Ce n'est pas tous les jours qu'une personne du public me pose une question (sauf le genre pour "comprendre mon cas" qui me lasse) mais aujourd'hui ça s'est produit. Comment ça se fait que je n'avais pas de ticket dans le métro? Elle en avait, la dame que j'étais suivi. J'évoquais mes quarante centimes comme inadéquats. Bon, elle voulait probablement dire qu'elle travaillait ou avait une retraite à cause du travail passé et payé et côtisé. Pourquoi pas moi alors? Bien, je veux bien avoir le temps pour me consacrer à des articles comme celui avant celui-ci, et quand on ne me paie pas, je dois survivre aussi. Ceux qui font la manche des heures et des heures sont sans doute plus honnêtes dans le métro que moi. Pour mon cas, je dépense des heures et des heures en lisant et en écrivant. On me payait pour, je payerais le métro, on ne me paie pas pour, je mendie et je triche dans le métro. Tant que ça marche. Mais on pourrait bien commencer à faire fructifier mes articles en bouquins, ceux qui ont les ressources pour le faire. Entretemps, j'aurais pu avoir en théorie les trajets prépayés par ticket gratuit, si j'avais touché autre chose de l'état d'abord, soit RSA, soit CMU. Je ne le fais pas, et je ne mentirais pas pour avoir le RSA./HGL
RATP a de l'humour:
Ayant eu l'opportunité d'échanger ma veste trop déchirée dans les poches (cadeau de la ville de Paris comme telle il y a qq mois) j'ai obtenu un blouson de RATP qu'un employé avait laissé aux s d f. Nota bene, je n'ai pas le reste de leur uniforme, je ne suis pas en train d'escroquer comme le pseudomilitaire à Koepenick il y a un siècle. Mais après leur tolérance, je suis fier de porter leurs couleurs!/HGL
mardi 26 février 2013
Guide critique de l'évolution? Un guide critique sur certains points!
Quelques auteurs ont écrit sur l'évolution sous la direction de Guillaume Lecointre, et leur livre s'appelle Guide critique de l'évolution et il est apparu aux éditions Belin. Dépôt légal 2011. L'œuvre est donc très récent.
Dans un certain sens, le mot science est protégé. N'ayant pas fait les sciences naturelles à la fac, je ne peux pas me prétendre "scientifique". Par contre, rien empêche un amateur de faire de la science quand même. Darwin lui-même était amateur ès sciences et par ses études d'abord théologien. Si un anglican moderniste peut être qualifié de théologien.
Aussi dans un autre sens, le mot est protégé. Si la science évolutionniste abandonne de nos jours ce que le livre appelle "vision linéaire, scaliste et gradiste de l'évolution", on ne peut plus appeler cette vision science, à moins de le faire en polémique envers l'établissement scientifique et de déclarer cette polémique. Donc, ce n'est plus la science comme protocol de communauté des scientifiques dont on parle, car dans ce sens là, cette "vision linéaire, scaliste et gradiste de l'évolution" se veut abandonné par "la science". On peut attaquer l'évolutionnisme pour cette vision, mais on doit alors noter qu'elle n'est pas d'actualité ou qu'elle ne se veut plus d'actualité parmi les scientifiques même évolutionnistes. Ou on peut défendre cette vision par zèle évolutionniste, mais alors il convient pour quelqu'un qui n'est pas scientifique de reprocher la communauté scientifique de lâcheté vis-à-vis les critiques.
Dans les deux cas, on se met dehors d'un consensus on ne se présente pas comme dedans. Et tant que ce consensus est celui d'une communauté protégé de nom, de droit public, alors c'est en quelque manière le consensus lui-même qui reçoît le tître de "consensus scientifique" par la loi d'un pays. Mais en dehors de France il y a des scientifiques reconnus comme tel de droit public, qui sont créationnistes. Moi, j'en fais pas partie, j'ai fait mes études en latin, grec et encore quelques sujets linguistiques et un peu historiques. Mais ceci ne vaut pas que je ne sois pas un amateur des sciences et surtout donc des sujets où j'ai une querelle avec les scientifiques de profession. Ni que je n'eusse pas le droit d'écrire publiquement là-dessus. Certes, je n'ai pas un droit automatiques aux presses des universités, mais en bon droit je ne souffre pas non plus d'un interdit de faire un discours public sur les choses que je n'ai pas étudié.
Malheureusement le livre donne un premier bémol pour la question de droit:
La liberté d'être créationniste est aussi une liberté qui est d'ordre public. Si le choix est strictement de l'ordre privé, son expression tombe sous la liberté d'expression. Et aussi sous la liberté d'information. Pourtant, le livre essaie de faire planer ces droits en doute.
Bon, un autre petit morceau où le livre est un peu moins decevant. Les souris de Madère.
Il y a parmi les souris des variantes avec des nombres de chromosomes différentes. Il deviennent en pratique des nouvelles espèces. Le Mus Musculus aurait donc normalement toujours 40 chromosomes, et après les 6 variantes avec entre 30 et 22 sur Madère ou les variantes avec 22 en Tunisie seraient toutes évoluées depuis l'arrivée des souris avec l'homme (soit les Vikings, soit les Portugais pour Madère). Et les variantes sur Madère ne se croisent pas sans que les hybrides soient stériles, et aussi en Tunisie les hybrides entre 22 chromosomes et 40 chromosomes est stérile.
D'abord un problème méthodologique: comment savoir que TOUT Mus Musculus a 40 chromosomes? Les souris de 22 ou de 30 sont quand même des souris aussi. Comme le montre le cas de Tunisie, les variantes avec moins de 40 chromosomes existent ailleurs qu'en Madère aussi.
Ensuite: oui, les coalescences entre chromosomes se sont effectivement déroulées de manière tellement différente entre les divers variétés que l'on n'a pas trouvé d'hybride fertile.
