mercredi 26 mai 2010

Spelling English is a great feat

Standard pronunciation of "great feat" is "grayt feet".

Consistent South English would have been "greet feet". Consistent Irish brogue not only would have been but to the best of my knowledge is: "grayt fayt", i e the Irish acknowledge a difference between "feet" and "feat" even in pronunciation.

But older pronunciation was over all something like what the French would have written "graite faite" or "grête fête". And that is the reason why it is spelled with the English spelling for what was that sound: "great feat".

If this spelling is phonetically inadequate, this is not because the spelling is wrong over all for English dialects, it is because only the Irish dialect of English keeps a decent pronunciation: "your spunkier than tay" (as in "than tea", but pronouncing it correctly for once) as goes a song not unknown to the Dubliners.

And as for "right" and "write" to be pronounced the same (as in "I write right") the story is that RIGHT was earlier pronounced as German RECHT, except that English had short I where Gm has short E. Then the GH sound (Gm ICH-Laut) was lost and I lengthened. In WRITE there was a loss of W in WR, a long or lengthened I before the short consonant pertaining entirely to following syllable, then a loss of vowel in that syllable - which lands us with both pronounced REET. Then REET became RYT. Y=as in Fr "œil" (still so Martha's Vineyard) or "ail".

Both inconveniences, espacially the latter, are there in other languages, the more so the older. The former inconvenience is more accented in Irish Gaelic.

Which disposes of this

Dante's De Monarchia is wrong

Link to quoted page resuming arguments.

A page whose title is:

Dante's World Government:
De Monarchia in the 21st Century

By John J. Reilly

This is why Dante is heretic, if rightly resumed:

So, then, to take Dante's first question: Is the secular monarchy necessary?

Remarkably, Dante derives the necessity of monarchy from an argument that is almost Hegelian. Universal government is necessary, because it is the way to universal peace; universal peace is necessary, because it is the only way the human race can attain its end, or purpose; this end is actualization of the “possible intellect,” which is possessed by the human species as a whole.

The possible intellect got Dante into a lot of posthumous trouble; it was one of the reasons De Monarchia stayed on the Index of Forbidden Books from the 16th to the 19th centuries. The notion comes from the 12th-century Iberian Islamic philosopher, Averroes (Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Rushd), who deployed it in a way that argued against personal immortality in favor of a collective human soul. Dante himself thought no such thing, of course. His version rests on the scholastic commonplace that human beings are only partly intellectual beings (unlike angels, whose substance is intellect). Because of this defect, no single human being, however intelligent, could fully embody the intellectual capacity common to the species. That could be done only collectively and, since knowledge is cumulative, historically. The human species, if it is to achieve the state of intellectual perfection possible to it, required a peaceful and therefore unified world.

Be it noted that "possible intellect" has another meaning in St Thomas Aquinas, where it does not coincide with what he refutes while calling it "unity of intellect". See his work De Unitate Intellectus.

Be it also noted that these last lines:

Because of this defect, no single human being, however intelligent, could fully embody the intellectual capacity common to the species. That could be done only collectively and, since knowledge is cumulative, historically. The human species, if it is to achieve the state of intellectual perfection possible to it, required a peaceful and therefore unified world.

are true in a sense even a Moslem should have discovered non-applicable to this world here below: since that kind of peace and unity of all the righteous is what we truly (and they not without truth) apply to Paradise.

Here on earth, knowledge accumulates inequally, making individuals more knowing than their families' collective knowledge insofar as they lack time to fully share it, and families both more knowing and wiser than cities' or whole contries' shared knowledges and wisdoms.

Here is where Dante, but possibly (hopefully) not St Anselm, is wrong about soteriology:

Indeed, Christianity requires that the Roman Empire be legitimate. The central doctrine of Christianity is that Christ was punished for the sin of Adam. If the magistrate who sentenced Jesus was not an “appropriate judge,” then the suffering of Jesus was not a punishment, and we are not saved. Only the representative of the government of the whole world could have had the authority to inflict punishment on He Who suffered for the whole world.

And here is where Dante contradicts himself:

Inevitably in any medieval discussion of the temporal power of the papacy, Dante addresses the Donation of Constantine. This legend, aided by some forged documents, had it that, in the fourth century, the Emperor Constantine had given the pope the authority to govern Italy and the western empire. Dante does not dispute the authenticity of the Donation, but he says that nothing more could have been involved than the transfer of a right of guardianship.

Why so? Because, as Dante tells us, whatever is contrary to the nature of a thing is not to be numbered among its powers. Now one of the essential features of the empire is its universality; it has the right of universal jurisdiction, even when it does not have the fact. To divide the empire by ceding sovereignty over a particular region would have been to destroy the empire as such. The powers of the emperor, which derive from the nature of the empire, could not have included such a grant. Moreover, the Church by its nature could not have received such a grant, since the Church cannot own property, but only the fruits of property. (This was, of course, the ideal of the radical Franciscans.)

The tranquility of order that the emperor protects is important for the salvation of all men. The emperor's authority is therefore providential, but the authority belongs to the office itself. The authority of the emperor could not have come from the Church, since the empire antedates the Church. Furthermore, since the emperor's authority comes directly from God, the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire do not really choose the emperor. Rather, they simply declare where the right to the office lies.

In that case maybe Constantine simply declared that Roman authority resides in Sts Peter and Paul. With successors.

Be it also noted that these lines:

Moreover, the Church by its nature could not have received such a grant, since the Church cannot own property, but only the fruits of property. (This was, of course, the ideal of the radical Franciscans.)

are about not Franciscans as much as Fraticelli. Who were heretics.

Three links I took some trouble to find ...,8599,1991195,00.html
or Caste based honour killing,9171,904153,00.html
or Situation of pariahs not really very much better some decades after Gandhi

AND or Cobbett, on the Reformation

From which latter I quote:

§ 123. It has been represented as "unnatural" to compel men and women to live in the unmarried state, and as tending to produce propensities, to which it is hardly proper even to allude. Now, in the first place, have we heard, of late days, of any propensities of this sort? Have they made their odious appearance amongst clergymen and bishops? And, if they have, have those clergymen and bishops been Catholics, or have they been Protestants? The answer, which every one now living in England and Ireland can instantly give to these questions, disposes of this objection to vows of celibacy. In the next place, the Catholic Church compels nobody to make such vow. It only says, that it will admit no one to be a priest, monk, friar, or nun, who rejects such vow. Saint PAUL strongly recommends to all Christian teachers an unmarried life. ...

To remember there are other ruffians around today than moslems and have been other buggers than contemporary certain parts of Catholic clergy - Cobbett wrote above lines in 1825.

Sweden has an Lutheran "archbishop" (or recently had) who is gay lobby: K G Hammar. Anglican confession has similar issues.

Catholic Church had Ecumenism (with Anglicans and Lutherans) before Child molesters returning to office.

Oh, make that child or teen boy molesters.

Speaking of which, a Latvian Archbishop (successor of the one plundered by Teutonic Knights under Papacy of John XXII) had the great clarity of mind to class homosexual habits as neither normal nor in usual sense pathologic, but as acquired bad habits like alcoholism and chain smoking.

Which is strictly true.

lundi 17 mai 2010

Tout à fait

"info sectes" donne la parole à qqn qui a filmé une école de FSSPX, école St Michel.

Qu'avez-vous découvert ?

Une volonté farouche de redonner à la France ses racines chrétiennes et de lutter contre l'anticatholicité dont ils considèrent la République française être porteuse depuis la Révolution. ...

Et la Suède l'a été depuis la Réforme Protestante, plus encore depuis le coup d'état de 1809 qui déposa Gustave IV Adolfe, plus encore depuis la socialdémocratie ...

Vous avez des exemples concrets traduisant cette affirmation ?

Les professeurs apprennent aux élèves que Voltaire et Rousseau, et plus généralement les philosophes des Lumières, ont conduit la France à la décadence philosophique, morale et politique. ...

Très d'accord, depuis très jeune.

Sont-ils noyautés par des groupuscules d'extrême droite ?

Il est difficile de tenir un discours contre-révolutionnaire et de ne pas être approché par l'extrême droite. ...

Que veut dire, précisement extrème droite? Skins? Alors, j'en connais, mais j'en fais pas parti. J'honore certains de leurs engagements (mémoire de leurs morts, détestation d'usure et de l'expropriation violente voir sanglante communiste) mais pas d'autres.

L'extrême droite apparaît-elle comme une voie d'engagement politique ?

À la sortie de l'école, c'est un débouché naturel et de moindre mal, car la restauration monarchique paraît irréaliste. ...

Irréaliste ou pas, c'est quand même une référence. D'ailleurs, si les prétendants se souviendraient de certains gestes ou faits de l'ancien régime (la non-obligation scolaire, la fin des lettres de cachet le 17 juillet 1789, quelques semaines avant la révolution du 4 août, la gratuité d'école réalisé par dévotion des ursulines pour élèves pauvres dont les parents la désiraient, l'apprentissage agricole ou artisanale pour la plupart des garçons entre 7 et puberté, la non-existance des DDAS avec leurs pouvoirs d'enlever les enfants, l'échelle très reduite de la psychiatrie de l'époque et la non-existence de l'avortement ou de l'euthanasie sauf comme des crimes sévèrement punis) ils pourraient avoir un suivi plus important.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
17 mai (fête nationale de Norvège)
l'An du Seigneur 2010
Paris, Mairie du IIIe

lundi 10 mai 2010

Non, la Ste Jehanne d'Arc n'est pas une manif raciste ... Pie XII n'a pas interdit le créationnisme ...

