies, the Truther scenario is superfluous. Nelson Rockefeller is on the only other available scenario indicted of either planning a disaster or being very incompetent.

"it should be easy. scientists do just that with controversial theories all the time."

Depends a bit on what side they are controversial to.

I have by the way not said I am a scientist. I know some science, but not enough physics to decide on the question. I do know sufficient logic to know that if Truther scenario is false the non-Truther scenario is correct. That is: Nelson Rockefeller and a few more were gravely incompetent.

I took my facts from wikipedia, if you think wiki got wrong when Twin Towers were decided or when they opened or who was governor of New York back then, YOU should show the facts. As you are US resident (I presume), it should be easy for you.

DRP, I think I have already stated I hate when people tell me how broad of narrow the topic is.

I thought it was a site for "fans" and not for strict disciples of Noam Chomsky, if I was wrong you need to change the description.

I am not a fan of Chomsky in EVERY respect, and I think on this one he is, the aspects I adressed initially, simply wrong. His take on what "credible claims" means is not credible.

Whichever be the truth of the physics of 9-11, which I was not claiming to know anyway.

But Chomsky being a Jew, he might have taken his infor* about me (if he's heard of me, of course) from rumours rather than from my own writings which are on the internet and the rumour mongers may have adressed the issue by "guilt by association".

Msgr Williamson is as known a Truther. I don't quite agree with him on all issues, but fact I admire him theologically, while not doing so with Chomsky, Richard Carrier, DMMurdoch/Acharya Sanning might have gotten these rumour mongers in Jewry to classify me as a Truther and therefore may have set Chomsky and his disciples onto the task of taking me to task on this - without showing I am the one meant, which is of course why this is speculation.

BUT the fact that people on this thread have challenged me as if I were MYSELF a Truther and representing this opinion is circumstantial evidence making this speculation less than totally absurd.


* Obviously I was hesitating between "information" and "info".

Debating Mainly on Trutherism, part I, in which I presume to Teach Logic to Non-Truthers, Without Fully Supporting Truthers as Being Right

ML
And they are off and running. Truthers are named after the thing rapidly retreating in their rear view mirrors.

AO
Most of these comments are about what the topic isn't about. Can someone provide something constructive please, or at least elucidate what Chomsky was saying with Truthers? I'd like that. This is 9/11 we're talking about, in this case. Pretty important stuff. I'd like to hear what people think about that. Thank you.

EY
AO, I think the "Truthers" bring up some great points as far as the freefall of the buildings, and the melting points of the steel. I am not qualified to give definitive statements on the matter, but would like to see more of scholarly investigation.

SSm
The problem is that such research needs significant funding as well as the backing of the academic establishment which are now being controlled corporations that control the message. Even Prof Chomsky knows that point and talks about it all of the time.

SSt
The tests that some of the truther scientists proclaim to prove their case have not been able to withstand the rigors of the scientific method. Other scientists have attempted to duplicate and as of yet been unable to. Red flag. It is not science, it is a conspiracy theory.

TW
I have one "truther" friend, and I used to discuss the issue with him on occasion, after reading some of his suggested materials. I quit debating the issue with him because no matter how I countered his various points, his constant default position was that "the truth" would never be proven because "they" control all the venues of research, communication, and any means of objective discourse or adjudication. Variations on this notion play out in discussion of any number of issues, and it pretty much eliminates any hope of rational conclusion. I have learned to save my breath for more important things...like laughter.

AC
I would just ask one question: does anybody believe that the Bush administration was capable, or that any administration would be capable, of pulling off such a huge conspiracy without a single credible leak?

SSm
The American government has done a lot of nasty things and covered them up. I don't think we have even exhausted the tip of the iceberg on that topic. I am not a truther as I think many of them are nutters. I am more interested in how 911 is used to justify all kinds of human rights abuses by state actors all over the world and not just in America.