Mais, finalement, ceci est un peu peu comme réponse à ce que je viens déjà de dire en 2009*: "Mais fusion, c'est une chose, augmenter le nombre des chromosomes c'est une autre. Télomères pourraient être conflatés en un centromère (fusion Richardsonienne) mais d'où viennent les nouveaux centromères en cas de fission chromosomique? Par hypothèse, les télomères démeurent télomères dans ce cas là. C'est le problème où conduit le scénario selon lequelle 2n=48 chez les premiers mammifères."** - En d'autres mots: d'où viennent les nouveaux centromères alors?
Tout ce qu'il y a sur les souris de Madère donne uniquement d'information sur la fusion, que je ne conteste pas tellement.
On a donc répondu à la question que j'accordais déjà la réponse donné par les scientifiques, on s'est gardé d'aborder l'autre aspect dans ce livre. Hélas, il est tellement grand, il aura des chances à devenir un livre standard. Donc, on n'espère pas trop trouver une deuxième édition avec ceci corrigé. Encore moins de le voir remplacé par un autre livre. Never mind, comme on dit en anglais!*** Ceux qui ont accès à ce blog sauront bien quel est le défaut. Et ils pourront avec le temps avertir les autres. On essaie à l'interdire en France? Alors, il sera lu en Belgique. Ou au Quebec. Ou en Afrique Noir ou en Liban ...
Sur une autre page je trouve ce livre vraiment phantastique. Les Lissamphibiens divergent des Amniotes en Dévonien - mais les premiers retrouvés sont de Trias. Aucune trace des proches parents des lignées débutantes en divergence. Les Mammifères divergent des autres Amniotes en Carbonifère - mais n'apparaissent qu'en Trias, eux aussi. Les autres Amniotes divergent une fois encore en Carbonifère, mais les Chéloniens n'apparaissent qu'en Trias. L'autre branche des Amniotes non Mammifères diverge une fois en Permien, mais les Squamates n'apparaissent qu'en Jurassique tardif. Encore un branchement en Permien, les Archosaures éteints y apparaissent mais les Crocodyliformes attendent jusqu'à Trias et les Oiseaux même jusqu'à Jurassique. Le seul taxon qu'on voit en même temps qu'un taxon ancêtre sont les Primates, dont les premiers dateraient de Cénozoïque, mais les Mammifères dont ils se développent sont déjà en place - depuis, comme dit, Trias. En d'autres mots, à supposer ces époques exactes, comme le font mes adversaires les évolutionnistes, chaque taxon commence avec une ligne phantome - selon leur propre aveu! Voilà Gefundenes Fressen pour Templeton et d'autres (c'est un fait d'ailleurs déjà exploité par mes presque-amis - presque car Protestants eux - sur Creation.com /CMI).
Merci très bien pour l'honnêteté, quand j'étais petit on peignait "l'arbre de l'évolution" comme un branchement autour des nœuds assez solides - quoique non pas exactement avec une espèce fossile en chaque nœud. le changement, vers plus d'honnêteté, pourvu que ça dure, ça fait du bien! Es war sehr schön, es hat mich sehr erfreut, messieurs!
On peut ajouter que ces périodes sont en eux-mêmes douteux aussi. Si chaque endroit où se trouvent des fossiles il n'y a que des fossiles d'une seule période, en général, comment savoir que ces périodes et époques et ères se soient succédées plutôt que d'être des faunes contemporaines pendant le Déluge de Noé, par exemple? Un homme ou deux de CMI est en train de faire des recherches sur cette question.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Parmentier
St Nestor
26-II-2013
* deretour : René Le Gal ... L'ADN en question(s) - rélévance pour le débat créationniste/évolutionniste et Benoît XVI
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/rene-le-gal-ladn-en-questions-relevance.html
** Les derniers mots conduisirent à un lien: http://crfb.univ-mrs.fr/jobim2007/sat/sat_d.pdf
Quand je le clique, je trouve: "Forbidden, You don't have permission to access /jobim2007/sat/sat_d.pdf on this server." Le principe que quiconque pourra regarder et donc critiquer et par là aider à vérifier ou falsifier l'œuvre scientifique n'est pas trop bien protégé en France. Car il s'agit d'une université en France, autrement le lien ne finirait pas en .fr avant le slash.
*** C'est énervant comment peu j'ai pu me débattre à propos mes sujets de prédéliction en langue française. Autrement j'aurais pu avoir un français meilleur que mon anglais, mais si les Français s'isolent de moi ...
Mise à jour: ceci me rappelle mon vieil essai:
Bible Science et ses adversaires
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2008/10/bible-science-et-ses-adversaires.html
Dessinez la base commune de caféine, théophylline et théobromine:
1) "Six carbon" à gauche, en cercle, dont la seule liaison double est à droite, frontalière à "cinq carbon" à droite, donc en somme neuf carbon - mais n'écrivez pas le C dans ces places, car ceci est l'embauche toute première, vraie ...
2) ... sauf que: chaqu'un des deux carbon à droite liés aux deux de la liaison double est remplacé par un N (écrivez les N là), et à gauche aussi deux C sont remplacés par des N: un N est directement lié à un des carbon de la liaison double, dessinez un N en haut de l'hexagone, et l'autre N est indirectement lié à cet N comme à l'autre carbon de la liaison double à travers un carbon, dessinez donc un N dans le coin bas-à-gauche de l'hexagone, mais non celui tout en bas.
3) L'atome N en haut du pentagone à droite a une liaison double au carbon tout à droit, dessinez cette double liaison.
4) Les deux carbon à droite qui ne sont pas remplacés par N ont chacune une liaison double vers un O, dessinez ces O et ces doubles liaisons.