[Ce message fait partie de la série création vs évolutionnisme, clicquer ici pour voir les autres]

et (juste dans les commentaires)

...les orthodoxes sont un peu plus antiromains que les Tradis même sédisvacantistes

Mon ami Axel de Boer (Liste Chrétienne) vient de s'exprimer:

La seule race "pure" est africaine ! c'est l'étrange conclusion de l'étude du génome des Homo Sapiens: les autres ont entre 1 et 4% de gène Néanderthal.... n'en déplaise aux racistes, ls français sont des sangs mélés depuis 50.000 ans !!!

Après quelques-uns qui se posaient en soutien, je commente:

Serait-ce à propos la manif en honneur de Ste Jehanne hier?

D'ac, j'ai vu des hommes dont les têtes étaient un peu éparses en chevelure, et une "croix celtique" qui n'était pas tout à fait une croix celtique MAIS ce n'était pas le propos.

Si quelqu'un a proclamé la France comme état islamique, je n'ai même rien à dire contre le slogan, autrement - ce qui m'a fait partir de la manif - c'était d'une certaine vue un peu en avance des développements.

À propos l'étude, il me semble que les cro magnons et les néanderthals sont tous les deux enfants d'Adam et d'Eve - et pas de "Lucy".

Ça peut venir comme une surprise pour un français - mal informés que vous êtes sur les critiques des sciences en vogue parmi des chrétiens, y compris catholiques, des EEUU - mais un créationniste ne nie pas les squélettes trouvés à Cro Magnon et d'autres parts en Dordogne, juste la justesse des datations. Item biensûr pour les squélettes de Néanderthal ou d'Atapuerca:

Quand à la France, c'est bien qu'à différence d'Égypte et d'Iraq, ici l'église n'est pas persécuté.

Et à différence d'il y a 105 ans (quand les catholiques étaient hors la loi).

Ça permet un certain patriotisme, qu'on trouve chez les pères post-nicéens à propos de Rome.... See more

Benoît XV (crois-je que c'était) nomma Ste Jehanne la patronne du patriotisme chrétien.

Deux commentateurs ont ajouté des choses entretemps:

R.B. : Rappelons que l'Eglise condamne le créationnisme et affirme que, jusqu'à Abraham, il n'y a rien d'historique dans l'Ancien Testament, ce qui ne veut pas dire que des textes comme la Génèse n'aient pas une grande importance spirituelle.

H. P. : dis que R. dit n'importe quoi !

J'y reponds: Je suis curieux.

L'église ne peut pas condamner le créationnisme, mais cette chose de "rien historique en Génèse jusqu'à Abraham" je l'avais déjà entendu [avec quelque différences], en Suède, par une prof de confession (si quelque de tout) probablement luthérienne.

Quel document serait-ce?

Aussi intéressant que la réaction se base sur "l'église" et non pas sur la science - vous n'avez peut-être pas lu mon argumentation dans le lien, qui est une argumentation purement scientifique.

Auquel R a repondu deux choses:

Pardonnez-moi mais, étant diplômé en exégèse et en théologie et laïc en responsabilité engagé par l'Eglise, je sais de quoi je parle. C'est le Vatican qui affirme ce que j'ai dit dans mon précédent message, pas des modernistes ou des luthériens.

La science ne croit pas non plus au créationisme ou à l'existence d'un monsieur Adam et d'une madame Eve.

Après qqs interchanges, un séminariste s'y mêle:

Que la création en 7 jours ne soit pas historique ne signifie pas que la Genèse ne soit pas historique. C'est un peu la différence entre "exact" et "vrai": le Genèse par exemple, nous dit que Rebecca avait pleins de chameaux, ce qui est impossible car ils ont été domestiqué 600 ans après sa mort. Mais ce qui est le plus important est que Rebecca était riche. L'auteur sacré a utilisé les matériaux littéraires de son temps pour signifier une vérité -la plus importante à ses yeux: la richesse incroyable de Rebecca.

C'est un peu comme si on faisait dire au Christ aujourd'hui: faite vous 10 Ferrari dans le ciel. Ce ne sont pas les Ferrari qui sont importantes, mais le trésor dans les cieux!
C'est un peu ça, R.?

R. B. : Oui, en exégèse, on distingue des genres littéraires différents suivant les livres de la bible. Comme je le disais, la Genèse est un texte essentiel mais il n'a pas de portée historique. L'auteur de ce livre n'a pas voulu faire un compte-rendu historique de la création mais nous donner à travers ce récit mythologique un enseignement sur le rapport entre Dieu et l'Homme.

Aussi, l'Eglise rejette le créationisme qui considère la Genèse comme un livre historique.

J'y reponds:

[M. l'Abbé le séminariste]: dans l'Evangile, on ne prête pas des mots à Notre Seigneur qu'il n'a pas prononcé. "Poser ses Ferrari dans le ciel plutôt que le garage" est certainement un propos qui va dans le même sens que l'enseignement du Seigneur, mais ce ne sont pas verba ipsius. Item pour les chamaux de Rebekkah, si elle n'avait pas de chamaux, l'information n'est pas véridique sur les faits. Item pour monseigneur, notre père selon la chair, Adam, et madame, notre mère selon la chair Eve.

R.: votre propos sur "historique" et "mythique" ne prend pas en compte le fait que "mythos" en Grec veut dire "récit" et "historia" veut dire "recherche". Les pères de l'Eglise qui ont utilisé le mot mythe à propos la Genèse l'ont fait en disant que c'est un récit populaire, pas un oeuvre savant. Nullement que ça soit, dans notre sens des mots, mythique (c à d non-factuelle) plutôt qu'historique (c à d factuelle).

R.: vous esquivez ma question: QUEL DOCUMENT? A. V. [reponse non copiée] vous a donné un document assez précis, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pape Pie X, qui fut canonisé par Pape Pie XII. Vous avez dit "le Vatican" sans préciser plus, ce qu'est, de toute façon pas le cas pour l'époque de St Pie X.

"Encore une fois l'Eglise romaine, le Pape, le Vatican condamnent le créationisme et affirment la non historicité des textes bibliques jusqu'à Abraham, ce qui ne diminue en rien l' importance de ces textes mais nous oblige à les lire différemment."

ENCORE UNE FOIS: dans quel document? Parlant de genres, est-ce le genre de document qui condamne? Avec quelle note théologique? "téméraire" ou "hérétique" ou quelle?

Quand à la science, c'est un peu différent si on demande à un évolutionniste scientifique et un créationniste scientifique.

Axel de Boer: je ne vois pas le rapport avec mon statut : l'existence des hommes anciens et attesté et n'est en rien contraire à la bible. Par ailleurs je susi très méfiant dans le conflit entre créationiste et évoutionistes parceque les deux agissent avec déologie et sans aucun soucis du vrai. Je me moque de savoir si Dieu à crée l'homme à partir d'un singe ou pas. ce qui importe, c'est que Dieu nous appelle à marcher vers lui. Notre salut et notre devoir de chrétien ne passe pas par ces débats stériles.

Axel: tu viens de dire que selon les scientifiques juste les africains sont pures Homo Sapiens, les autres seraient "mélangés avec néanderthaliens" comme si ceux-ci ne seraient pas descendus d'Adam et d'Eve.

Axel, pour encore vous repondre: sur un mur politique, on se demande aussi quel est votre (la tienne et de la partie) position sur le droit d'avoir le créationnisme enseigné en école au moins à côté du darwinisme?

A. V. :Pur homo sapiens, c'est à dire, si j'ai bien compris, de VRAIS humains alors, les autres, un peu coupés avec quoi ? des demis singes ?

à quoi je reponds: A., les néanderthalien[s] ne sont pas demi-singes, c'est un peu les traits de la race Alpine un peu exaggérés. Un dentiste créationniste a aussi expliqué leur traits distinctifs avec leur vieil age, il pense qu'il s'agit d'hommes de plus de 500 ans comme c'était courant avant le déluge.

Encore une citation de R. B.:

"A., vous déformez mes propos : l'Eglise nous enseigne que certains livres de la Bible ne sont pas historiques, ce qui ne veut pas dire que l'ensemble de la Bible n'a rien d'historique.

"Je suis surpris que des personnes qui se disent dans la tradition refusent l'enseignement de l'Eglise sur ces sujets.

"Encore une fois l'Eglise romaine, le Pape, le Vatican condamnent le créationisme et affirment la non historicité des textes bibliques jusqu'à Abraham, ce qui ne diminue en rien l' importance de ces textes mais nous oblige à les lire différemment."

A) Dans l'avant propos de la Vulgate imprimé de Colunga Turado, ce n'est pas le cas, puisque St Pie X est cité.

B) Je suis surpris qu'un homme qui est "en responsabilité engagé par l'église" ne sache pas que "traditionnel" veut, dans ce contexte, dire "plutôt obéissant aux consignes tradés jusqu'avant-hier qu'à ceux du Vatican depuis Vatican II".

Aussi qu'il peut être diplômé en quoi que ce soit et ne pas savoir quel genre de citation on requiert de lui. "Quel document?" est une question qui ne semble pas trop difficile à comprendre, et si vous n'êtes pas en position de me le dire, vous pouvez au moins dire ça.

La reponse est venue, je la cite in extenso (R. B.):

C'est,je crois, Pie XII qui a affirmé le caractère non historique des récits de la Bible jusqu'à Abraham. Et c'est de cette affirmation que découle le refus du créationnisme. Car si la Genèse n'est pas un livre historique, nous n'avons, par exemple, pas à croire que le monde a été créé en 7 jours.
Si vous doutez de ce que je dis, posez la question à n'importe quel prêtre de l'Eglise catholique qui vous confirmera mes dires.
Sachez quand même que ce type d'enseignement est dispensé en catéchèse dès la 6°. . .

À quoi moi:


quand à l'orthodonthiste créationniste qui prend les néanderthaliens pour hommes antédiluviens très agés.

