samedi 29 décembre 2012

...but an ass


Full quote:

(A remarkable creature, entertaining, likeable, odd, bonnet full of wild bees, half-German, half-Irish, very tall, must have looked like Sigurd/Siegfried in his youth, but an Ass.)


Let us not be racist about the combination half-German, half-Irish. That is also the case with the intelligent Tom Zimmer. The man Tolkien described in these words was Robert Graves. Yes, there is one of them, I think, especially in Academia, it is the author of I Claudius.

I can possibly like people with positions like Robert Graves, but it would be impossible for me to think of such a man as a kind of mentor. You see, Tolkien had that role for me. And he decribed him - Robert Graves was obviously a man like himself - as - an Ass. Not as in polite for "arse", like US Americans sometimes speak of "pain in the ass" - that would not have been compatible with "likeable" or "entertaining" - but as in short for asinus, short for jackass, and synonym for donkey.

Now, if Robert Graves had met John Ronald when he was far younger, had tried to override the guardianship of the Welsh Spanish heritage padre, had tried to impose himself on Tollers as a kind of mentor, I think he might rather than "an ass" called him "an arsehole" if driven long enough.

Some people seem to think of themselves as my future mentors. They may think that positions like those of Robert Graves , like those expressed in I Claudius, warrant such an attitude. They seem to think of me as a big child who has not got his education yet. Well, people like that make me mutter not "but an ass", rather "what an arse!"

If anyone thinks he has earned such a position by the well deeds that leave half my clothes unwashed and half my sandals illshod or that he would earn it by the fact of being a bit more generous than that, I consider it my duty to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to resist him to the face. If St Paul could do that with St Peter though he was appointed by Christ, anyone can do that with someone who appoints himself to a role of mentor he has no claim on.

I am a writer. I write, and thus I can accidentally serve someone as a mentor without knowing it. I am not intriguing to surround anyone so that he has to choose me or the other or the third or the fourth as a mentor and change his mind. Anyone who thinks I am wrong, young or old, is quite free to express his disagreement in writing. But praying to God or to the Devil that I may continually be confronted with whatever faults he finds in me, or talking with this, that, third or fourth to keep me under surveillance, under correction, is dastardly.

When I was harrassed beyond bearing in Junior High School, my class teacher asked the leader - at least apparent leader - of my harrassers, why he did it.

We only try to help him to adapt ...


He was the son of a female school teacher, no doubt very full of psychological wishwash. And my present harrassers are no doubt very like him. One of the men whom I broke with was one Pied-Noir and former Teacher who disagreed with me about my rejection of school compulsion. He argued that school compulsion was necessary to help Arabs or Muslims to adapt, or rather hinder them to develop freely such attitudes as he considered fanatic. Some of the attitudes of some of the Muslims are fanatic, but I do not consider that Pied-Noir any less fanatic, with his demonic love for forcing other people's children into his school.

I cannot say it is he who has intrigued to keep me down. I cannot say he is not one of them either. But I am not seeking the role of guru, I am seeking freedom to not have one, and freedom to write what I consider the truth, and to publish any way within moral and civil laws I like what I have written. Also, on a lesser note, to compose and have my compositions played. It is years that some have been dreading to ask me in person whether I am Protestant but still confronting me with the theological faults of Protestants because I am something else - a Biblical Inerrantist, sometimes called Fundamentalist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Thomas Becket
29-XII-2012

The quote comes from Letter 267, to Michael Tolkien, 9-10 January 1965. Letters, p.353. Tom Zimmer is a man I met in Rome, author of a devotional and pro-life tract called Hope 84, to Honour Our Lady's Assumption. He, now, was not asinine.

vendredi 21 décembre 2012

Laïcité honteuse

Hollande annonce un "Observatoire de la laïcité" en 2013
Par francetv info - Dimanche 09 décembre, 14h39
http://actualite.portail.free.fr/toute-l-actu/09-12-2012/hollande-annonce-un-observatoire-de-la-laicite-en-2013/


French govt threatens to disband Catholic pro-family activists for violating 'secularism'
by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews, Fri Dec 14, 2012 20:37 EST
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-govt-threatens-to-disband-catholic-pro-family-activists-for-violatin


Ceci me donne envie de vomir.