5) Le N tout en haut à gauche est lié à un groupe CH3, dessinez ce groupe CH3 et une ligne de l'N.
Les différences:
6 pour caféine chaqu'un des autres N, sauf celui à liaison double est aussi lié à un groupe CH3.
7 pour théophylline, c'est le groupe CH3 du pentagone qui est remplacé par un simple H,
8 et pour théobromine, c'est au contraire le groupe CH3 de l'hexagone qui est remplacé par un H.
Dessinez les lignes, le ou les groupes CH3 et l'éventuel H.
On pourrait se poser la question si ces similitudes entre caféine, théobromine et théophylline ne pointent pas sur une origine commune des trois substances. Or, la caféine se trouve surtout dans le café, la théophylline surtout dans le thé et la théobromine surtout dans le chocolat. Mais cafétier, cacaotier et théier ne sont pas du tout les mêmes familles de plantes. Coffea arabica ou encore robusta est des Rubiaceae de l'ordre Rubiales de la sous-classe Asteridae, de la classe Magboliopsida. Le cacaoyer Theobroma cacao est de la famille Sterculiaceae ou de la famille Malvaceae de l'ordre Malvales avant de rejoindre la classe Magnoliopsida. Et Camellia sinensis, le théier, est de la famille Theaceae de l'ordre Theales ou de l'ordre Ericales avant de rejoindre Magnoliopsida. Camellia japonica ne semble pas contenir théophylline. La garance des teinturiers ne semble pas contenir caféine. Et la mauve des bois ne semble pas contenir de la théobromine.
Seule la classe Magnoliopsida ou des dicotylédones est commune aux trois plantes, et elle comprend 200 000 espèces, dont la plupart ne contiennent ni caféine, ni théophylline, ni théobromine. Pour la yerba maté, qui contient les trois, elle est Ilex paraguariensis, tandis que les autres Ilex, par exemple Ilex Aquifolium, le houx, ne les contiennent pas forcément.[Correction: Admis, le houx contient de la théobromine*] Et le genre Ilex est de la famille Aquifoliaceae, de l'ordre Celestrales ou Aquifoliales, de la sous-classe Rosidae, avant de rejoindre la classe Magnolopsida.
Guarana contient caféine et théobromine et théophylline. Paullinia cupana est de la famille Sapindaceae, qui est de l'ordre Sapindales avant de rejoindre - déjà la sous-classe Rosidae et la classe Magnolopsida. Mais autres Sapindaceae, comme le litchi ne contiennent pas forcément caféine, théobromine ou théophylline.
La noix de kola, ou Cola acuminata, contient de la caféine et de la théobromine, même théophylline, selon la wiki anglaise. Le colatier est comme la cacaoyer de la famille Sterculiaceae ou Malvaceae et de l'ordre Malvales. Mais, comme la grande mauve, tant d'autres Malvales ne contiennent pas les trois substances qu'on aime, avec le sucre, autant que ou parfois plus que l'alcool.
Pourtant, l'argument qu'on nous présente - aussi dans le livre où l'on dit qu'un ancêtre commun hypothétique ne soit pas un ancêtre commun non-existant - est que la similitude repose sur un ancêtre commun, et non pas sur une autre origine commune. Mais pour ces trois substances, je crois fortement dans une origine commune qui n'est pas une plante ancêtre commune à cacaoyer, caféier et théier, mais une intelligence qui les a créées par dessin intelligent. Pour que les gens en panne de sommeil puisse se réveiller un peu. Pour que des gens ayant mangé un peu peu puisse tenir le coup jusqu'à plus tard, et ainsi de suite. Le catéchisme du Concile de Trente, ainsi que celui de St Pie X, ainsi que le Credo, de Nicée, des Apôtres, ou de St Athanase ou encore les règle de foi du premier Concile de Tolède appellent cette intelligence Dieu et précisent qu'Il est un Dieu en Trois Personnes./HGL
*Source: http://museum.gov.ns.ca/poison/defaultfr.asp?section=species&id=94
Dans un certain sens, le mot science est protégé. N'ayant pas fait les sciences naturelles à la fac, je ne peux pas me prétendre "scientifique". Par contre, rien empêche un amateur de faire de la science quand même. Darwin lui-même était amateur ès sciences et par ses études d'abord théologien. Si un anglican moderniste peut être qualifié de théologien.
Aussi dans un autre sens, le mot est protégé. Si la science évolutionniste abandonne de nos jours ce que le livre appelle "vision linéaire, scaliste et gradiste de l'évolution", on ne peut plus appeler cette vision science, à moins de le faire en polémique envers l'établissement scientifique et de déclarer cette polémique. Donc, ce n'est plus la science comme protocol de communauté des scientifiques dont on parle, car dans ce sens là, cette "vision linéaire, scaliste et gradiste de l'évolution" se veut abandonné par "la science". On peut attaquer l'évolutionnisme pour cette vision, mais on doit alors noter qu'elle n'est pas d'actualité ou qu'elle ne se veut plus d'actualité parmi les scientifiques même évolutionnistes. Ou on peut défendre cette vision par zèle évolutionniste, mais alors il convient pour quelqu'un qui n'est pas scientifique de reprocher la communauté scientifique de lâcheté vis-à-vis les critiques.
Dans les deux cas, on se met dehors d'un consensus on ne se présente pas comme dedans. Et tant que ce consensus est celui d'une communauté protégé de nom, de droit public, alors c'est en quelque manière le consensus lui-même qui reçoît le tître de "consensus scientifique" par la loi d'un pays. Mais en dehors de France il y a des scientifiques reconnus comme tel de droit public, qui sont créationnistes. Moi, j'en fais pas partie, j'ai fait mes études en latin, grec et encore quelques sujets linguistiques et un peu historiques. Mais ceci ne vaut pas que je ne sois pas un amateur des sciences et surtout donc des sujets où j'ai une querelle avec les scientifiques de profession. Ni que je n'eusse pas le droit d'écrire publiquement là-dessus. Certes, je n'ai pas un droit automatiques aux presses des universités, mais en bon droit je ne souffre pas non plus d'un interdit de faire un discours public sur les choses que je n'ai pas étudié.