Pour vous, je n'ai pas a poser la question verbalement même à un prêtre, quand j'ai déjà fait la lecture oeil sur lettres de documents, et Pie XII, ça serait plutôt Humani Generis, et il n'a pas condamné le créationnisme en affirmant l'évolutionnisme, il a bel et bien appelé à une certaine réserve et prudence dans le débât, que vous venez encore une fois de bafouer.

M. L'Abbé de Cacqueray (supérieur du district français de la FSSPX) vient automne passé de rappeler cette réserve, à quoi c'est moi qui ais repondu que les preuves contre l'évolution existent déjà (voir le message "karyogrammata" sur mon blog - l'index contentorum est sur - qui est en anglais, sur le même index vous trouvez aussi un message sur Tikhon de Moscou et Pie XII qui rappelle la persécution communiste dans laquelle on s'est prononcé plus favorablement qu'avant sur l'évolution).

Quand à catéchisme en 6°, désolé, j'ai lu cinq catéchismes en contexte de ma conversion, mais je n'ai pas suivi votre caté d'école, sauf très brèvement en Autriche, où le sujet était Moïse, St Pierre, l'Eucharistie. Et pas la Genèse.

Ma reponse à M. l'Abbé de Cacqueray se trouve sur:

Et voici Humani Generis, Pie XII, 1950:

Deux ans après que les communistes enferment le Cardinal Mindszenty, qui s'était notemment engagé dans l'enseignement, dans les écoles catholiques.

Après quoi il se retire de Pie XII:

R. B.: Pour les références tant demandées, il suffit de se réferer au nouveau catéchisme de l'Eglise catholique qui est le document de référence !

A. V. le fait mais ne trouve pas l'affirmation, bien qu'elle cherche à l'endroit dédié à la Création. Elle cite (in extenso parait-il) précisement un paragraphe du CEC 1992, mais fait en passant une référence au Catéchisme de St Pie X comme nullement dépassé et restant véridique.

R. B. :Encore une fois, si vous ne me faites pas confiance, demandez à un prêtre ! Ce que vous cités du nouveau catéchisme ne s'oppose en rien à ce que je vous ai dit.

Encore une précision, l'enseignement se fait aujourd'hui avec le CEC et s'il y a conflit entre le CEC et un catéchisme précédent, c'est le CEC qui prime.

Mais vous, R. B., êtes intellectuellement malhonnête, en extrème!

Moi, je sais lire, A. V. sait lire, on a vérifié vos références, elle le CEC, moi l'encyclique de Pie XII, on n'a pas trouvé ce que vous affirmez.

La caté du 6° n'est pas une source du Vatican, mais uniquement de cette France où la désinfo n'est pas tout à fait absente.

Votre dernière précision n'est pas une réponse acceptable pour un traditionnaliste quiconque. La foi n'est pas une invention récente à améliorer par des découvertes encore plus récentes, elle est le dépôt donné il y a 2000 ans à peu près aux Apôtres. Item pour l'exégèse.

Et avec "demandez à un prêtre" vous vous faites ridicule!

Quel prêtre? Quand il y en a des milliers, on trouve des prêtres qui pensent comme vous, et d'autres qui sont traditionnels (et non pas autoritaires partisans de votre évêque) et ce ne sont pas vos prêtres qui font référence pour nous les traditionnalistes. Quel que soit le nombre de participants dans votre petit club d'admiration mutuelle à l'exclusion de toute question qui ne se contente pas avec vos mensonges ou demi-vérités sur "le Vatican".

Encore une chose:

On vous n'a pas demandé si ce que vous [dites] est reconciliable avec le CEC de 1992. On vous a demandé si vous avez des références (et vous venez de citer CEC comme telle, et, parait-il, en vain, juste après avoir eu Humani Generis dans un lien accessible par mes soins).

jeudi 6 mai 2010

Someone posted a link to Fr. Corapi today

and there was a debate about Capitalism vs. Socialism, in which I butted in:

No one brought up what Chesterton considered the mark of Capitalism: Capital being in the main owned by a small and roughly recognisable class known as capitalists and its dividends being handed out to the masses mainly in the form of wages.

In other words: Wall Street, Soros ...

C.: socialism, as such, is not about stealing.

Usual ways of bringing it about in marxist revolutions mean stealing, and there is arguable things for regarding fiscal socialism as a form of stealing.

What was going in in Yugoslavia, economically, was a basically good thing, but in some parts (not Serbia, but like Slovenia) it was brought about by stealing from previous large land owners, which is a bad thing.

It can be argued that Capitalism as practised by Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Pierpoint Morgan, Drexel (OK - there was one Saint after whom Drexel Hill is named) and more recently Soros is a form of stealing.

Quote from [Fr.] Corapi [news]:

Urging attendees to examine the current political climate, he said that "socialism is not in conformity with biblical teaching. Socialism doesn't profit the poor, but only brings poverty and misery. Socialism is about the seizure of power. It only brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator."

True for socialism as introduced in Russia 1917, and partly in Sweden by Social democrats (notably they were fiscally ruining farmers in the 60's, which Franco and de Gaulle did too, but Franco less than de Gaulle, de Gaulle less than they).

Not quite true about some other known forms of it - like Serbian villages in which indeed everyone was poor but everyone had a living long before the Marxists came along. Or the Cæsarian socialism of common goods like libraries (modern), free water in water fountains (modern and ancient), free distribution of wheat grains (ancient, k a Annona).

Further quote from Fr. Corapi:

In his final segment, Fr. Corapi said that in all of his years as a priest, he's never seen such fear in people. "There's a lot of anxiety, a lack of trust in government, elected and appointed officials. There's a crisis of trust," he said. Then quoting from the Gospels of Mark and Luke, he advised "fear is useless; what is needed is trust."

Trust in Government?

Fear may be useless, but trust in government is not Biblical. Trust in God helping Government to avoid disastrous mistakes insofar as it urges for public prayers about it, yes, but in government per se - nooooooooo.

"Cursed is he who putteth his trust in princes" (Biblical quote I have via Chesterton, here is what real quote may be: link) is not about republic vs monarchy, it is about government.

C. : I'd start from here and work my way back: 120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth, it is based *nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity*. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.
Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno, on the reconstruction of the social order, May 15th, 1931

ah, socialism as in marxist socialism

I was using the wider connotation still frequent when de la Tour de Pin called himself a socialist.

C. : It's not a word I would use to describe myself. Not if I wanted people to know that I was Catholic. The historical legacy of the term does not connote a series of ideas either singly or collectively that are anything but hostile to the Catholic Church.

Words to describe people include "Catholic" and "Socialist" and I would not describe myself as "Socialist" either but as "Christian Social", "Distributist" or - sometimes - "Fascist."

"Socialism" is a word used to describe either ideology (usually marxist one, as opposed to "Liberalism, Conservatism, Anarchism, Fascism, Christian Socialism, Distributism") or state of society (as opposed to "Capitalist, Feudal, Small Property, Corporativism, Communism as in common property"), I was referring to latter connotation.

Communism as an ideology states Communism as in common property as a final goal to be worked for, Socialism as ideology tries to make Socialist measures predominant (and is thus making the citizen "born an orphan, living a fonctionnaire, dying without heirs"). Both are bad, because as states of society or societal facts [on earth, in wider contexts than family], communism and socialism are good exceptional features, but bad models for wholesale remodelling.

C. : I mean it as it was defined in Quadragesimo anno either as an ideology or as a form of collectivism. If the term is defined in its historical context, that's where it becomes extremely problematic. At the point at which we begin to talk about distributism or corporatism, it becomes more useful and informative to use other terminology, unless as some do, you want to implicate distributism and third way ideologies as a form of socialism.

Distributism=Small Property (if ideology equals effect wanted by it) and Corporativism=Trade Unions Envolving Employers

Socialism=State interference in matters normally left alone.

Normal should remain normal (which is why I am no socialist), but exceptions should be possible.

C. : Socialism is ugly government where the god is manifested in the State and transcendance is militated against both by the education system and the official pronouncements of the government, and religion gets transformed into an ecstatic brand of montanism, or shamanistic tribalism.

As to religion, there are other effects of socialism, and these are not always of it. Otherwise you sum up well what the word has come to stand for. Nevertheless, I consider public toilets that work a beneficent act of socialism in a legitimate sense of the word.

PS: Since posting link (see comments below) C. Looked it up, and debate continued today:

C. :
"The rise of the robber barons in the USA and the writings of Charles Dickens in England pointed out that an unfettered capitalism often leads to a system of monopolies that oppress the majority of the country in incredible ways. Thus, some of the antitrust laws were passed under President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. Basically, since the latter ... See Morepart of the late 19th century and most of the 20th century, we have retained capitalism, but gone away from the laissez-faire conception."

T. Roosevelt was indeed a progressivist, and despite Dickens' portrayals providing a kind of justification for progresssive reform and increasing state ownership of and interference in production, Little Dorrit which itself shows the shortcomings of government.

I suppose public utilities like public fountains are like many of the vain promises of government. Oftentimes, public facilities are dangerous or (poorly maintained) to use in inner cities

That does happen too.

In Paris half of the toilets were out of order a few months ago.

I do however endorse anti-trust legislation.

Neglecting public utilities is one way for Government or Administration (or even its employees) to say "we do not give a damn about the poor".

Keeping public utilities in good shape was the glory of many an Emperor and Christian King.

I think a fair deal is keeping toilets and running water public and restaurants and drinks private.

I mean: a toilet should not stink, a water fountain should not have rust mixed with the water, but to food and beverages there are artistic variations.

Back to anti-trust: yes, forbidding trusts, asserting minimum wages, maximum prices IS government intervening.