D'abord ce qu'en ont dit le Président, avec le ministre de l'éducation, à propos morale laïque dans les écoles:

François Hollande a annoncé, dimanche 9 décembre, la mise en place en 2013 d'un "Observatoire national de la laïcité". Il sera notamment chargé de formuler des propositions sur la transmission de la morale publique. En septembre, le ministre de l'Education Vincent Peillon avait déjà annoncé la mise en place d'une mission sur la transmission de la "morale laïque" à l'école, qui deviendrait une discipline à part entière.


Dans la queue d'une association distribuant des repas chauds, j'ai côtoyé un homme un peu chauffé dans les propos, j'ai entendu des choses comme "si dans les écoles on donnerait au moins de quoi identifier que l'honnêteté ça existe."

J'avais faim et fatigue et une certaine diffidence vis-à-vis cet homme, je n'ai pas contredit. Ça ne doit pas être pris comme si j'avais assenti. Un peu après je vient de quitter cet homme qui m'avait fait encore d'autres propos inacceptables.* Par contre, non, l'honnêteté existe bel et bien, mais la laïcité n'est pas capable à l'identifier correctement. Les religions et philosophies personnelles diffèrent considérablement quand au contenu de l'honnêteté.

Si l'état fournit des allocations comme RSA aux seuls demandeur d'emploi - est-il seulement honnête pour un chômeur de prendre RSA et de chercher l'emploi? Ou peut-il considérer que son projet vaut mieux, et si les fournisseurs de RSA ne sont pas d'accord il s'en passe de RSA et fait la manche en attendant des meilleures conditions pour son projet? Peut un pauvre prendre des fruits d'un fruitier dont les arbres débordent sur la rue sans demander permission quand il n'y a personne auquel la demander?

Si on fait la manche - est-il honnête ou pas d'en prendre partie pour boire une bierre?

Si on aurait pu avoir une carte gratuite de la RATP en ayant le RSA - est-il honnête ou pas que celui qui renonce à l'RSA saute les tourniquets?

Autant des questions où même les religions ne sont pas d'accord entre elles et où la morale laïque risquerait fort de brouiller les pistes de manière encore aggravée.

Valls claimed at the meeting that “the aim is not to combat opinions by force, but to detect and understand when an opinion turns into a potentially violent and criminal excess,” according to Reuters. “The objective is to identify when it’s suitable to intervene to treat what has become a religious pathology.” (excusez l'anglais, c'est cité après LifeSiteNews)**


Bof, la religion n'est pas un fonctionnement comme l'alimentation ou la faculté cogitive. On ne peut pas parler de "religious pathology". Dans les cas où une religion ait vraiment menacé l'homme, comme celui des Molochistes ou les Cathares, on peut bel et bien parler de mauvaise religion, mais encore là, elle n'est pas tout à fait assimilable à une maladie, comme gastroentérite ou syndrome d'Alzheimer.

Déclarer quand une religion est mauvaise est encore plutôt la tâche de la bonne et vraie religion, c'est à dire le Catholicisme. Le pouvoir laïc - tel un roi ou un duc ou un président - peut reconnaître la vraie religion.

Mais la laïcité au pouvoir semble avoir mal, très mal, à ne pas attaquer la vraie religion, là où elle était religion d'état avant la laïcité. Cet "Observatoire de la Laïcité" est une forme de consécration de cette laïcité au pouvoir comme de facto religion d'état, un peu comme "le culte de la raison" pendant certaines mauvaises années qui se trouvaient quelque part entre 1789 et 1815.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Thomas Apôtre et St Pierre Canisius
21-XII-2012

*Voir mon article sur ce blog:

gm b1 lou : À propos le Dynamic Duo
http://gmb1lou.blogspot.fr/2012/11/a-propos-le-dynamic-duo.html


** Source sur Reuters:

France steps up struggle against religious radicals
On www.reuters.com by Tom Heneghan, PARIS | Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:21am EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-france-religion-extremists-idUSBRE8BB0VA20121212


Extra bad quote:

Valls urged the more militant secularists at the conference not to see religions as sects to be opposed and to understand that established religions could help fight against extremists.