Malheureusement le livre donne un premier bémol pour la question de droit:
En France, la liberté de ce choix [d'être créationniste] individuel est garanti par la loi: ce choix est de l'ordre strictement privé. ... Ainsi les résultats des sciences sont d'ordre public. [p. 22]
La liberté d'être créationniste est aussi une liberté qui est d'ordre public. Si le choix est strictement de l'ordre privé, son expression tombe sous la liberté d'expression. Et aussi sous la liberté d'information. Pourtant, le livre essaie de faire planer ces droits en doute.
Bon, un autre petit morceau où le livre est un peu moins decevant. Les souris de Madère.
Il y a parmi les souris des variantes avec des nombres de chromosomes différentes. Il deviennent en pratique des nouvelles espèces. Le Mus Musculus aurait donc normalement toujours 40 chromosomes, et après les 6 variantes avec entre 30 et 22 sur Madère ou les variantes avec 22 en Tunisie seraient toutes évoluées depuis l'arrivée des souris avec l'homme (soit les Vikings, soit les Portugais pour Madère). Et les variantes sur Madère ne se croisent pas sans que les hybrides soient stériles, et aussi en Tunisie les hybrides entre 22 chromosomes et 40 chromosomes est stérile.
D'abord un problème méthodologique: comment savoir que TOUT Mus Musculus a 40 chromosomes? Les souris de 22 ou de 30 sont quand même des souris aussi. Comme le montre le cas de Tunisie, les variantes avec moins de 40 chromosomes existent ailleurs qu'en Madère aussi.
Ensuite: oui, les coalescences entre chromosomes se sont effectivement déroulées de manière tellement différente entre les divers variétés que l'on n'a pas trouvé d'hybride fertile.
Mais, finalement, ceci est un peu peu comme réponse à ce que je viens déjà de dire en 2009*: "Mais fusion, c'est une chose, augmenter le nombre des chromosomes c'est une autre. Télomères pourraient être conflatés en un centromère (fusion Richardsonienne) mais d'où viennent les nouveaux centromères en cas de fission chromosomique? Par hypothèse, les télomères démeurent télomères dans ce cas là. C'est le problème où conduit le scénario selon lequelle 2n=48 chez les premiers mammifères."** - En d'autres mots: d'où viennent les nouveaux centromères alors?
Tout ce qu'il y a sur les souris de Madère donne uniquement d'information sur la fusion, que je ne conteste pas tellement.
On a donc répondu à la question que j'accordais déjà la réponse donné par les scientifiques, on s'est gardé d'aborder l'autre aspect dans ce livre. Hélas, il est tellement grand, il aura des chances à devenir un livre standard. Donc, on n'espère pas trop trouver une deuxième édition avec ceci corrigé. Encore moins de le voir remplacé par un autre livre. Never mind, comme on dit en anglais!*** Ceux qui ont accès à ce blog sauront bien quel est le défaut. Et ils pourront avec le temps avertir les autres. On essaie à l'interdire en France? Alors, il sera lu en Belgique. Ou au Quebec. Ou en Afrique Noir ou en Liban ...
Sur une autre page je trouve ce livre vraiment phantastique. Les Lissamphibiens divergent des Amniotes en Dévonien - mais les premiers retrouvés sont de Trias. Aucune trace des proches parents des lignées débutantes en divergence. Les Mammifères divergent des autres Amniotes en Carbonifère - mais n'apparaissent qu'en Trias, eux aussi. Les autres Amniotes divergent une fois encore en Carbonifère, mais les Chéloniens n'apparaissent qu'en Trias. L'autre branche des Amniotes non Mammifères diverge une fois en Permien, mais les Squamates n'apparaissent qu'en Jurassique tardif. Encore un branchement en Permien, les Archosaures éteints y apparaissent mais les Crocodyliformes attendent jusqu'à Trias et les Oiseaux même jusqu'à Jurassique. Le seul taxon qu'on voit en même temps qu'un taxon ancêtre sont les Primates, dont les premiers dateraient de Cénozoïque, mais les Mammifères dont ils se développent sont déjà en place - depuis, comme dit, Trias. En d'autres mots, à supposer ces époques exactes, comme le font mes adversaires les évolutionnistes, chaque taxon commence avec une ligne phantome - selon leur propre aveu! Voilà Gefundenes Fressen pour Templeton et d'autres (c'est un fait d'ailleurs déjà exploité par mes presque-amis - presque car Protestants eux - sur Creation.com /CMI).
Merci très bien pour l'honnêteté, quand j'étais petit on peignait "l'arbre de l'évolution" comme un branchement autour des nœuds assez solides - quoique non pas exactement avec une espèce fossile en chaque nœud. le changement, vers plus d'honnêteté, pourvu que ça dure, ça fait du bien! Es war sehr schön, es hat mich sehr erfreut, messieurs!