And for that matter government may need to own things, partly in order not to either over-tax or borrow, and partly in order for trust size companies not to be in the hands of gangster capitalism.

C. : A solution is the privatization of government and the abandonment of the idea that earthly life is anyting more than a way-station to a better, or worse state of being contingent upon what we've done with the resources we have.

Much labor conflict, which is a result of the unfettered and immoral protestantic groups trampling on traditional folk-ways, churches and the like are on the same trajectory as the Revolutionaries of the late 18th Centuries who saw armed revolt (and murder) against their masters in government as a business opportunity.

Btw, the wealthy owners and great princes (whom we still have controlling things today, democratic propaganda not withstanding, should found institutes, pensions, hospitals, spas and baths to care for the poor.

It would be a patriotic duty as it was in Roman times... all the more wonderful if it were done anonymously through the Church.

which was added friday 7/V/2010

Privatization of government AND abandonment of the idea that earthly life is anything more than ... et c.

A) What you mean by privatisation of government is not really clear, and some scenarios that spring to mind are frankly gruesome (Lankhmar, or that city in one of the Conan books where he had to flee fast, not for killing, but for doing it ... See Moreoutside the killers' guild)

B) Earthly life is certainly nothing more important than waiting for Heaven or Hell, but since static waiting without struggle for earthly happiness is very little pursued, there is a legitimate concern for spreading earthly happiness, like when emperor of Brazil bought free all slaves in Brazil or General Robert E Lee freed all of his (before losing the battle of the confederacy) or when Henry IV promised and tried to keep the promise of one coq au vin per sunday.

C) When it comes to benefices given by sovereigns, two things have generally stopped Holy Church from insisting they should "not let their left hand know what does their right hand":

i) since they are posh, their good example is an occasion for "let your light so shine before men"

ij) since they often have to do bad things when getting or keeping power, not as an absolute, but relatively to their earthly ambitions, even legitimate, they usually are in need of having their names on a list for the Chaplains' or Monks' prayers.

And since they are more looked on than others, it is plain harder for them to do good in secret than for some others.

mercredi 5 mai 2010


Bible, Church, Catholic and Orthodox
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 6:27pm

Catechism on Bible

Church or Bible?

The Church and its enemies

These pages on DRBO speak as if Catholicism and Orthodoxy were synonymous. As if the schism of 1054 did not separate in any way.

Comment field:

AB: Interesting... The only two groups recognized are (Roman) Catholics and the Protestant "Deformers."
December 17, 2008 at 6:46pm
me: as if the schism of 1054 had never happened
December 18, 2008 at 4:52pm
AB: Yeah. The Schism was such a minor thing that, surely, we can completely disregard it... right? ;-)
December 18, 2008 at 6:03pm
me: Well, the schism between ROCOR and Moscow was made up before 100 years passed, that of 1054 just might be before one thousand years pass ...?
December 22, 2008 at 1:06pm
Might add: I was more scared of being on wrong side of it than eager to prolong it, when I decided to become Orthodox
December 22, 2008 at 1:11pm
AB: Yes, I can relate to that. However, I think a reunion with the Oriental Orthodox churches is closer than with Rome... But time will tell.
December 22, 2008 at 2:27pm

Since the last note
Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 7:27pm

... last before this as well as last before I was disabled to sign in on this, I have made another account under the name Hans-Georg Lundahl.

Today I found out that there was a way to reset the password.

Some updates.

Back in 1984 (this is not Newspeak) I read as a Christmas present Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose. I was already favourable to Roman Catholicism, but I had considered Inquisition a proof it was not in itself the Church of Christ. Eco's novel convinced me, along with other reading, Albigensians and others (yes, Fraticelli too) were a threat to the Christian Civilisation of the Middle Ages which I cherished and still cherish. So I decided I would sooner or later - preferrably in company with other Right Wing Lutherans - join the Catholic Church.

I stopped procrastination due to two circumstances during 1985, the one private, the other that the parish was getting a female "chaplain". The Sunday it was announced I walked out of the Swedish State Church. I left it officially some year later, me having hoped I would have the aid of Catholic Church to make the conversion count as opting out of Lutheranism, but finding I had to do the paper work of leaving with that "Church".

I was received into the Catholic Church in 1988. After the St Anne's House was regularised, as I recently found out, before Mgr Léfèbvre consecrated four bishops, as I read in the Catholic Newspapers.

Since 1990 or 91 I am a Traditionalist Catholic, I heard my first mass of St Pius V in St Nicolas du Chardonnet if present at Mass hours, otherwise at Le Barroux the latter year (I had to change trains in Paris).

In 2006 I had had a lot of pastoral displeasures with Traditionnalists, I also was a Sedevacantist when John Paul II died, though I hope he died a Christian death. The "Papal problem" so to speak with Traditionnalism had made me take another look at Gk Orthodoxy. Which is where I was around, when I joined facebook. During my time on other account, I had seen one or two things in Orthodoxy:

a) as authorising Roman Catholicism as at least a legitimate branch of Orthodox Church
b) things that hurt my conscience or heart, from the Easter Pastoral of Metropolitan Josif (Roumanian jurisdiction) to the anti-Roman diatribes of Paul Ballaster, including a calumny of what St Robert Bellarmine actually wrote in his work De Romano Pontifice.

So, I am back, more or less, into the Traditional Catholic fold. I also now live in Paris, on the street, which you will see if I am able to update profile info after this note.


Quand naît la France comme distincte de Rome? Pas sous Clovis.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 6:52pm

"- La France en tant que civilisation naît lors du baptême de Clovis, roi des Francs qui prend en héritage une partie de la défunte romanité tout en étendant son autorité sur un territoire comparable à la France, bien que l'unification finale soit le fait des Capétiens après maints combats."

Clovis était un consul romain, ayant reçu les insignia consularia de l'Empereur à Constantinople. En son royaume se parlaient Latin et Franc, avec Brittonic, Borgond, Visigoth: le français était encore non-existant (voir excurs final dans ce message blog (le mien) sur le nombre de chromosomes (anglophone).

En plus, son royaume comprend toute la BeNeLux (ou à peu près) et partie de l'Allemagne (notamment Trêves, Cologne, Bonn, tout ce coin, ou se trouve actuellement un Zülpich traditionnellement identifié avec Tolbiacum) peut-ëtre la Suisse actuelle aussi. Son successeur Charlemagne prétendra rétablir (ou, selon d'autres, rétablira) l'Empire de l'Occident. La protestation diplomatique de Constantinople portera pas sur la barbarité totale des pays concernés, mais sur le fait que l'Empire a été réunie (de jure, sinon administrativement) par la chute de Romulus Augustulus (un peu avant Clovis).

Bossuet, dans son Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle compte Charlemagne comme le debut de quelque chose nouveau, distincte de Rome (qu'il n'aborde d'ailleurs pas dans ce "discours"). Vue que le premier texte à proprement dire français (voir le lien donné si vous êtes fonctionnellement anglophone) est dans les Serments de Strasbourg, entre ses héritiers ... ça semble exacte.

Hans Lundahl

Democrat = Socialist?

Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 5:55pm

There was a time when the byword about democrats was: their three Rs are Rome, Rum and Rebellion.

JU: Wow! I had forgotten that quote from my high-school US History class. That's great! I'd better re-register to vote -- sounds like good stuff.
May 3, 2008 at 9:17pm

JU: ...It's kind-of funny to think of: people usually rebell against Rome.
May 3, 2008 at 9:37pm

me: There was a time when rebs like Lee and romans like Pio nono were allies ...
May 5, 2008 at 8:37am

JU: Compare Franco?
May 5, 2008 at 10:45am

JU: Actually, I don't know exactly who Pio nono was, and can't find much about him on the web.
May 5, 2008 at 11:37am

me: Pio Nono=Italian pronunciation of Pius PP IX, the Pope of the First Vatican Council
May 5, 2008 at 12:24pm

He diplomatically recognised the Confederacy, as did also France and England.
May 5, 2008 at 12:24pm

p s=Rome was before Roe vs Wade, Rum was before heavy alliance with doctors, Rebellion was before affirmative action, psychiatry and social workers.
May 6, 2008 at 12:28pm

"I giovani sono il futuro ..." (breve commentario)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 10:57am

Perchè non cantare giovinezza così?

"Esigiamo un futuro per i giovani italiani" - ah bene? Chi vi priva del futuro? Chi vi matta? E: chi matta i bambini non nati?

"Creatività, democrazia, società-socialità, eco-compatibilità, innovazione e gioventù sono il futuro della nostra società" - ah bene? "...e giuventù"? Per questo falta finire gli avortamenti e la contracezzione. Oltramente, la senilità serà il futuro della nostra società e della vestra!

question to catholic and orthodox friends

Monday, April 7, 2008 at 9:40am

is the catholic church treating me as a public sinner?
alternatively madman?
is the orthodox church doing so?
are evangelicals/pentecostals doing so?
if so, why?