"We have to say that religions are not sects, otherwise sects are religions," he said.


In other words: use religious establishments to persecute what he deems as sectarian. Henry VIII used Benedictines against Franciscans and Dominicans and Carmelites. They found out later that they were only spared when there were still Friars to persecute./HGL

mardi 18 décembre 2012

Une triste histoire


Je vais dans ce qui suit donner l'histoire comme elle fut racontée à moi (ou sans donner les conclusions du raconteur dans mon texte) en gras (avec les trois points ... pour marquer où finit ou commence une partie en vu de mes interruptions) et mes commentaires introduits par le mot commentaires: en gras mais ce qui suit (c'est à dire mes commentaires) en texte normal.

Mlle Unetelle NN est poussée par sa famille à épouser qqn qu'elle ne veut pas. Après, il la frappe et puisqu'il est déclaré fou le mariage est annulé ...

Commentaires: Mais annuler le mariage parce que la famille avait usé de la pression illicite, vu que le droit canonique comme le droit civil exige un choix libre - on n'a pas pensé à ça?

... Après quoi Mme Untelle Machin se découvre enceinte. Son fils a douze ans quand on découvre qu'il souffre d'une maladie du cerveau dégénérative. ...

Commentaires: S'agit-til d'une diagnose de schizophrénie, qui, classiquement est vue comme conduisant à dementia praecox, donc comme étant une maladie dégénérative?

Quels sont alors les soins que Mme Unetelle Machin prodigéra à son fils à travers la psychiatrie?

... Elle le garde jusqu'à son âge de vingt ans, alors il devient aggressif, et elle l'enferme en psychiatrie. ...

Commentaires: Entre douze en vingt ans s'écoulent huit ans. S'il est attaché à sa mère et se trouve tourmenté par soins psychiatriques ou par incapacités liées à une diagnose plus malfaisante que les conditions de base - est-ce impossible de comprendre pourquoi il devient aggressif envers sa mère? Ce n'est certes pas très naturel d'un fils, certes pas acceptable, d'aggresser sa mère, mais les soins psychiatriques pour schizophrénie (si j'ai bien deviné la diagnose) ne sont certes pas très naturels, certes pas très acceptables non plus de la part d'une mère.

Précisons que le sujet a 50 ans environ, c à d a dépensé plus que la moitié de sa vie en psychiatrie. Sur une maladie dégénérative de l'ordre physique du cerveau - serait-il survécu si longtemps?

Autre indice que schizophrénie pourrait être la diagnose: son père fut déclaré fou avant l'annulation du mariage et ne s'est pas occupé de son fils. Est-ce parce qu'il ne voulait pas - ou parce qu'il était lui-même enfermé en psychiatrie et donc incapacité à sécourir son fils et sa femme? Dans ce cas la diagnose du père aurait au moins doublement nui au fils:

  • une fois en aidant que le fils soit diagnosticé et soigné à travers, vu que la schizophrénie est considéré comme héréditaire en partie,
  • et encore une fois en empêchant le père, pas seulement de soustraire le fils au processus diagnostique mais aussi de s'occuper de lui quand la mère ne le pouvait plus.


Notons que je dis dans ce cas, car je ne sais pas les diagnoses.

Par contre, à propos les conditions qui sont dits "conduire à dementia praecox", je soupçonne beaucoup que bon nombre n'y conduit pas en elles-mêmes (notemment hébéphrénie avec sa sansssouciance et le le symptome "délire", celui-ci étant une idée plutôt qu'un fonctionnement, sans oublier que l'hallucination auditive est surdiagnosticée à cause de mauvaise interprétation des monologues ou dialogues sans partenaire apparent) mais uniquement à travers les soins qu'elles occasionnent. Je soupçonne vraiment que la dementia praecox est nosocomiale.