EY
Good point AC. That would be quite the conspiracy and so improbable. One thing is to overlook a plot that they new of, but to orchestrate the plot and prepare the building with explosions does seem highly improbable.

LLAD
The dread lock man seems bitter that Chomsky doesn't agree with him. I do believe there was a cover up on the negligence of the US govt The Bush admin was warned via intelligence memos but they didn't implement a strategy to stop it.

CM
I'm weirdly hoping Chomsky becomes a vegan...

AO
I lived in New York. I had friends who actually saw what happened. I become livid when the true idiots say the planes didn't crash into the Twin Towers (don't know about the other WTC buildings). Um, how many witnesses were there? How many people lost loved ones on those flights? As for the Bush Administration, I hated them, but I don't claim to be privy to what they knew and didn't, only the wars they caused.

HGL
AO "Can someone provide something constructive please, or at least elucidate what Chomsky was saying with Truthers? I'd like that. This is 9/11 we're talking about, in this case."

He was taking 9/11 as an example. I quoted what he said about some physicists quoting truthers. I also refuted the principle he gave, which is obviously applicable to other topics as well.

He says truthers should be trying to publish their physical reasoning against two towers genuinely collapsing after touch by plane (huge plane going fast) on top floors in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS and that sort of thing.

I said the usual peer reviewers by now know the arguments too well to not to have had a possibility to go out with a lots better and more to topic refutation than "why don't they do it properly in peer reveiwed journals".

As I entitled the blog post, Chomsky is suspect of using up his credibility points, on this one.

EY, "AO, I think the 'Truthers' bring up some great points as far as the freefall of the buildings, and the melting points of the steel. I am not qualified to give definitive statements on the matter, but would like to see more of scholarly investigation."

So would I.

I am not qualified enough in physics to definitely decide. BUT, I am qualified enough in logic to know one thing : either one or other of two physics is the real one, the one in which a very huge smash on top can and the one in which it cannot topple all floors below it too.

If it cannot, we have the question who did the sabotage, which Truthers have more than once pointed out.

If it can, which neither Truthers nor the rest have pointed out, we have the question who was archiect building this stuff and who was city planner authorising this stuff. If a huge smash from a jumbo jet on top floor can topple twenty or whatever floors below it, obviously such buildings are a security menace anyway.

AC "does anybody believe that the Bush administration was capable, or that any administration would be capable, of pulling off such a huge conspiracy without a single credible leak?"

You did not say "without a single leak" but "without a single credible leak". This means that there may have been claimed leaks, as opposed to just the witnesses about how the disaster looked and speculations on whether that is possible just from jumbo jet hit.

Considering how apt certain people are at decredibilising others, where a stunt like "why don't they try to get published in peer reviwed papers" passes for an argument, for a qualitative lecture to the Truthers, and considering how widespread that hobby is (Chomsky does it!) would the Bush administration, supposing they were right, have needed to do the decredibilising themselves?

In a world where Kent Hovind is in prison for "tax fraud" despite his having really had no income personally, but living as a volunteer off his charity, Dr Dino Adverture Land, and other parts of Dr Dino, and where this is being passed off as some kind of decredibilisation of what he has to say on for instance Carbon 14 dating (the standard objection of us creationists, not substantially differring from the take of Tas Walker, who is most certainly a Geologist with undisputed degrees), is a world in which a phrase like "noone of the leaks" (supposing there were any) "was credible" is pretty meaningless anyway.

AO, again: "As for the Bush Administration, I hated them, but I don't claim to be privy to what they knew and didn't, only the wars they caused."

What is most certain is that as far as overtly accessible info goes, there was no sufficient cause for war with Talibans in that attack. On a Crusading view point of Just War - which I recommended Bush in a letter, but which was ignored - there had been a month earlier when 8 volunteers and 8 citizens were tried for mission/apostasy and the volunteers got extradicted after consideration as madmen with insanity excuse (already an insult to Christianity), but we don't know what happened to the 8 Afghans.