ChAC: I don't know what you are up to, so I can't say!
April 7, 2008 at 10:58am

me: ok
btw, are you spreading the news about my music and essays on antimodernism (if you enjoy it, that is?)
April 7, 2008 at 11:42am

because, you see, IF someone were to treat my site as the ravings of a madman or the pride of an unrepentent public sinner, that would explain the lack of financial success of
April 7, 2008 at 2:35pm

Ch.: you asked me what I am up to ... or pretended not to know

it is now years since you knew of me first, and pretty soon afterwards (at the latest) you were able to read my site

not all of it may be to your liking

the Popes from 1938 onwards have not been to mine

one explanation I tried to live by was that Pius XII was an anti-pope, just as sedisvacantists view John Paul II

since my bad memory of reading Fr Bryan Houghton's Prêtre rejeté made me confuse colinists with palmarians, I soon found out that Palmar de Troya accepted Pius XII as well as Paul VI as true popes, even martyrs, prisoners in the Vatican

regarding the Novus Ordo along with certain documents of Pius XII (which I read in Latin in the AAS for 1943, 1947 and 1950) as forged documents only purportedly by those popes was historically very uncertain, but theologically a possibility to save papacy

I tried that for 14 months
April 7, 2008 at 3:05pm

when I turned my back on Palmar de Troya, I was a little too much burnt child to accept immediately the claims of what's his name, yeah, Bawden, a k a Pope Michael I

his attitude towards the host recepy and flour used over most of Latin Church reminded me of Caerularius

be it noted that Michael Caerularius is not a canonised Saint, nor does he count as one of the pillars of Orthodoxy

I even tried to get back to both the lefebvrian and the ordinary vatican obedient line, because the choice of Ratzinger gave me hopes. I confessed to a ICRSP- priest at Christmas 2005.

Since then I felt deceived. 2006 the Latin rite Easter coincided with the Jewish one - with only one day of décalage. The council of Nicea did not chose its astronomical precis[i]ons for easter for symbolism only, but so as to avoid eastering with the synagogue. A few months later I was ready to believe an orthodox site which qualified papism as the first protestantism. I decided to convert.
April 7, 2008 at 3:14pm

Is there ANYTHING else you have any doubts about, as regardds me? Or is it my continued miscomfort with the RC/Vatican pastoral and dogmatism of 20th C post 38?
April 7, 2008 at 3:14pm

CP: lol - There is no such thing as private sin - so yes you are a public sinner...but for various reasons that must go unjudged from my perspective...error has no rights, but persons do...:)
April 7, 2008 at 3:22pm

JU: Sorry, I actually didn't look at the site. If this is about "Modernism: the Synthesis of all Heresies", I'm against that already and don't have to look at it. But now, since it must be important, I will look at it.

The only reason I personally haven't contacted you recently is because our last discussion left me in ignorance of the fossil record, and I seldom buy books, so it may be some time before I buy the one you recommended. ...Although that was not the point of discussing whether there could, non-heretically, be Christian belief in a theistic evolution -- for which I only posed some quotes to exemplify Catholic Chruch thinking.

Finally, choosing not to believe in certain Popes' legitimacy simply because you don't like what they say has always seemed a bit wrong-headed to me.
April 7, 2008 at 8:31pm

me: "lol - There is no such thing as private sin - so yes you are a public sinner"
a little on terminology: public sin means publicly known sin
April 8, 2008 at 8:47am


We had two differences, one about Church Fathers, other about "fossile record" - if you cannot get From Nothing to Nature on a library for lending, why not look at my resumé on last year's facebook note on a fossile giant sea scorpion?
April 8, 2008 at 9:21am

CP: My point;

You cannot foster a disjunction between public sin versus private sin...
now clearly thats not what you are addressing...
having a belief that is filled with error is only a sin if there is something improper in your intention. In other words you have to know that it is bad, and believe it anyways for it to be a sin.

I'd saw we hold you in "error" not necessarily in sin (since "God alone is Judge")
April 8, 2008 at 2:39pm

ah, that is another matter - the orthodox Church might either not agree with you or agree for different reasons

i hold you in error about canon law

there are public sins for which a man should be shunned, whereas an equally grave sin which is private would not involve public avoidance, since it is not known same applies of course to a public sinner whose merited bad reputation i simply do not know about, therefore not being able to shun him as he should be shunned, like a declared freemason or gay who does not tell me he is that

one of my misgivings (for which i came up with this question) is about intrigues like that to make me appear like fraternizing with public sinners - and thereby appear as sharing his guilt
April 8, 2008 at 3:48pm

by the way, C.: do you agree with J. on Church Fathers, fossile record or both? did you read our correspondence about it?
April 8, 2008 at 3:50pm

J., I believe that modernism in the sense of liberal theology or denial of say Biblical inerrancy involves or allows the synthesis of errors

I also belive that modern thought in general as distinct from and opposed to more traditional thought, may involve lots of errors even without exlicit reference to modernism, and even outside the sphere of defined dogma
April 8, 2008 at 3:53pm

exlicit=explicit, of course
April 8, 2008 at 3:53pm
April 8, 2008 at 3:55pm

oh, pruss is a great arguer:
April 8, 2008 at 4:00pm

except that he basically contradicts himself:
April 8, 2008 at 4:19pm

JU: "one of my misgivings(for which i came up with this question) is about intrigues like that to make me appear like fraternizing with public sinners - and thereby appear as sharing his guilt"

Human judges nudge by the company you keep. However, if we are to imitate Christ, are we not permitted to dine with sinners if we will give them a good example? The only problem is a practical one if people think you are one of the sinners. (in my opinion)

How did this problem come up?
April 8, 2008 at 4:42pm


You here R Catholics may think I am in error because i refuse to acknowledge present day official vatican papacy as the adequate succession of St Peter

Would the Orthodox agree with you?

Both may find me in error because I am a young earth creationist and deny that animals or plants died before Adam sinned - but has anyone of either side infallible authority for it?furthermore: I expect this may have shocked some merely musical readers of my merely musical compositions on same site - but surely not all? unless some of them are very ecclesiastical about the religions they do not believe in and some of my own coreligionists are disavowing me as, like, in pernicious error, or mad, or a public sinner whose words have no authority whatsoever in Church and should not be read

the Orthodox Parish here is not fond of talking about this, and the philosophy teacher is deliberately dodging the real url and the real reading by asking if it is ""
April 8, 2008 at 4:44pm

which is why i am asking you guys
no, i am at present not practising as an orthodox should
April 8, 2008 at 4:45pm

CP: There is no such thing as a private sin, since sin has three core dimensions according to Church Teaching:

The self (sinner), the neighbour, and God. Since private implies a lack of relationship, and all sin is with respect to breaking of covenantal relationship natural and supernatural, there is no act, good or bad that is private. However their are communal acts and personal acts.

And like Aquinas said, error shouldn't be tolerated, but people should be. To Catholics its not matter of "either/or" its a matter of "both and" - and that is often re-expressed as the "middle-position." It sounds like you may be falling into reductionalism...but I'm not sure.

I read the document on Church Teaching on Scripture - Have you? Dei Verbum explains that scripture is without error, insofar as the meaning, message and purpose of the text is designated, directed and revealing of who God and his Creation are all about.
April 8, 2008 at 5:25pm

(still CP): I'm curious, about the hope is that you are not attempting to justify yourself in your non-practicing state by hoping that we will reinforce anger from judgementalism or whatever...likely not...but it would be nice to know the context of your question
April 8, 2008 at 5:27pm

the context of my question is my social position, which makes practising harder for me

like a pastoral that tries to reorient me socially and professionnally rather than dealing with sins generally accepted as such

concern with neighbour has nothing to do with not being private

the betrayal of Judas was certainly against neighbour and against God - Christ was both - but it was still private when Judas participated in the Last Supper, it did not become public (before the Church) until he kissed our Lord in front of the guard who then took Him
April 9, 2008 at 9:12am

Lo, M. ... you've been here in Aix
I ask what you know about this
April 9, 2008 at 10:41am [no answer gotten]

CP: I still disagree, and I think so would the Orthodox Church in this category. But I think what is essentially different is the language we are using. All sin has public or social "effects" - In this way, a sin can be owned by an individual (cause), but affect his/her relationship with God and the world (effects).

Either way, if it is an act of indifference towards God and the World, it is still an act of sin against God and the World, and self... Thats all I mean. Its really a mute point right now.
April 9, 2008 at 10:31pm

(still CP): Eitherway, if you are following your conscience you cannot be held with blame for doing X, or doing Y. And no man can tell you what is in your Conscience but yourself...

so the question you are asking shouldn't be given to us.

If you think that we hold you in error, you are quite correct...

but that does not mean we believe you are full of sin and dissention in the "will."
April 9, 2008 at 10:33pm

me: huhh?

"of indifference towards God and the World, it is still an act of sin against God and the World, and self"

- indifference against God is a sin against God: he's our creator
- indifference against father and mother is usually a sin against them: they are our procreators
- indifference against children or against husband or wife are usually sins against them: we procreate the ones with the other (if we're married and have kids)
- when we are small and live with brothers and sisters, indifference to them is clearly nearly always sinful too
- indifference against creditors or debtors, against patrons or employees may well be sinful too, but comes clearly after God and family ..but indifference against the world being a sin against the world, my arse!

if that's what they teach at your seminar, you are among heretics
April 10, 2008 at 12:54pm

to clear up confusions before they arise: I have no duty at all to watch news about "the world", or to worry about "wars and rumours of war" - I do have duties (which I take seriously) against the strangers I meet on the street or on the web, even if they are not my family, God somehow providentially put them in my way, that includes you

"And no man can tell you what is in your Conscience but the question you are asking shouldn't be given to us."

I am not asking you for moral council, I am asking what my reputation is with you

"I still disagree, and I think so would the Orthodox Church in this category."

You should not need guess. I have tagged an Orthodox seminarian on this note, he can answer for his jurisdiction.

I have also tagged at least one Catholic girl I know of where I live, the other being possibly Protestant (I have not asked).
April 10, 2008 at 1:01pm

just in case you scroll down to these last responses, I copy original questions:

is the catholic church treating me as a public sinner?
alternatively madman?
is the orthodox church doing so?
are evangelicals/pentecostals doing so?
if so, why?