On peut ajouter que ces périodes sont en eux-mêmes douteux aussi. Si chaque endroit où se trouvent des fossiles il n'y a que des fossiles d'une seule période, en général, comment savoir que ces périodes et époques et ères se soient succédées plutôt que d'être des faunes contemporaines pendant le Déluge de Noé, par exemple? Un homme ou deux de CMI est en train de faire des recherches sur cette question.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Parmentier
St Nestor
26-II-2013
* deretour : René Le Gal ... L'ADN en question(s) - rélévance pour le débat créationniste/évolutionniste et Benoît XVI
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/rene-le-gal-ladn-en-questions-relevance.html
** Les derniers mots conduisirent à un lien: http://crfb.univ-mrs.fr/jobim2007/sat/sat_d.pdf
Quand je le clique, je trouve: "Forbidden, You don't have permission to access /jobim2007/sat/sat_d.pdf on this server." Le principe que quiconque pourra regarder et donc critiquer et par là aider à vérifier ou falsifier l'œuvre scientifique n'est pas trop bien protégé en France. Car il s'agit d'une université en France, autrement le lien ne finirait pas en .fr avant le slash.
*** C'est énervant comment peu j'ai pu me débattre à propos mes sujets de prédéliction en langue française. Autrement j'aurais pu avoir un français meilleur que mon anglais, mais si les Français s'isolent de moi ...
Mise à jour: ceci me rappelle mon vieil essai:
Bible Science et ses adversaires
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2008/10/bible-science-et-ses-adversaires.html
Dessinez la base commune de caféine, théophylline et théobromine:
1) "Six carbon" à gauche, en cercle, dont la seule liaison double est à droite, frontalière à "cinq carbon" à droite, donc en somme neuf carbon - mais n'écrivez pas le C dans ces places, car ceci est l'embauche toute première, vraie ...
2) ... sauf que: chaqu'un des deux carbon à droite liés aux deux de la liaison double est remplacé par un N (écrivez les N là), et à gauche aussi deux C sont remplacés par des N: un N est directement lié à un des carbon de la liaison double, dessinez un N en haut de l'hexagone, et l'autre N est indirectement lié à cet N comme à l'autre carbon de la liaison double à travers un carbon, dessinez donc un N dans le coin bas-à-gauche de l'hexagone, mais non celui tout en bas.
3) L'atome N en haut du pentagone à droite a une liaison double au carbon tout à droit, dessinez cette double liaison.
4) Les deux carbon à droite qui ne sont pas remplacés par N ont chacune une liaison double vers un O, dessinez ces O et ces doubles liaisons.
5) Le N tout en haut à gauche est lié à un groupe CH3, dessinez ce groupe CH3 et une ligne de l'N.
Les différences:
6 pour caféine chaqu'un des autres N, sauf celui à liaison double est aussi lié à un groupe CH3.
7 pour théophylline, c'est le groupe CH3 du pentagone qui est remplacé par un simple H,
8 et pour théobromine, c'est au contraire le groupe CH3 de l'hexagone qui est remplacé par un H.
Dessinez les lignes, le ou les groupes CH3 et l'éventuel H.
On pourrait se poser la question si ces similitudes entre caféine, théobromine et théophylline ne pointent pas sur une origine commune des trois substances. Or, la caféine se trouve surtout dans le café, la théophylline surtout dans le thé et la théobromine surtout dans le chocolat. Mais cafétier, cacaotier et théier ne sont pas du tout les mêmes familles de plantes. Coffea arabica ou encore robusta est des Rubiaceae de l'ordre Rubiales de la sous-classe Asteridae, de la classe Magboliopsida. Le cacaoyer Theobroma cacao est de la famille Sterculiaceae ou de la famille Malvaceae de l'ordre Malvales avant de rejoindre la classe Magnoliopsida. Et Camellia sinensis, le théier, est de la famille Theaceae de l'ordre Theales ou de l'ordre Ericales avant de rejoindre Magnoliopsida. Camellia japonica ne semble pas contenir théophylline. La garance des teinturiers ne semble pas contenir caféine. Et la mauve des bois ne semble pas contenir de la théobromine.
Seule la classe Magnoliopsida ou des dicotylédones est commune aux trois plantes, et elle comprend 200 000 espèces, dont la plupart ne contiennent ni caféine, ni théophylline, ni théobromine. Pour la yerba maté, qui contient les trois, elle est Ilex paraguariensis, tandis que les autres Ilex, par exemple Ilex Aquifolium, le houx, ne les contiennent pas forcément.[Correction: Admis, le houx contient de la théobromine*] Et le genre Ilex est de la famille Aquifoliaceae, de l'ordre Celestrales ou Aquifoliales, de la sous-classe Rosidae, avant de rejoindre la classe Magnolopsida.
Guarana contient caféine et théobromine et théophylline. Paullinia cupana est de la famille Sapindaceae, qui est de l'ordre Sapindales avant de rejoindre - déjà la sous-classe Rosidae et la classe Magnolopsida. Mais autres Sapindaceae, comme le litchi ne contiennent pas forcément caféine, théobromine ou théophylline.
La noix de kola, ou Cola acuminata, contient de la caféine et de la théobromine, même théophylline, selon la wiki anglaise. Le colatier est comme la cacaoyer de la famille Sterculiaceae ou Malvaceae et de l'ordre Malvales. Mais, comme la grande mauve, tant d'autres Malvales ne contiennent pas les trois substances qu'on aime, avec le sucre, autant que ou parfois plus que l'alcool.
Pourtant, l'argument qu'on nous présente - aussi dans le livre où l'on dit qu'un ancêtre commun hypothétique ne soit pas un ancêtre commun non-existant - est que la similitude repose sur un ancêtre commun, et non pas sur une autre origine commune. Mais pour ces trois substances, je crois fortement dans une origine commune qui n'est pas une plante ancêtre commune à cacaoyer, caféier et théier, mais une intelligence qui les a créées par dessin intelligent. Pour que les gens en panne de sommeil puisse se réveiller un peu. Pour que des gens ayant mangé un peu peu puisse tenir le coup jusqu'à plus tard, et ainsi de suite. Le catéchisme du Concile de Trente, ainsi que celui de St Pie X, ainsi que le Credo, de Nicée, des Apôtres, ou de St Athanase ou encore les règle de foi du premier Concile de Tolède appellent cette intelligence Dieu et précisent qu'Il est un Dieu en Trois Personnes./HGL
*Source: http://museum.gov.ns.ca/poison/defaultfr.asp?section=species&id=94
mercredi 20 février 2013
Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele
Some people think this of me: I am basically amiable, even intelligent once in a while, but overly tied to authority and looking for it in the wrong place (like Holy Bible instead of Galileo's Dialogo and Darwin's Origin of the Species, or Thomas Aquinas rather than Kant). So, if I could only see that the Catholic Church no longer forbids Heliocentrism, I would certainly be Heliocentric myself, like the rest of us.