Even supposing Osama was behind 9-11 (which his statement US deserved it doesn't substantiate he was, it is not a direct confession), even supposing Taliban were giving him hospitality, and back then I had NO IDEA of the Truther movement, the ultimatum Bush gave them and subsequent declaration of war was not more justified than the ultimatum Francis Joseph gave Serbia after the shots in Sarajevo.

BOTH ultimatums were against régimes not even suspected of having actually ordered the terrorist act, BOTH were about allowing foreign policemen to investigate in the country. in BOTH cases the régime as such was probably not itself even giving hospitality to the terrorist. So, either Bush owed an apology to Austrio-Hungarian Empire for war guilt declarations in the Paris suburbs peace treaties, or he ought not to have done the same move.

EY
DAC would love to see the rebuttals on the physics, if you can message me or direct me.

DAC
HGLthere are still debates about the physics. i know ive seen expert rebuttals to truther claims about the physics and chemistry of the collapse on YouTube and could look for them again. but since im not an engineer, lets turn to a geopolitical situational problem. since you bring up qualifications in logic, could you offer a reasonable and likely answer to chomsky's very good question about saudi involvement in 9/11 as oppposed to the administrations need to justify the iraq invasion.

that is a far harder paradox to address with any rational credibility from a truther standpoint than any problem with, say the melting point of steel.

EY just quickly here is one i had bookmarked...i recall this was quite good, but forgot the arguments. if i get a chance to search for better links, will pm you:

counterpunch: We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist
The Physics of 9/11
by MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. November 28, 2006
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/28/the-physics-of-9-11/print


EY
Thank you DAC

HGL
DAC, first of all, I am neither defending nor opposing truthers on their issue.

My issue with Afghanistan war was different.

And as you brought up Saudi, there is one branch of Truthers who claimed that Osama was seen in NY and flying away same morning (or sth like that) just before the events (a few hours or so), meaning they claim US/Saudi collusion on government level.

Now, my point about logic is not that non-Truthers must be wrong in saying Truthers are wrong. My point about logic is that if non-Truthers are right against Truthers, they are STILL wrong to trust authorities, since a major fault was obviously made in that case when Twin Towers were allowed to be built.

That's right : if non-Truthers are right, don't trust the next mayor or governor who grants permission to build a skyscraper!

I can even add one here, whether Truthers are right or wrong, they probably rely on physical calculations made beforehand, before buildings were made. Calculations which must have said that a jumbo jet crashing onto top won't topple all the floors down to the bottom. Those would give them an incitement to say if all floors toppled down after only top was hit, there must have been something more than just the jumbo jet crashing.

Oh, I got to look at your link:

MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. wrote:

"Half a century ago, public anxiety about the danger of atomic energy and the terror of thermonuclear war exhibited itself in sightings of flying saucers, and a fad of monster movies. C. G. Jung wrote about flying saucer sightings as an instance of "mass psychosis": a "psychological infection" that spreads among people who lack sufficient understanding to rationalize fearsome political forces and unstable social conditions (Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth, 1958). Jung was sensitive to any indication that another "psychological epidemic" might erupt, as Nazism did, among a population whose government possessed awesome military power. Mass psychosis is a myth held in common, which releases the population from the "normal" restraints of rationality and international social conventions, so they can pursue their mythical vision. The ignorance — and the fears that spring from it as prejudices — of the entranced population is "projected" onto "enemies" whose destruction is sought in the irrational effort to eliminate the actual problem of psychological tensions, (1)"

  • 1) Not ONE word, so far, about the physics of the events.
  • 2) One analysis offered by Jung, who considered Flying Saucers were a "mass psychosis" - totally incredible, I'd far liefer go with Rob Skiba II on this one.
  • 3) He also considered the so called "mass psychosis" as triggered by fears about nuclear power. Presumably not quite rational ones. BUT since then we have had Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukushima.


Reality - Jungian analysis : 3-0.