Je viens aussi de noter que si le mariage n'avait pas été dissolu, alors Mme et M. Machin auraient pu s'occuper ensemble de leur fils, ils auraient eu d'autres enfants qui auraient pu aider aussi. Et si schizophrénie était la diagnose, elle ne se serait peut-être même pas pu diagnosticer (je ne crois d'ailleurs pas dans cette "maladie" pour les raisons données) puisque le garçon de douze aurait été autrement heuruex.

Je note en même temps que cette histoire devient actuel à cause d'une autre histoire dans les actualités:

Voila / Actualités / France : Un an de prison avec sursis pour la psychiatre d'un patient meurtrier
18/12/2012 15:08
http://actu.voila.fr/actualites/france/2012/12/18/un-an-de-prison-avec-sursis-pour-la-psychiatre-d-un-patient-meurtrier_4624132.html


Comme je me souviens de l'histoire, le compagne de la grand-mère avait dans le passé enfermé le petit-fils de sa compagne dans la psychiatrie. Ce qui me parait un motif plutôt explicable - quoique l'acte est reprouvable, surtout envers quelqu'un qui n'est pas professionnel de la psychiatrie mais plutôt pourrait en théorie être dupe des professionnels - que pathogène.

Dans les commentaires de l'article (ou dans le seul, pour l'instant) je trouve les mots:

Je crois que cette mode découlait de la peur que certains des inspirateurs avait d'être eux-mêmes internés. cette peur de se reconnaître dans le malade explique aussi les nombreux refus incompréhensibles de diagnostic de maladies graves et évidentes (paranoïa, bipolarité, schizophrénie) par des psychiâtres à l'équilibre psychique précaire....


Peur de se reconnaître dans le malade?

Ou peur d'être traité de même façon?

Bonne question, non? Une reconnaissance indirecte du degré de déconfort et de vie gâchée que la diagnose et les suites cliniques et sociales d'une telle donnent. Le fait qu'elle - car la psychiâtre de cet autre cas est une femme - est condamnée pour ne pas avoir diagnosticé et soumis "son malade à un traitement approprié" laisse, hélas, craindre que des psychiâtres seront pressés à surdiagnosticer, et donc à empirer le système psychiâtrique français. Qui soumet déjà 10 ou 20 fois trop à des "traitements appropriés".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St Gatien de Tours
18-XII-2012

dimanche 16 décembre 2012

Looking the Wrong Way for Safety?


Airplanes are the safest transport, they say, only responsible for 3% of the famous greenhouse gas emissions. And nuclear power is safe, because it gives no greeenhouse gas emissions at all.

But it was an airplane and not carbon dioxide that killed people on the day of Twin Towers. It was plutonium and not carbon dioxide that killed Mr. Litvinenko.

Are airplanes really that safe? Is nuclear power really that safe? Well, then are guns too, despite Adam Lanza.

People say guns should be banned due to concerns about people like Adam Lanza - well if so, why not ban airplanes due to concerns about whoever flew one into the Twin Towers, why not ban nuclear fuel due to concerns about whoever put some in Mr Litvinenko's tea cup?

When it comes to cars and tobacco, we are told of "proportions" - like tobacco killing many more than cars. Problem is, when we hear "tobacco killed" that is an assessment about one contribuent to a cancer. When we hear "a car killed", that definately is a fact, not just an assessment. The air plane 11th of September 2001 killed more than the gun of Adam Lanza. And when it comes to assessments, it is pretty much a safer one that the Tchernobyl meltdown in 1986 killed more than Adam Lanza, than that tobacco kills more than cars. It is also a pretty safe assessment that the Tchernobyl area was more carcinogenous that year than a room filled with tobacco smoke - bad though it is to smoke inside, unless you open a window.

Well, greenhouse effect is looking the wrong way, when it comes to environmentalism. The climate can be warmer and we be better off - as was the case in the Middle Ages. And banning guns and tobacco, don't rely on me to say that that is looking the righ way.