G. Settele and the Final Annulment of the 1616 Decree against Copernicanism
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1989MmSAI..60..791C/0000791.000.html
http://tinyurl.com/anfossi
This link is the 1823 decree against Anfossi with its background. Take your time to read it before reading on here.
Well, first of all I note that Giuseppe Settele in the affair of his astronomic textbook and Anfossi showed exactly the kind of lack of humility that has recently been reproached Galileo in the very recent thesis, which is horrible, that Galileo was condemned for his attitude and not his doctrine.
Second I note that this essay by Juan Casanovas mingles arguments for "Relative Helio-Focalism" and for this "Relative Helio-Focalism" not being identic to the Absolute Helio-Centrism which was condemned in 1633 by the Holy Office of Pope Urban VIII, the decision of which was confirmed by same Pope by his sending it to all Universities. It even ignores the sentence in 1633, unless I read it too sloppily.
But third and foremost, I note that the Pope back then did not forbid Geocentrism. To this date Geocentrism - yes, even Absolute Geocentrism - has never been forbidden. Not by the Catholic Church which has authority from God. It has sometimes been forbidden by Freemasons in France, I suppose, and by Communists in Russia, unless you will say that neither actually bothered to make "such a simple thing" law. But Freemasons and their Lodges, Communists and their Parties have no authority from God.
Neither have I, at least not as far as Ecclesiastical Authority is concerned. But that does not amount to any forbidding either or Geocentrism or of stating it openly. It is one thing I cannot forbid others to be Heliocentric (or relatively heliofocal), but I can say it is not forbidden but even - through the sentence of 1633, through Joshua, as it is most likely to be understood, and a few more - recommended to be Geocentric or Geostatic. So, I have a right to argue for it.
Not quite. You see, what had been condemned in 1633 was not "a world system" of non-Geocentrism, Galileo's differring - on the writer's view - from that of Giuseppe Settele as much as Ptolemy, Aristotle, Tycho Brahe and Hebrew Traditional Astronomy differ between them. What had been condemned were two central theses, two theses central to it and of the two, at least the less condemned, the non-stillness of earth, was included in the new system as well.
I cannot get the Latin Bullarium text right now for the edict of 1633: on the pages from Cherubini on the Bullarium of Pope Urban VIII, such as are available on www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu I mean, the verdict is not there. So, I do not know if the more condemned thesis, the one condemned as formally heretical, was condemned as "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move" [i e at all when you think of it] or as "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move as observed" - this site gives this quote, Sungenis gives the other and says, on top of it, that the Pope back then had no access to the document, since France had not given the Vatican its archives back. If the more condemned thesis, the formally heretical one was "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move as observed" then that one too is included in the new system, but not if it was just "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move".
Now, this is a long discussion of the authority of the Catholic Church and how it relates to our possible freedom to be Heliocentric. But, the point is, I am not someone desperately wanting to be Heliocentric and hampered only by an appreciation and possibly an erroneous such of what the Catholic Church has said. I am Geocentric with just sometimes a shortlived openness for the possibility spatial voyages like that of sonds Voyager I and II could at longlast have, to those having access to the truth of these voyages, proven that Heliocentrism is the only thing that will work. But to my mind, nothing short of a proof from the trajectories of these sonds will prove Geocentrism wrong.
Let us see what Giuseppe Settele presented, we have already dealt with the supposed non-identity of his system with that of Galileo, which had been condemned.
But Ptolemy had been proven wrong on several points, by both Tycho Brahe and Galileo, and on points where Galileo's proofs were not reproved by the Church decrees at all!
To anyone who is or supposes me to be overly ridden by authorities, I can observe that neither Clavius nor Ptolemy are infallible. But as to the comment itself, there are indeed philosophical arguments that are weak and mathematical ones that are as strong as the calculations are correct. There are also philosophical arguments that are as strong as the syllogism is correct and mathematical ones that are as weak as the misapplication of mathematics is weak.
So, what was the "impressive list of proofs" that Settele could present in favour of Earth moving? Was it perhaps, as in some dishonest court pleading, most impressive as a list and least if you took the time to look each argument in the face?
Now, you may say "wait a minute! Stars cannot move around in circles in time with the sun!"
Well that depends on whether they are moved only by automatically working causes or by willing causes.
A pen drops to the ground. OK, to the floor actually in this case (I just dropped it so as not to lie). I am not in the least surprised it fell to the ground. That is all it can do, when dropped. If it were to stop where I had held it or in midair, it would prove to a normal mind that someone else held it. If no one else was visible, one could conclude an angel held it.
When St Patrick hung his gloves on a beam of light shining into his cell and they stayed on it, that does not mean this was no longer working, it means an angel, impressed of how he neglected his gloves to praise God, held the gloves for him.
Now, I am afraid Settele forgot about the possibility of heavenly bodies being held and moved about by angels in the text-book. He did not think about it, as far as I know, and then show why even Christians cannot believe that - there is no reason why we couldn't. He just forgot about the mere possibility. When Astrophysics is not based on Atheism, it is based on this kind of forgetfulness.
Now, what did St Thomas have to say about the matter?