Now, for specifics about the physics:

"A hijacked airliner was crashed into each building about 10 or 20 stories down from the top. The columns along one face of the building were sheared for a height of several floors, as were many of the columns at the core."

News reports were perhaps a bit sketchy on the part of "about 10 or 20 stories down from the top." I had gotten the impression, and I suppose so had quite a few hard core Truthers, that it was further up, near top.

[When I got further into the matter I realised that 20 stories down is relatively "near top" on a building 110 stories high. I was pretty outside Truther debate and thus unaware of most details pertaining to physics. I was not unaware of debate, but had stayed outside it.]

The rest of that report is a fine illustration of what I mean by the building companies and the city planning authorities back decades before 9-11 being a bunch of nincompoops.

And it's sad that non-Truthers have not been seeing this.

As for Truthers, supposing they are wrong, at least on the physics part, it's sad that their over trust in by now outdated physics of Babel Tower Building should push them to see more conspiracies than there are.

So, when will the non-Truthers who trust this report get out of their houses and say "stop" to the next plan of an airport (the hijacked jumbo jet came from one) or of a skyscraper?

That would be a much better security investment than the War on Terror.

AO
DAC that is a great article. I'm not a physicist, but it makes sense. I actually had a temp job in the WTC, and I also traveled there every day from New Jersey on the PATH train when I lived there (for 3 years). Basically the building was an exoskeleton. The "bones" were the pillars on the outside, and a few on the inside. The impact caused the pillars to sever. That's my basic take. Here's proof. Check into the NEW World Trade Center, the Freedom Tower. It was built like a fortress, because THEY LEARNED FROM THE HORRIBLE TRAGEDY. They analyzed the hell out of it. I saw an entire PBS Nova special as they completed the building. Again, the world and Bush after 9/11, whole different topic, and I won't go there.

Here is the PBS special I just mentioned. It's powerful. It's mainly about workers completing the building out of love and a tribute to New York City, the US, and those who were lost. It's not cynical. It's beautiful, and a testament to the good in us.

NOVA
Ground Zero Supertower
Aired: 09/11/2013
52:52 Rating: TV-PG
We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region [=France] due to right restrictions.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365076006/

mercredi 15 avril 2015

"et lux non loqui"

MM (status in a Latin group)
I saw this on Jimmy Kimmel. any ideas on what it could mean?

et lux non loqui

25 other
comments, involving hint at "and light not to speak" but not settling on it, due to grammatical incongruence.

I bump in:
too word by word translation of phrase "and the light not to speak"?

Like "[the grace to know] and the light not to speak"? Or some such context?

I am sure it was not by a Latinist (unless very Tacitean, Tacitus is magnificently short cutting), but rather by google translate.

Guess verified:

"and light not to speak"
"et lux non loqui"

https://translate.google.com/?hc_location=ufi#en/la/and%20light%20not%20to%20speak

In other words, someone might be using some kind of roundabout tactics to give a known Latinist (which would by now include me) hints about omertà. Using google translate when not knowing Latin himself would be such a roundabout way, for instance. And yes, I am a man who has seen other hints about omertà, due to my blogs:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Huius autoris bloggi
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/p/huius-autoris-bloggi.html


Vobis quasi divinandum est in quo articulo meorum bloggorum provocavi hoc rete quod reclamat "homeritatem" (si hoc modo vertere possim vocabulum "omertà").

Forsitan quisnam sectator technologiae computatri voluit me habere lucem ut non loquar?

mardi 14 avril 2015

Is Chomsky Consuming His Credibility Points?

DRP (status in group)
[Links to] open culture : Noam Chomsky Schools 9/11 Truther; Explains the Science of Making Credible Claims
in Politics, Science| October 24th, 2013
http://www.openculture.com/2013/10/noam-chomsky-derides-911-truthers.html


JC
영어로 쓰면 빅브라더가 체크할까봐 한국말로 쓴다. 그간 떠돌던 9.11의 의문과 진실이 드디어 공식적으로 밝혀지기 시작하는거 같다. 세상에 비밀의 수명은 짧다. 이 문제로 이탈리아 수상이 낙마했는데 결국 84세의 촘스키가 한마디. 이라크침공의 빌미가 필요했겠지. 중동패권을 위한 미국과 이스라엘의 의도된 작업인거 같은데 방향은 엉뚱하게 쟈스민혁명으로 친미독재자들이 무너지면서 계획이 어긋나간거 같다. 힘으로 또 억지로 되는게 아닌것 같다.