April 10, 2008 at 1:05pm

oh, J., I forgot to read all you wrote, I missed the last part

at a coffee-house about a week ago or two, an old but very rarely occasional aquaintance came in when I was enjoying my coffee

he was very concerned to be familiar with me, and this time I am not sure he was not trying to give the impression we had a homosexual relation or a familiar relation as between patient and therapist or some similar nonsense

I was annoyed, but did not punch him in the face, though on hindsight I suspect my reputation might have been better if I had: but I was tired, it was the morning, the coffee had not yet fully restored my waking self (he was going off to work, see why I should not try to get an employment with fixed hours)

April 10, 2008 at 1:18pm

I did not requit his overly familiar gesture, and I asked him about a common aquaintance from two years ago, who had my first violin sonata (in Scarlatti's definition of sonata structure, or at least musicologists' definitions of the very general structure in his sonatas) who - he confirmed it that morning these last fifteen days - did work in the opera, but who had never bothered to either send it back, make it played by a violinist, order another composition or scan it and publish it on Antimodernism after joining the MSN Group to do so.

He offered to give me her e-mail. But, hang it all, it was he who knew her in the first place! It was he who had me believe I might do well to show her my work, or at least that he might do well to introduce us.
April 10, 2008 at 1:22pm

I have no idea what he told the coffee bar owner after we had all left, but next morning there was another guy who did not know me in the bar, there had the been a man asking me to take up a coin from his pocket (he had a burden on the shoulder) which I did with a somewhat queezy feeling, there had been a prolongation of my annual subscription to NetGames, i wanted to get things straight, but I could not. Nor did this old acquaintance show up.
April 10, 2008 at 1:22pm

It may be added, that the same person earlier on on two occasions had expressed concern about my leaving Aix ...
April 10, 2008 at 1:37pm

It may be furthermore added that a Catholic priest - not the curate, but the aumonier des jeunes - had been loth to talk to me in Salon, except for the first time we talked; but eager to shake my hand when he saw me, while visiting his bishop in Aix
April 10, 2008 at 1:40pm

CP: LOL - indifference to the world - what I meant by that, and I think its completly obvious, is indifference to creation - I'm not discussing the flesh.

If we hate creation, we consequently hate the creator...if we hate the creator, we consequently hate creation...that is the rather simplistic logical non-heretical argument that I'm saying...and if you disagree with that...I shall laugh
April 10, 2008 at 3:56pm

between creation and flesh, there is society

I totally agree hatred of creation is bad: that is one reason why I have never liked manicheans. However, world has another connotation than creation, and creation can be better worded as earth "he who destroyeth earth, him shall the Lord destroy" or universe, kosmos, aka heavens and earth "in the beginning God created Heavens and the earth".

World as you might be aware has meanings pertaining to life in society or peer pressure. And I would not call the peer pressure to listen to half bawdy videoed music is the worst - nor is that something I do out of peer pressure alone. I like Alicia Keys, though the dancing in her last video is not quite on the decent side. Which would be bad if I tried to be a monk or hoped to be a priest, but for a layman ... the peer pressure I dread is the one of getting myself into undeservedly well reputed situations, where I've had the misfortune to be in the past.
April 10, 2008 at 4:53pm

Like getting a job again before marriage. Like getting paid for being on time and clean or being early on time and fast - or for teaching where there are young people who are more or less miserable because of the school.
April 10, 2008 at 4:54pm

Or like getting involved with an old maid, not likely to have many children, likely to have rejected suitors because they were what I am but she thinks I'm not, likely to recompensate lack of own children by mothering them when they are to old to be mothered or by mothering me for still liking Tintin, or for being a bad worker.
April 10, 2008 at 4:57pm

CP: Actually society is a part of the natural law and design of the human person. the flesh in scriptural language refers not so much to the body or skin, but rather a disposition that puts earthly goods higher than eternal goods.
April 10, 2008 at 5:18pm

JU: Mr. Lundahl,Perhaps if you go to that cafe again, you should take a date.
April 10, 2008 at 11:50pm

me: My dear, C.:

a) you reduce the enimies of the soul to devil and flesh, which is heretical; they are devil, world and flesh

b) society is part of natural law in so far as it fulfils it, but part of the fall in so far as the ones having power in society go against natural law in wielding either direct power or influence against an innocent person's either (relative)innocence or if he refuses to give it up, worldly interests...

My dear J.:

The reason I brought this up is precisely the difficulties I have in getting a date. In getting a reasonably young gal (not an old maid, though I do not insist on a secondary high school student either, one attending what is here known as faculté and where you are known as college will other things being equal do fine, as is also the case with a bright, single girl about that age who is d[o]ing the route like a vagabond) who dares see me without a chaperon.
April 11, 2008 at 10:09am

Also the difficulties in getting anyone to play my musical compositions for money and sending me part of it.
April 11, 2008 at 10:10am

Oh, C.: "the flesh in scriptural language refers not so much to the body or skin, but rather a disposition that puts earthly goods higher than eternal goods."

Were you accusing me of being a manichee or are you counselling me to practise in a parish which to appearances so far is joining hands with my worldly enemies? In the first case, the lecture was unnecessary, in the second ... well there have been lots of Catholic parishes where I did just that, and it has maybe helped me spiritually, but it is part of the reasons why I am not living the life I think I should live.
April 11, 2008 at 10:13am

I asked a common acquaintance, the man in the café was not homosexual, he said.

Any other takes on what's getting at my reputation?
April 18, 2008 at 4:28pm

Käns igen

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 9:26pm

Länk till artikel på Zoltans blogg.

Första kommentaren är min:

Finns det ateistiska sekter?

Ja, t ex marxister, humanister (tidigare humanetiska förbundet), RTVD, rand-dawkins-d’onfray, diverse nätverk som pronera methodologisk atheism i discipliner som annars utöfvas af äfven exvis kristna, de latinska frimurerierna af typen stor-orienter. Och LaVey-satanism.

Har ateismen blivit en religion?

Har den ngnsin varit annat än en utlöpare af protestantism, frimurerie och liberal judendom?

Får inte ateismen ifrågasättas?

Det fins ingen LAG som förbjuder det, men kolla gerna in oskrifna regler.

Sista kommentaren är min:

Käns igen. Jag är kompositeur (från min blogg nås “Antimodernism” der jag har en sida “Musicque”*, och åtskilliga kompositioner - tillräckligt för att påbörja repertoiren i exvis fiol eller piano - och det handlar om tonal, instrumental och icke-kyrklig musik). De som uppmuntra mig äro sjelfva rädda. Detta är Aix-en-Provence. Jag har sökt kontakta en lärare på conservatoriet, liksom jag lemnat en kartong med url-en på Aix en Musique, och jag har åtskilliga ggr sökt komma till tals med medlemmar af Lyre Aixoise om mina kompositioner.

Jag talar om tiden sedan 2006, altså. Den orthodoxa församlingen verkar illa berörd öfver att jag skrifver på internet. [*Ny länk.]

ma lettre à un droitiste

Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 9:32am

comme votre ami

j'ai le devoir un peu pénible de vous notifier mon désaccord profond sur la groupe 1000 contre les gauchistes

les employés de cgt n'ont pas un salaire même familiale, alors c'est immoral de les taxer d'assistanataires parce qu'ils demandent un salaire augmenté

ou ils ont peut-être un salaire familiale, s'ils se contentent avec moins? est-ce qu'on leur donne la chance?

on se fâche s'ils font la grêve, comment est-ce qu'on se fâche alors s'ils sont en retard pour le travail un jour sans grêve? s'ils sont hantés par tel stress, ne leur demandez pas de se contenter de moins, car le stress est un mauvais conseilleur

mardi 4 mai 2010

Liens dans articles ...

Sont-ils heureux de leur choix d'alors?

Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 12:01pm

Eline Briant

Eline raconte son histoire. La rencontre de son père, un technicien d'origine bretonne, avec sa mère, une Allemande, éducatrice spécialisée, venue de Hambourg. Eline naît près de Lyon et poursuit, dans un petit village, une scolarité apparemment sans histoire. "Depuis mes onze ans, je m'intéresse à la religion. C'est à cet âge que j'ai demandé à mes parents s'ils pouvaient m'inscrire au catéchisme parce que je voulais un peu connaître la religion catholique. Ils m'ont dit qu'ils préféraient que j'attende d'avoir mes dix-huit ans pour que je sois plus sûre de mon choix."

Bien, les parents ont bel et bien évité que leur fille devienne Catho ... d'où ma question -- est-ce qu'ils sont heureux de leur choix maintenant?

Mémoire éternelle ... Lazare Ponticelli

Monday, March 17, 2008 at 12:18pm

Obsèques nationales du dernier poilu Français en mémoire de tous ...

Il(s) aurai(en)t peut-être apprécié cette chanson "Sur la route ..." - que j'ai donné dans les notes Facebook il y a trois mois avant.

Ils ont lutté pour liberté et droit, les poilus de l'Entente Cordiale. Après ils se sont souvent engagés contre la guerre.

Ses obsèques tombent le jour de St Patrick.

Les moines celtes étaient parmi les grands missionnaires du peuple baïouvare, dont sont issus les autrichiens et les bavarois. Le dernier Empéreur effectivement regnant de l'Autriche, que ça soit connu, a voulu rectifier l'erreur de l'avant-dernier de se lier a Berlin, contre le Tsar et l'Entente: il a offert une paix séparée. Peut-être les poilus auraient apprécié que les politiciens l'auraient accepté. Elle fut rejetée.

Hans Lundahl

Comics ...
Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 12:12pm ,

Deutschland (Inzest-urtheil)

Das Link auf FB wurde unbenutzbar - hier ist mein Artikel mit zwei noch nutzbaren.

Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 2:02pm kommentierte ich (FB, auf English):

The court decision is reasonable. However, the sibling couple ought to file complaint for the forced separation, which led them to crime.

Chomsky vs. Foucault ...