This is from:
S Th I P Q 70 A3 or
Summa Theologiae
I Part, on God and Creation
Question 70 on the Creation of the Luminaries
Article 3, whether they are living beings
http://newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3
Herein he is quite at one with Bishop Stephen Tempier, reputed his opponent, but that was not the case here, Stephen only suspected St Thomas of Averroist or other necessitist errors that were not his. If you know Latin, look it up in Stephen Tempier's condemnations. I have taken the systematic list of condemnations, and put it online on my blogs, here are two relevant chapters:
Capitulum VII, errores de intelligentia sive de angelo
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-vii.html
Capitulum XII, errores de celo et de stellis
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html
These systematic chapters form an appendix to the edition that David Piché made in 1999. I have not plagiarised his main work, page against page with his translations, most of them not wrong, and I have added my own annotations. Each condemned sentence is given both its number within the chapter and its number in the original, and possibly more scrambled version of the condemnations from 1 to 219.
So, if Settele and later commentators forgot that angels could be moving the stars, does that invalidate Heliocentrism? I think it invalidates it as not being proven. Not as being absurdly impossible. It is rather absurd unless proven because roundabout.
Juan Casanovas quoted St Thomas as saying something which I cannot find in new advent Summa. He gave reference as "Summa Theol. I q.32 a.1 ad 3" - but the text for that is:
You see, I q.32 is still the Section about the Holy Trinity, not yet about Creation.
But the quote he gives - no doubt present somewhere else in Saint Thomas, or is there any remote possibility this is a forged quote? - is:
Now, the fact is that the position is sound. Epicycles and excentrics such as Ptolemy imagined are not the only possibilities to save the appearances - that is to leave them as possible straight effects of something real and therefore real appearances rather than illusions - but then that applies to parallax phenomenon, to aberration phenomenon, to nutation phenomonenon too. And therefore these do not prove Heliocentrism, since they are not proven to have been rightly identified in their causality by astronomers.
Juan Casanovas concludes on a note quite incompatible with Catholicism:
The literal sense of the Holy Scriptures has been settled. And the decree of 1616, St Robert Bellarmine, and later Pope Urban VIII were applying it. The decision for Settele and against Anfossi did not pretend to do away with it, but to be still applying it. Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus refers to Biblical inerrancy as still quite applicable. Juan Casanovas asks for a thing which simply is not there in the Catholic Church. He asks fixed doctrine to "keep pace with contemporary developments of science" - and there is no such thing as doing that with a fixed doctrine. A mountain cannot keep pace with a race horse. A house cannot keep pace with a car. Nor should they. And cars and race horses are statistically likelier to come to wrong places than houses and mountains.
I am proud of a doctrine that does not keep pace with contemporary developments in science. I am proud of a doctrine that is sometimes in conflict with contemporary consensus or near consensus in science. And if you ever find me ashamed of it in the future, it will not be because I found a reason against what I now believe, it will be because men have either forged my statement or mistreated me by brainwashing - or rather it will not be at all, if God is with me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Boulogne-Billancourt
Martyrs of Tyrus in Phoenicia
under Diocletian's persecution
20-II-2013
G. Settele and the Final Annulment of the 1616 Decree against Copernicanism
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1989MmSAI..60..791C/0000791.000.html
http://tinyurl.com/anfossi
This link is the 1823 decree against Anfossi with its background. Take your time to read it before reading on here.
Well, first of all I note that Giuseppe Settele in the affair of his astronomic textbook and Anfossi showed exactly the kind of lack of humility that has recently been reproached Galileo in the very recent thesis, which is horrible, that Galileo was condemned for his attitude and not his doctrine.
Second I note that this essay by Juan Casanovas mingles arguments for "Relative Helio-Focalism" and for this "Relative Helio-Focalism" not being identic to the Absolute Helio-Centrism which was condemned in 1633 by the Holy Office of Pope Urban VIII, the decision of which was confirmed by same Pope by his sending it to all Universities. It even ignores the sentence in 1633, unless I read it too sloppily.
But third and foremost, I note that the Pope back then did not forbid Geocentrism. To this date Geocentrism - yes, even Absolute Geocentrism - has never been forbidden. Not by the Catholic Church which has authority from God. It has sometimes been forbidden by Freemasons in France, I suppose, and by Communists in Russia, unless you will say that neither actually bothered to make "such a simple thing" law. But Freemasons and their Lodges, Communists and their Parties have no authority from God.
Neither have I, at least not as far as Ecclesiastical Authority is concerned. But that does not amount to any forbidding either or Geocentrism or of stating it openly. It is one thing I cannot forbid others to be Heliocentric (or relatively heliofocal), but I can say it is not forbidden but even - through the sentence of 1633, through Joshua, as it is most likely to be understood, and a few more - recommended to be Geocentric or Geostatic. So, I have a right to argue for it.
Anfossi [Fr. Anfossi O.P.] showed his lack of appreciation of the issue, when he considered that the world system proposed by Settele in 1820, following his contemporaries, was the same which had been condemned.
Not quite. You see, what had been condemned in 1633 was not "a world system" of non-Geocentrism, Galileo's differring - on the writer's view - from that of Giuseppe Settele as much as Ptolemy, Aristotle, Tycho Brahe and Hebrew Traditional Astronomy differ between them. What had been condemned were two central theses, two theses central to it and of the two, at least the less condemned, the non-stillness of earth, was included in the new system as well.
I cannot get the Latin Bullarium text right now for the edict of 1633: on the pages from Cherubini on the Bullarium of Pope Urban VIII, such as are available on www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu I mean, the verdict is not there. So, I do not know if the more condemned thesis, the one condemned as formally heretical, was condemned as "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move" [i e at all when you think of it] or as "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move as observed" - this site gives this quote, Sungenis gives the other and says, on top of it, that the Pope back then had no access to the document, since France had not given the Vatican its archives back. If the more condemned thesis, the formally heretical one was "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move as observed" then that one too is included in the new system, but not if it was just "that the sun stands still in the centre of the universe and does not move".