[yes, it's all Corean to me!]

LB
Thank you for posting this. I have seen a lot of truthers here.

SS
I attempted to translate the above via Google and it wasn't very successful. Could someone tell me what it says?

[I can't, but I am not surprised about Google Translate.]

HGL
[Quoting Chomsky:]

“In fact, you’re right that there’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers. They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, that you’ve discovered something. There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

[Answering the quoted argument:]

By now the Academies ought to know this exists.

And attracts people. If getting Chomsky to say "this is not how it works" is the best they can do, they are simply attacking the principle of scientific debate that ANYONE can challenge the set theory. And thereby making science a game of authoritarianism.

So, what could they do instead?

Make an internet page. Let it contain each and every statement made by the "miniscule group" and give an examination of it.

Getting one's life ruined by getting derided by people like Chomsky may also be a risk which some people dare not take.

So, the Academies are answering the minority report by what amounts to intimidation by proxy. And Chomsky agrees to be the proxy. Bravo (*not clapping hands myself, though*).

SS
Hans-Georg Lundahl, well said.

HGL (again, I know)
[turning to linguistic question:]

Transliteration:

yeong-eolo sseumyeon bigbeuladeoga chekeuhalkkabwa hangugmallo sseunda. geugan tteodoldeon 9.11ui uimungwa jinsil-i deudieo gongsigjeog-eulo balghyeojigi sijaghaneungeo gatda. sesang-e bimil-ui sumyeong-eun jjalbda. i munjelo itallia susang-i nagmahaessneunde gyeolgug 84se-ui chomseukiga hanmadi. ilakeuchimgong-ui bilmiga pil-yohaessgessji. jungdongpaegwon-eul wihan miguggwa iseula-el-ui uidodoen jag-eob-ingeo gat-eunde banghyang-eun eongttunghage jyaseuminhyeogmyeong-eulo chinmidogjaejadeul-i muneojimyeonseo gyehoeg-i eogeusnagangeo gatda. him-eulo tto eogjilo doeneunge aningeos gatda.

Google version of a translation:

Big Brother is checked halkkabwa write in English written in Korean. The question of the truth whilst tteodoldeon 9.11 as haneungeo finally revealed officially begins. The secret life of the world is short. Italian Prime Minister had this problem nakma Chomsky short of the end 84. The probable cause of the invasion of Iraq, what you did took. Looks ingeo intended work in the United States and Israel for Middle East supremacy direction eongttunghage pro dictators gone as planned Mismatches collapsed into Jasmine Revolution. Doeneunge not such as to force another force.

Note : "write in English written in Korean."

Possibly the Corean text is itself a Google translate from English to Corean, which means it comes out garbled if you retranslate.

Note : "Big Brother is checked"

Might be a missed retranslation for BB is checking.

Btw, if this is advice, hopefully not to me, since I am a blogger/writer and giving messages in English google translated to Corean is not how that business works.

SS
thanks, i got the same translation and was further confused. figured someone would come along eventually who could translate.

HGL
Might be an idea to look up untranslated words and then guess at English original till you get an identical Corean translation.

mercredi 8 avril 2015

On the Greatest Philosophers - who's that?

Debate was held
March 17 at 9:05pm – March 25/31 (?)

«Aristotle»
The greatest philosopher that ever lived is?

MG
A great question to start an argument among philosophers!

«Aristotle»
I think it should be aristotle.