When it comes to either Twin Towers or people like Lanza, one can ask oneself whether presence of the means of killing or presence of an unhappiness that - even if wrongfully - was taken as a provocation to the killing was the worst mistake even in mere prudential thinking.

Banning divorce (Adam had in 2009 seen his parents divorce), banning interest taking (some of Muslim and Third World grievances are tied to interest on interest making for debt traps), banning school compulsion (Adam was out of school already, but most other perpetrators were in high school since 1999, unless I misremember) might be good steps toward a safer world.

I am not sure that banning guns would be too. But if so, then would the banning of airplanes and nuclear power be so too. One could argue that transport and power - and maybe self defense too - might need less technological sophistication for being safe. Well, a sword is less sophisticated than a gun. But try walking around with a sword today? Yes, it is too flashy for modern authorities. Policemen with guns will soon take it from owner if he walks with it in a scabbard. If self defense is to be a real option, either keep guns or make swords legal.

"But we can't keep guns with people like Adam Lanza ..."

Most Latinists do not go on killing sprees. Most geeks do not. Most gun owners do not. And in each of these cases "most" means overwhelming majority. Gilbert Keith Chesterton said something about not treating the state as a sort of emergency fire fighter, making new laws or regulations each time something goes wrong. We have to live in the state with its laws even when those particular things are not what goes wrong.

And with Adam Lanza as with Breivik, the problem is not just that they had a gun. But also that none of their victims had one or even had any option in their environment of getting one. A shot in such a man's leg, or arm (the one holding the gun) could have saved many lives in either case without withdrawing the perpetrator from human justice. But the aggressed parties had no means of doing so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Gaudete Sunday
16 - XII - 2012

PS, I wonder if the inquest about Adam Lanza will show his mother (one of victims and the gun owner) was with the school psychologist (other of his victims) planning to "give him some help" about his psychological situation and he found out and did not "appreciate" it?

mercredi 12 décembre 2012

Austria used to be Holy Roman Empire


That is, Archduchy of Austria - meaning the Bundeslaender Wien, Niederoesterreich and Oberoesterrich or in English Vienna, Nether and Upper Austria, used to be the residence and hereditary demesne of the family from whom came most of the Holy Roman Emperors or Holy Roman Emperors Elect in Modern Times up to 1806. Same family continued to rule Austrian Empire up to 1848 (I think) and then Austrian Empire and Hungarian Kingdom up to less than one hundred years ago. Most of my life one Cardinal Stickler was alive, who was born their subject.

However, though it included Catholic subjects, Eastern Orthodox subjects, Protestant subjects (notably Calvinists in Hungary) and Jewish subjects, maybe here and there (like in Bosnia if you count it as being really subject) Muslim subjects as well, it was a Catholic state. Not Protestant, not Eastern Orthodox, not Jewish, not Muslim. And, above all, not confession-less, not run by interconfessionality or non-confessionality.

I think the Holy Land could be run by intercofessionality - between Christian Palestinians/Israeli Arabs, Jews, Muslim Palestinians/Israeli Arabs, if each community had its own authority, if disputes involving two of the communities were settled by the third, if disputes were either all three were involved or one of the disputing communities distrusted the third community were left to an international authority. But I see no hope of this getting done correctly without that one being either Austria or France. Even England which was not Catholic, when Clémenceau had sold or given France's authority to England in his spree of laicisation (which included a killing spree on Catholics defending their churches in 1905-1906), bungled it.

When Chesterton wrote "The New Jerusalem" he saw the early stages of this bungling. He of course enjoyed the fact that English when taking over after a purely nominal power of France (which could not wield a power that was blocked by Turkey) could use the real colonial type power for the good by building water pipelines. But later England bungled it by collaborating with Zionism, and Chesterton saw streets full with the Christians and Muslims whose placards and banners said "Christians and Moslems are brothers". Was the occasion a directly Pro-Zionist decision? No, as I recall it it was the naming of Sir Herbert Samuel to rule the mandate. Here is the passage about him:

We in England may consider all sorts of aspects of a man like Sir Herbert Samuel; we may consider him as a Liberal, or a friend of the Fabian Socialists, or a cadet of one of the great financial houses, or a Member of Parliament who is supposed to represent certain miners in Yorkshire, or in twenty other more or less impersonal ways. But the people in Palestine will see only one aspect, and it will be a very personal aspect indeed. For the enthusiastic Moslems he will simply be a Jew; for the enthusiastic Zionists he will not really be a Zionist. For them he will always be the type of Jew who would be willing to remain in London, and who is ready to represent Westminster. Meanwhile, for the masses of Moslems and Christians, he will only be the aggravation in practice of the very thing of which he is the denial in theory. He will not mean that Palestine is not surrendered to the Jews, but only that England is.


That sort of bungling is to be feared if the "international authority" called for by the Pope is to have a Western stamp. Because the West has been bungling since it gave up being Catholic.

If it is however to include non-Westerners on an equal footing, or for that matter even pretend to do so (for this project is a Western project) there are other problems to be feared. Instead of Sir Herbert Samuel or people like him gaining a position in Palestine it means they loose their life in London. Not consistently, not in every case, that would be too obvious an intrusion of Easterners into Western affairs, but in some cases.

What happens to one "Herbert Samuel" if he is a Christian?

I think some people who have seen me on the street and know I am a writer on the internet have read my writings, found them not to their taste, and arranged for me to stay poor, to stay "walking through the desert", in a hope of my later changing views and then serve as a Magical Negro" figure for those new views.

But I was writing before I became homeless, and neither homelessness nor, occasionally, pains of infections and inflammations change my views.

On my list for what Benedict XVI must grant if not as dogma then at least as liberties for Catholics not agreeing with his views before I can be sure he can even possible have a chance of being Pope rather than heresiarch was already:

  • Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism;
  • Recognition that though sodomy can never be a marital act and therefore same sex partnerships can never be marriages, nevertheless no person is by the fact of so called "homosexual inclination" excluded either morally or canonically from the two sexed couples called marriages.* And other disagreements with modern psychology or psychiatry;
  • That forcing someone into psychiatry or someone's children into custody or care changes imposed by Child Protective Services, as well as abortion are not on the list of errors about legitimate defense involving death of agressor issued by one of the Popes - Alexander VIII or possibly VII as I seem to recall - who have already answered questions about Legitimate Defense, that is that the agressed party (or if it be a child an adult protecting it) has the right to use force, even lethally, to avoid such an issue;
  • That keeping children in other kinds of schooling than those chosen by parents (including their right to homeschool or to make an apprenticeship with quite non-scholarly subjects) and to force adolescents already maritable according to the Canon Law that was the longest in use (end of fourteenth life year for contracting husband and of twelfth for contracting wife) is an abuse against their human rights;

    I seem to have to add:

  • That an "international authority" must either be Catholic or not be and that its not being is quite compatible with Justice. Or at leat less incompatible than its being in the wrong way.**


How so? Monday December 3d, Benedict XVI held a speech calling for:

the “construction of a world community, with a corresponding authority,” to serve the “common good of the human family”.


I am not quoting the speech itself, only this referate:

The Paradise Post : With ‘friends’ like this who needs enemies: Vatican calls for New World Order
http://powerpointparadise.com/blog/2012/12/with-friends-like-this-who-needs-enemies-vatican-calls-for-new-world-order/


Be it noted that I am not guilty of this project. I have used comparisons between the Traditions to elucidate that the Natural Law of Human Morality is far closer to Catholicism than to Western Secularism, indeed cannot be divorced from Catholicism. I have however not at all been proposing that all the Traditions get together ecumenically to construct a Natural Law from the diverse Traditions.

I have stated that a state such as Tenochtitlan or Carthage or Jericho was such a bad state that an intervention from without not worsening but very much bettering condistions was totally in order. But I have not asked that the Joshuas or Scipios or Cortez should depend on some United Nations decision.

Sometimes a corrupt society is saved from within, either by Civil War, as when Franco saved Spain from Azaña, or by peaceful reform. Each state enjoying the presence of Catholic faithful would be far better employed to better itself and become as Catholic as possible than by serving an "international community".