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 8:28pm
part 1
part 2

[user(s) suppressed both videos]

Two, sorry: three comments:

1 One says that Tolkien was a Fascist and Chomsky a Communist: neither is exactly true. Both wanted less rule, less power and more freedom for creativity. They were just (if so much) on different sides in the Spanish War.

2 Chomsky appeals to justice and human nature, Foucault however appeals to an ambition to revolutionise the very bases of society, thereby obsoleting what he finds class societal concepts of justice and human nature.

3 Foucault has a point when talking about the role of universities, justice and psychiatry ...

On the uses of social segregation ...

Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 1:35pm

I was just going through some leaves from "Histoire du Costume" by Albert Racinet. It happens to be pretty rich in peasant costumes from the 1880's. It happens that something struck me after looking at about 4 or 5 of the plates.

The Galego's in the 1880's wore hats that to my knowledge resembled very little any hat worn by any non peasant ever. It was more like the hats grandpa taught me to fold from paper. The rest had a costume where the details were XVII or up to XVIII C. upper classes, down to and including poorer bourgeoisie.

The peasant trousers, notably, were the culottes of pre-revolutionary everyone else. It was just that European peasants in the 1880's had still not become sans-culottes (that was true for galegos as well).

The men's hats, in Scania (Sweden) as well as Brittany (France) - but, as said: not in Galicia - were about one century older in their fashion. Take a hat off one of the three musceteers, strip it of plumes, and you have a typical peasant hat from the European 1880's.

Sorry: actually the Scanian (and Dahlecarlian) hats come from the "Swedish costume" imposed by Gustav III - the one killed at the Ballo di maschera, in 1792 or 1793, as Opera lovers will know. They are too rounded and cut off conical to look like top hats from XIX C., and yet absolutely too stiffly upward to come anywhere near the bowler hat. Other places to find the musceteers' hat without the plumes would be Tyrol (Sarnthal), on the head of a Maragato (León region of Spain), Majorque or Portugal. But neither Scania, nor Dahlecarlia, as far as these illustrations go.

Because peasants, in Europe, were generally socially separate from the bourgeoisie, they were able to indulge in fantasy (like men's hats of Galicia), archaism (like the culottes, or the hats outside Galicia) or anachronism (like the relationship between XVIII C. culottes and XVII C. hats).

Fantasy, archaism, and anachronism are of course as seen relatively to bourgeois / noble costume. Inherently there is nothing fantastic about the hat of the Galego - unless it be fantastic to wear a hat. Inherently there is nothing archaic about a 1880's peasant wearing the hats and culottes of a 1880's peasant, even if they happen to be the hats and culottes also of XVII C. Musceteers or XVIII C. Composers. And therefore there is nothing inherently anachronistic about the relationship between an 1880' peasant's hat and an 1880's peasant's culottes.

U.S. American farmers would look much more like U.S. American bourgeois - because they were often enough bourgeois who had settled down to farm, rather than peasants since times immemorial. As they were less segregated socially, they were also less distinct in their costumes. In the 1920's (which is after all 40 years after the 1880's I've been considering) the Appalachian yokels could be recognised mainly by having less costume than townspeople. Witness: Al Capp's immortal series Li'l Abner.

Now, the peasants who wore the costumes of the European 1880's and the farmers in Al Capp's world, they would share the feature of being sufficiently distinct from townspeople to be recognisably outsiders to them. What would distinguish them is: the farmers and farmers' sons like Li'l Abner are mainly "yokels" i e outsider to townspeople, to people such as (the even later) Archie. But peasants of the 1880's were also insiders to themselves - their costumes could raise not only ridicule, but even more typically nostalgia. They reached nearly the distnctness of the Highlanders and Cossacs, whose costumes undisputedly are admired by everyone who has some taste. And that again has something to do with them being nearly as separate from other Scotsmen and Russians as to be nations on their own.

I believe most of them would have wanted their priests to wear correct traditional liturgic vestments during Holy Mass or Divine Liturgy. And that is one reason why I cannot feel alright with priests who innovate in order to seem poorer than their parish or diocese really is.

What makes me feel queasy about Traditional Catholics or Anglican Catholics is this: I get the feeling that for them, being a priest is the only excuse for not being a bourgeois. I get a feeling - not least here in France - of "soutane ou cravate - autrement t'es pas un chrétien"! In other words: the social quality of segregation can get you the smile accorded to Li'l Abner, but it must not go far enough to give you the sigh accorded to 1880's peasants. They are willing to accept you are poorly clad - but not that you have the hair like a hippie or a punk. And that is where I clash with them. "There is no excuse to sacrifice a good work for keeping a mohawk ..." (not that that happens to be my particular haircut, but still) - Hey, hold it!

You work in order to rest, you do not rest in order to work. Otherwise you are a slave, who works merely for the rest of other men. You have your hair style both on work and on rest, and, as just said: the rest is more important. I might enjoy a tea party with people in cravate - or I might not enjoy it, but sincerely: what is the dogmatic level of a priest (notably in moral theology) who says that a man who renounces some tea parties (like the Boston Tea Party) must be either a very virtuous or a very sinful man, either a monk or a scoundrel? Keeping a social segregation out of vanity is of course not a Christian virtue, it is a vanity, which is one of the main sins. But on the other hand: St John Cassian (the patron of my Roumainian Orthodox parish as well as God knows how many Roman Catholic ones) does not identify it with the sin of Pride. It is not per se a mortal sin to keep somewhat segregated in order to remain yourself. It is rather a mortal sin to condemn someone for not segregating himself like and along with you.

Hans Lundahl
Aix en Provence

Explaining comment:

Superbia=Pride (sinful version)

March 1, 2008 at 5:03pm

More quotes from FB notes

Some Chesterton ...
Friday, February 29, 2008 at 4:45pm

"For the most bitter thing in the world, the thing most full of intellectual cruelties and a hungry hatred in the heart, the most wholly malignant thing known to our humanity, is peace without love..."

"Inhuman monsters control commerce and rule continents. The only real difference between fairy-tales and modern fact is this: in fairy-tales the monsters are fought. That is one of the very many superiorities of fairy-tales."

Quoting a friend ...

Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 2:22pm

Was it right for the United States to recognize Kosovo's independence from Serbia?

Position: No

Statement: Well if you support the use of mass illegal immigration to seize other nations cultural heartlands and turn them into terrorist-haven narco-states, like poking large bears (and nuclear powers) in the eye, or just plain hate Serbs, why wouldn't you support an independent Kosovo?!

left overs from Pi day
Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 11:07am

"Pi*R squared.
Pi R not squared.
Pi R round.
Cornbread R squared."

"radius*2*pi being the circumference of a circle is surely a sign from the Creator that pies are meant to be cut into 6 even pieces -- with just enough left to allow for crumbling!!"

from wall of my friend Jerome Ullman who posted them yesterday, as should ...

My great uncle worked in a brewery and drowned in a vat of beer.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 2:46pm

... It was a slow and horrible death as he had to get out 6 times to pee.

This one is for Carlsberg brewers!

Don't buy it
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:59pm

"The boy lay prone in the grass, his chin resting on his hands. He suddenly found himself overwhelmed by a heightened awareness of the tangled stems and roots, a forest in microcosm, a transfigured world of ants and beetles and even - though he wouldn't have known the details at the time - of soil bacteria by the billions, silently and invisibly shoring up the economy of the micro-world. Suddenly the micro-forest of the turf seemed to swell and become one with the universe, and with the rapt mind of the boy contemplating it. He interpreted the experience in religious terms and it led him eventually to the priesthood. He was ordained an Anglican priest and became a chaplain at my school, a teacher of whom I was fond. It is thanks to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had religion forced down my throat.

"In another time and place, that boy could have been me under the stars, dazzled by Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major, tearful with the unheard music of the Milky Way, heady with the night scents of frangipani and trumpet flowers in an African garden. Why the same emotion should have led my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to answer. A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural belief. In his boyhood at least, my chaplain was presumably not aware (nor was I) of the closing lines of The Origin of Species - the famous 'entangled bank' passage, 'with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth'. Had he been, he would certainly have identified with it and, instead of the priesthood, might have been led to Darwin's view that all was 'produced by laws acting around us':

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote:

'How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.' "

Two observations:

1) I did not have religion shoved down my throat, I did have my piety nourished by scientific books about biology, water from steam to ice, universe as seen by heliocentrism (in which I long believed)

2) I do not see that my religion, even if turning away from modern science has made God small, nor do I see modern science as the most elegant, though perhaps the most subtle approach to visible creation.

One conclusion: do not buy that book.

Sauron "good guy"?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 5:06pm

"Also, I've always been disappointed that one of the big sacred cows of fantasy has not been more controversial; to my mind, because of its widespread success, it should be: Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, a book I find not only utterly boring in terms of story but also deeply offensive in terms of theme. No novel so clearly, and unwittingly, highlights that history is written by the victorious. Sauron is so obviously the good guy here, and all the protagonists are total slime, liars, royalists of the worst stripe." ...

"Sauron is so clearly a democrat (perhaps even a socialist) vilified by the victorious, villainous royalists, those from whose POV we are told this story." ...

"Sometimes I think The Lord of the Rings might be an unconscious aristocratic revenge fantasy in reaction to the success of the French Revolution, " ...

Thus Claude Lalumière in SF discussion on most controversial fantasy novel - scroll down to near half.

LotR is royalist all right, but unconsciously so? No, Tolkien was a royalist of the royalists, as much as Hergé in King Ottokar's Sceptre.

Calling Sauron a socialist and a good guy says something deeply disturbing about today's anti-royalism (including socialism).