MG
Actually, I'd say that it's possibly an unanswerable question. Aristotle was certainly one of the greats, but he was standing on the shoulders of those who had gone before. Socrates was a seminal figure whose voice echoes throughout history, but didn't come up with a system like Aristotle - but he didn't have as much previous philosophy to work with. Plato still has followers today and the literary and pedagogical value of his surviving works is outstanding. Thomas Aquinas created a synthesis of much of the philosophy that proceeded him, including Aristotle, and used it brilliantly in theology, but he had more than a thousand years of other thinkers to learn from. And that's just to name a few of the my favorites among the big contenders.

So, who is greater? The pioneer who goes where no one has gone before? The systematizers who bring together many insights from many thinkers into a new whole with their own new contributions? Those who inspire most people to take up philosophy? I guess it comes down to the question: what is greatness? And, what is greatness in philosophy? Ergo, philosophandum est!

(Note: Aristotle was historically very close to Socrates, but a lot was happening in philosophy at that time. Aristotle possibly wouldn't have been as great as he was without Plato, nor Plato without Socrates.)

«Aristotle»
Good comment! i would love to learn more from you. i just gained admission to study classics in the university! can i add you as a friend?

Confucius?

MG
«Aristotle», you can add me as a friend, but don't expect too much on-line philosophizing from me nowadays... I'm (unfortunately) not working in that field anymore. However, I might throw out the occasional pithy comment!

I honestly don't know that much about Confucius. In my philosophical studies, we only got a quick overview of him in history of philosophy class, never to revisit him again. Very Eurocentric.

SO
Hegel

RZ
Ludwig Wittgenstein

LM
Do you have to be a halfway decent, humane person to be a great philosopher?

HGL
WAIT? Someone mentioned Witty?

New blog on the kid : Quand Witty ne l'était pas
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2014/10/quand-witty-ne-letait-pas.html


WMR-III
Plato, Aristotle, Kant — it is generally agreed by historians of philosophy that these 3 stand alone: you cannot add any other name to this sentence without diminishing the level. All others are second or third tier.

MG
Like I say, a great way to start an argument among philosophers.

WMR-III
No, the argument would come with what 5 you want to put in the 2nd tier: Augustine, Descartes, Wittgenstein, Marx, Heidegger.

LT
In absolute terms it is impossible to say who is the the best as it depends on one's own philosophical preferences.

MG
See? We're arguing!

(Which, I should say, is not a bad thing. Philosophy wouldn't go anywhere without differences of opinion and discussion.)

HGL
"it is generally agreed by historians of philosophy that these 3 stand alone: you cannot add any other name to this sentence without diminishing the level."?

Kant among the three?

I'd say Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bishop Tempier, C S Lewis.

Adding Kant would be lowering.

WMR-III
Aquinas does not rate because he depended on Aristotle so much. CS Lewis . . . you've got to be kidding me, HGL. You'd have to dig pretty far to find the last time a graduate seminar in a philosophy department was offered on Mr. Lewis — if ever; whereas you'd have to look equally as hard to find a major department that did not have a Kant specialist (or 2) on staff. I suppose there would be an objective way to settle this, if any librarian knew how to search for sheer number of scholarly publications devoted to the individuals recognized as philosophical giants. Your list suggests a certain Catholic-Christian bias: and Theology and Philosophy are generally viewed as separate disciplines.

MG
Although I like Aquinas more than Kant, it's true that he relied a great deal on Aristotle, and part of his greatness comes precisely from his genius at using Aristotelian philosophy to systematize and explain Catholic theology. Kant doesn't come out of nowhere either - he also uses and builds on others' ideas - but his thought is more original and more strictly philosophical, and hence influential across the board (I think one can safely say that more Catholics continue to be influenced by Kant than non-Catholics by Aquinas).

HGL
"Aquinas does not rate because he depended on Aristotle so much."

Not too much to correct, even [searching arguments] from Plato, and from others and [from] himself and [from] Scripture, [the] Aristotelians who depended MORE on Aristotle [than he did]. Namely the Sorbonne Averroists.