In the first years after 1990 one French right wing paper stated that "Adam was before the fall deservedly King of all Mankind, but he lost this Universal Kingship by the Fall. After the Fall only two men can be Universal Kings: Christ and Antichrist."

That is what I have believed since then also. If Benedict XVI considers that a heresy, I do not consider him a Pope.

If Benedict XVI is calling for a Republic rather than a Kingship, I think he is muddle headed as to how ambition and tyranny are really to be excluded. In Francos Spain and in most or all states of US of A a man in the 1940's could be locked up in pyschiatry on very dubious grounds. The grounds now used are not necessarily christal clear, I have recently looked at the diagnose of "borderline", which looks like a recepy for persecuting people. But in Franco's Spain, which was a dictatorship, the man could not be sterilized against his will and in some states which were Republics a man could be sterilized against his will. In Sweden also that happened. Because of the Bernadottes? No, because of Social Democratic Prime Ministers, usually elected party leaders of Socialdemocratic Labourers' Party (SAP: Arbetare = Labourer) before that party was elected sole or coalition majority party of the Parliament. In Sweden this evil started one year before Hitler imitated it (Sweden 1935, Germany 1936) and continued into the epoch of Olof Palme, into my lifetime. One of my great aunts was sterilized for being too fertile after having five children. Besides, a Republic as much as a Kingship neads a Monarch of some kind. It is not sure that a President would not have qualified as a Melek in Old Hebrew Semantics. Of course, he could be considered Suffet. Or rather not, since Suffets were two men like the Roman Consuls. If two men rule, having mutual veto, and rule over the world, I suppose the more Roman and Christian of them will be the obstacle to Antichrist and will be dealt with accordingly. I was going to add "sooner or later", but then I am not at all sure whether there is all that much time left.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Alexander of Alexandria,
St Synesius
12-XII-2012

PS: I am not and have not been condemning but rather asking for a restitution of the Holy Roman Empire, irrespectively of frontier questions, as such, with the institutions and laws and customs it had. I am in that context saddened that John XXIII took away from the Pontificale the rites for coronation of a Roman Emperor. The Habsburgs had no direct political power over any part of China, and their laws included no compromise with Chinese errors. When I have asked - in a letter to John Paul II and to the Patriarch of Constantinople - for the Restitution of the Roman Empire, that is what I meant: restoring the good laws, tearing down the new tyrannies and some licences which are for one thing tyrannous against the better part of man and for another easily aggravating of informal tyrannies and easily multiplied by them. Including notably abortion and sodomy.

The Chesterton quote above was from chapter VII of:

THE NEW JERUSALEM

BY

G. K. CHESTERTON


http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/New_Jerusalem.txt


*Edit/Footnote: If you think you read any approval of same sex unions in above sentence, read again. I totally agree with Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, that not only are such unions not able to be marriages, they are able to be forbidden and punished by secular authority, as is sodomy and as is also contraception in itself. I approve of those "homosexuals" who will not let their homosexuality decide their sexual activities, whether it be the real Christian marriage or celibacy that they prefer to living aberrant tendencies to their conclusion. And I approve of them not because of their homosexuality, but because of such a decision./HGL

**Edit/Footnote: People like this (at first not quite as rough) could get top heavy through internationalised elite (even Perú has been ruled by one horrid Fujimoro) :

[Geoffrey Clark] described the rise in population in Britain as “desperately bad, pitiable, scary, and a cause for bowing of heads in national shame.” Citing the 18th century father of eugenics Thomas Malthus, Clark wrote, “Population growth and declining quality of life go hand in hand.” He said that the UK should “attack mercilessly” those developing countries with high rates of population growth like Kenya, Nigeria, and Mexico.


source : LifeSiteNews
British politician: ‘consider compulsory abortion’ for Downs babies
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-politician-suspended-for-supporting-mandatory-abortion-for-disabled


And would we want China and India to have real - if only shared - sovereignty over Ireland and Malta? I would not!/HGL