Commentaire sur "Laïcité - j'écris ton nom"

Friday, February 29, 2008 at 10:51am

D'abord une citation:

"Le national-socialisme, s'il se disait anti-bourgeois, ne cherchait pas un monde sans Dieu mais un monde aryen... Ce qui n'est pas vraiment la même chose. L'athéisme aurait pour conséquence la dictature, la belle affaire! Il me semblait au contraire que la Religion a servi de justification à bien des massacres, des guerres et des querelles. L'inquisition, la Saint-Barthélémy, le pillage des richesses et la destructions d'ethnies sur le continent américain... De quel côté se place l'obscurantisme?"


Puis, il faut commenter chacque partie en soi:

"Le national-socialisme, s'il se disait anti-bourgeois, ne cherchait pas un monde sans Dieu mais un monde aryen... Ce qui n'est pas vraiment la même chose."

Un monde aryen ou un monde communiste ou un monde à la contraception, à l'avortement, aux pratiques sur les embryons humains que financent en parti les dons à la Théléton - tout ça sont tant d'examples d'un monde qui refuse d'écouter la loi du Dieu Trin et Un, voire la Décalogue.

"L'athéisme aurait pour conséquence la dictature, la belle affaire!"

Soit, le national-socialisme est plutôt panthéiste qu'athée matérialiste. Est-ce une grande différence? Et les régimes qui se reclament du dialectique matérialiste n'étaient pas des dictatures? Raconte ça aux gens qui ont tâché de fuir Honegger, s'ils survivent. Raconte ça aux gens qui sont leur proches, autrement. Raconte ça aux gens qui ont effectivement fui Honegger!

"Il me semblait au contraire que la Religion a servi de justification à bien des massacres, des guerres et des querelles."

Et l'athéisme non? Lénine, Mao, Pol Pot dans le siècle passé ... tant de puces de bénitier? Mais prenons les autres examples:


L'inquisition Espagnole est sans doute une des raisons pour lesquelles les Patriarches Orthodoxes ont reproché l'Eglise Catholique-Romaine après la lettre que leur adressa Pie IX. On peut parler bel et bien des dérives sécuritaires, des ecclésiastiques faisant ce qui relève de l'Etat - c'est à dire veiller sur la sécurité publique. Il y a eu d'autres dérives sécuritaires beaucoup moins réligieux, et pourtant pas trop loins de l'Inquisition. Longtemps il y a eu la psychiatrie, qui longtemps vient de cesser de s'occuper juste des cas vraiment cliniques - notamment les psychiatres à l'Est du Rideau de fer. Mais aussi la psychiatrie puritaine qui a lobotomé Mlle Kennedy, parce qu'elle faisait la scandale de sa famille. Et tant de psychiatres qui ont appris les critères de la psychiatrie politique communiste en "collaboration scientifique" pendant l'époque de Nikita Khrouchtchev.

"la Saint-Barthélémy,"

Ajoutons le meurtre de Ravaillac - tant qu'on y est! La Saint-Barth a beau s'avoir tenu lieu en France, tout à fait comme l'autre example, mais ce sont des incidents, pas des institutions ou d'habitudes.

"le pillage des richesses et la destructions d'ethnies sur le continent américain..."

Comme c'est malhonnête d'amalgamer les Espagnols avec les Anglophones!

Le pillage des richesses - on parle de Pizarro. Qui mourut en excommunié et hors-la-loi. Mais l'ethnie qui parla quetchoua parle encore quetchoua. Ils ont juste cessé de sacrifier des vierges à chaque funérailles d'un Inca. On parle de Cortez. Qui demeura honoré jusqu'à sa mort. Et qui n'a pas exterminé l'ethnie qui parle nahuatl - mais ils ont cessé de taxer toutes les ethnies avoisinantes de prisonniers de guerre rien que pour les sacrifices quotidiens au dieu-soleil.

On parle destructions d'ethnies - alors on parle les EEUU - et pas des missionaires jésuites français, mais, soit des calvinistes qui faisaient l'extermination parce qu'ils ne faisaient pas la mission, et qui trouvaient les amérindiens avoisinants un obstacle à leur "terre promise" au XVIIe Siècle, soit de leur progéniture totalement régi par franc-maçonnerie et par les lumières, au XIXe Siècle. Preuve? Les mêmes armées qui ont fait la guerre pour réduire les ethnies en réservations ont aussi fait la guerre aux troupes du régime cléricale mexicain de Santa Ana - notamment autour de Tejas.

"De quel côté se place l'obscurantisme?"

J'y viens de répondre, bien que la question fut rhétorique. Le ton de la question donne l'impression d'une hostilité qui ne promet pas trop cette paix pour les consciences "obscurantistes" dont se vantent autrement les laïcistes.

Hans Lundahl
Aix en Provence
29/16 févr. 2008

Commenting on de Souza's essay "De-Christianization: ..."

Friday, February 29, 2008 at 9:41am

Future of nations:

"The family is attacked by promiscuity, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, sterilization The result: Nations without children are nations without a future;"..."Islamic immigration, religion and culture fill up the vacuum left by de-population and de-Christianization; At the twilight of this century, Europeans risk being reduced to minorities in their own countries."

When will conservatives get it?

Yes, the family is attacked by abortion, but first and foremost by responsabilism. Why do Moslem immigrants multiply more than indigenous Westerners, at least the first immigration?Because:

1 They do not wait for marriage until you have had a University education and a permanent contract;

2 They do not try to make sons and daughters wait for marriage by foisting a parody of monastic spirituality on them, so that they neither marry nor get cloistered, but you get damsels of thirty or above still hoping for a husband in the future;

3 They do not depend on banks for investing into a shop, but on family solidarity (each earner sets aside something, each one is allowed a loan without interest after having contributed long enough);

4 They are, whether working for others or building shops, unaccostomed to certain luxuries (like, who really needs bar code readers in a grocery shop less big than a supermarket?) we've lately come to take for granted;

5 Family business is family business to them; if the shop is your uncle's, you do not demand the same wages as if working for some stranger;

6 Extremes of age are not separately taken care of by specialists, but look after each other (the old wives knowing how to change diapers on the small, or at least, if that is too heavy, when to call on the ma's for doing it; whereas the small do not mind if the old people repeat themselves, they need the repetition because they are learning the language).

All these six things used to be true of Christians as well. And so there was another thing too:

7 We used to prefer - at least in certain areas - sexual sins admitted and (if possible) amended by marriage to infertility and hypocrisy. We preferred young unmarried mothers to be begging than to be no mothers, but otherwise equally - or more - sinful. We preferred - at least outside Puritan circles - children to grow up raised by sinful own parents than by sinless strangers.

Hans Lundahl
Aix en Provence
29/16 févr. 2008

Syndrome de Stockholm

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 4:48pm

La plupart des jeunes en age de puberté sont normalement mûrs, donc suffisemment pour être mariés et progéniteurs. Pourtant la plupart des ados mineurs, et bonne partie des majeurs sous 20 - 25 se sentent pas mûrs d'avoir une rélation adulte, définitive et fertile. Pourquoi?

La plupart des patients de la psychiatrie que j'eusse rencontré pendant les HP (il y en a eu avant) et autrement, ne sont pas fous, donc pas suffisamment désorientés pour être en HP ou surveillance psychiatrique. Pourtant la plupart en admettent avoir besoin de la psychiatrie, de façon que le refus de l'admettre compte comme un symptome de confusion. Pourquoi?

Lisez un peu cet article de wikipédia: Syndrome de Stockholm

Leaving and rejoining groups

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 3:36pm

When you join a group you may post photos on it.

If you leave, they are effaced. If you rejoin, they do not ! reappear.

Sverige pressar till abort (under 18)

Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 11:53am
"Det vanligaste skälet till abort I Sverige är enligt en stor studie 2002 (Tydén, länk nedan) "ekonomiska skäl". Hela 32% av de kvinnor som genomgick abort uppgav det skälet. Ändå visar en ny doktorsavhandling (Umeå 2007, länk nedan) att bara en procent (!) av barnmorskorna trodde att "ekonomiska skäl" var abortorsaken. Där är mycket märkligt att den svenska vården inte har förstått en av de absolut vanligaste orsakerna till abort - att de svenska socialförsäkringssystemen inte möter behoven för de ofrivilligt gravida kvinnor som inte arbetat innan de blivit gravida.


Är kvinnorna dessutom under 18 år är det svenska systemet snudd på cyniskt och de kan bara hoppas att de kan få något stöd över huvud taget. Detta är naturligtvis under all kritik."

Från Facebook-grouppen "Ja till Livet".

Lägg sedan till att några år innan jag lemande landet, förbudet för unga qvinnor under 18 att gifta sig fråntogs möjligheten till dispens.*

Derutöfver är, i vanlig ordning, Barnavårdsnämnden icke för att låta ensamstående mammor försörja sina barn genom tiggerie på gatan.

Qvarvarande möjligheter att undvika abort i dagens Sverige:

1 Föräldrarne. Hvilka ej alltid ställa upp.
2 Adoptera bort eller i hvart fall öfverge vårdnaden. Hvilket är en tragedie.
3 Serskilda hem och institutioner. Hvilket är frihetsberöfvande och degraderande.

Hvad görs för att motverka detta socialistiska, feministiska och malthusianska tyrannie?

Hans Lundahl

*trodde jag i hvart fall
Här komma nya uppgifter för mig:

"Möjligheten till dispens finns.
kapitlet angående äktenskapshinder säger

1 § Den som är under 18 år får inte ingå äktenskap utan tillstånd av myndighet som anges i 15 kap. 1 §. Tillstånd får meddelas endast om det finns särskilda skäl. Lag (2004:142). "

Enligt 2 andra på forum ( [stämmer detta, antar jag jag var i färd med att säga]

Noch ist Schweden nicht verloren ...

Den förste tillade dock att en 13-åring aldrig skulle få dispens. (Och han gjorde inget undantag för graviditet heller, hvilket annars är väl nästan enda skälet?)