"CS Lewis . . . you've got to be kidding me, HGL. You'd have to dig pretty far to find the last time a graduate seminar in a philosophy department was offered on Mr. Lewis — if ever"

I was talking about great philosophers according to objective greatness, not according to the rankings of graduate seminars.

The fact that you include Kant as one of the great, when he was in more than one respect a klutz and incompetent, since incapable of seizing distinctions, says something about the lopsidedness of your seminars.

The one point which he had was the transcendental argument for God, which CSL presents more corectly in Miracles.

"whereas you'd have to look equally as hard to find a major department that did not have a Kant specialist (or 2) on staff."

Oh, I totally believe you. So?

"I suppose there would be an objective way to settle this, if any librarian knew how to search for sheer number of scholarly publications devoted to the individuals recognized as philosophical giants. Your list suggests a certain Catholic-Christian bias: and Theology and Philosophy are generally viewed as separate disciplines."

The librarians would certainly objectively find out the bias of philosophy departments.

St Thomas Aquinas considered Revealed Theology and Natural Theology (a k a Metaphysics) as two related but still distinct disciplines.

As far as I know, the only way of being unbiassed for or against Catholicism in any field it touches (including obviously very many ones of Philosophy) would be to be unaware of it. Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, Epicure, Zeno were philosophers unbiassed about Catholicism. Very hard to say that about Kant : he was certainly biassed against both St Thomas Aquinas and the Galileo judges.

"I think one can safely say that more Catholics continue to be influenced by Kant than non-Catholics by Aquinas"

Not sure. CSL and Lyndon LaRouche are at least as influenced by Aquinas as by Kant. And Kantian Catholics ... sure they count as Catholics? I have very great doubts about Schoenborn, who disfigures the archbishop function at Vienna.

LT
Odin a philosopher? Or Krishna? Both belong to the sphere of mythology. Of course one can admire the Bhagavad Gita, but to infer from that the reality of Krishna is a bit strange..

HGL
I infer the reality of Krishna from the context of Mahabharata.

Not sure whether Kurukshetra War was really pre-Flood (as Krishna's death was 155 or 135 years before the Flood, counting after their Kali Yuga reckoning) or whether it was post-Flood, in which a literal recording of Bhagavad Gita after event is likelier to have occurred, but in which case bragging has added antiquity to the time elpased since events and universality to their geographic scale. Either way, someone wrote or said the words of Bhagavad Gita, which I do by the way not admire, and that someone is in Hindoo tradition supposed to have been Krishna, more precisely during his mortal life.

If the original was pre-Flood, which I doubt, it would have been translated from Hebrew to Sanskrit also.

I could have added Caesar to the likes of Odin and Krishna, except that Caesar was hardly a philosopher; rather a man of action.

Havamal, if by Odin, was certainly translated from the Proto-Norse language (or other languages available to him around the time of Caesar) to the Old Norse we find it in. Here we have Nordic tradition tracing the genealogy of Ynglings to Odin's stepson Yngwe who was also deified as "Frey". In these cases, like the Krishna case, there is also a clear tradition of the supposed "god" ceasing to live among men, and when it was written down by Christians like Snorri or Saxo at least, it involved the false gods dying and their promoters making false claims about what happened agfter they died.

In Krishna's case the poet says he had a vision of Krishna being received by the gods and hailed as greater than them - a vision which as Christian I believe was diabolic.

Though Odin was very unwise to pose as a god, Havamal is the work of a man with some wisdom.

Some needs emendation:

"Better burden, beareth no man
than much manly wit"


Well, what about the Cross of Christ? But that level was hardly accessible to a man who sunk so low as to pose falsely as a god and deceive Swedes to get a crown.

But some (yes, I have read Hávamál but not Bhagavad) is good as it is:

"Die farm beasts, die friends,
die wilt thou the same
One thing I know which never dieth:
doom over dead man"


(it is appointed for man to die and then judgement).