Now, this is a long discussion of the authority of the Catholic Church and how it relates to our possible freedom to be Heliocentric. But, the point is, I am not someone desperately wanting to be Heliocentric and hampered only by an appreciation and possibly an erroneous such of what the Catholic Church has said. I am Geocentric with just sometimes a shortlived openness for the possibility spatial voyages like that of sonds Voyager I and II could at longlast have, to those having access to the truth of these voyages, proven that Heliocentrism is the only thing that will work. But to my mind, nothing short of a proof from the trajectories of these sonds will prove Geocentrism wrong.
Let us see what Giuseppe Settele presented, we have already dealt with the supposed non-identity of his system with that of Galileo, which had been condemned.
Anfossi had failed to realise that modern science had already undergone a profound change begun in Galileo's time, in which great use is made of mathematics. Already Clavius, and in this he was copying Ptolemy ...
But Ptolemy had been proven wrong on several points, by both Tycho Brahe and Galileo, and on points where Galileo's proofs were not reproved by the Church decrees at all!
... had warned the philosophers, that in matters of cosmology a mathematical proof had more strength and persuasive power than philosophical argument.
To anyone who is or supposes me to be overly ridden by authorities, I can observe that neither Clavius nor Ptolemy are infallible. But as to the comment itself, there are indeed philosophical arguments that are weak and mathematical ones that are as strong as the calculations are correct. There are also philosophical arguments that are as strong as the syllogism is correct and mathematical ones that are as weak as the misapplication of mathematics is weak.
So, what was the "impressive list of proofs" that Settele could present in favour of Earth moving? Was it perhaps, as in some dishonest court pleading, most impressive as a list and least if you took the time to look each argument in the face?
- That the sun is no longer at the center of the world?
- Not a proof for earth not being there, perhaps? Just a proof - if you call that a proof - that the new system was not involved in the condemnations of 1616 and 1633.
- That the orbits are elliptic?
- Elliptic or circular orbits were so not the issue in 1633.
- That the orbits are mutually connected and dependent?
- Well, how did Settele prove that one of them could not be exceptional? Sun having Earth in one focus of its ellipsis and Earth having Sun in one focus of its ellipsis are mathematically equivalent. Only, Sun having Earth in one focus of its ellipsis is exceptional, since otherwise it is such and such planet that has Sun in one focus of its ellipsis.
So, mutually connected and dependent elliptic orbits are not quite compatible at face value with Geocentrism, but then you have to prove the orbits are mutually connected and dependent rather than just mathematically coinciding. - Kepler's laws?
- Basically identic to previous argument.
- Newtonian universal gravitation?
- Is it itself a proven fact? Can it be proven independently of the new cosmology?
- The aberration of light, nutation, the annual parallax of the fixed stars?
- There are observations which have been labelled thus and therefore interpreted as if Earth moves. The charge on Heliocentrics is to prove philosophically that none of these can be interpreted at all if Earth stands still or that at least one of them cannot.
- The eastbound drift of falling bodies?
- According to Chaberlot's essay, this has not been observed till recently: it is one centimeter drift per hundred meter fall.
Has it been observed at all? Dropping a pebble one hundred meters to see if it drifts one centimeter eastward is risky business. It is awkward to be sure it is really the fall of the pebble that drifts eastward rather than the top of the building that drifts westward one centimeter. And a pebble falling from hundred meter's heighth is rather lethal. I would not want to do the experiment. - The movement of translation of the sun or more properly the solar system?
- If it means "in relation to the stars in general" it is not a proven fact any more than it is proven the stars are not doing the movement, as with parallax and possibly aberration too.
- Torricelli had proven weightiness of atmospheric air, thereby disposing of an argument ...?
- Yes, one argument less for geocentrism. OK. But it was anyway not my main argument.
Here is the problem: it had been argued from Geocentric side that if Earth rotated, then atmosphere would get away due to centrifugal forces. If Torricelli proves atmospheric air is weighty, then Heliocentrics of any colour can answer that no, gravitation keeps atmosphere in place. So, yes, one argument less for Geocentrism, but not one argument more against it. - Annual parallax of α-Lyrae = 4.4 seconds of an arc?
- Now, that was the Piltdown man of Heliocentrism, and Settele makes a figure of Theilhard de Chardin.
- Warning:
- Next item again not for Heliocentrism, but against its being duly condemned by the Church.
- "First absurd in philosophy, consequently absurd in theology" - but philosophical absurdity no longer valid ...?
- Olivieri - the friend of Settele - insists:
on the fact that the theologians had first seen Copernicus's theories as absurd and false in their underlying philosophy and later and consequently as against the Holy Scripture. Olivieri reasons that if those presumed philosophical absurdities are no longer valid, then also the theological censure should be dropped.
First problem: later does not mean consequently. A philosophical absurdity can be detected before a Scriptural one comes to notice. And the Scriptural one can still be independent of the Philosophical one.
Second problem: the philosophical absurdity of Heliocentrism can be the condition on which Biblical Inerrancy is maintained, rather than the cause of Biblical Inerrancy being seen as involved.
Third problem: philosophical absurdity does not mean simply "scientific impossibility" but rather includes also things like holes in the argument, an absurd thesis - prima facie at least - that lacks proof. And as I see it Olivieri and Settele did not produce such either.
Now, you may say "wait a minute! Stars cannot move around in circles in time with the sun!"
Well that depends on whether they are moved only by automatically working causes or by willing causes.
A pen drops to the ground. OK, to the floor actually in this case (I just dropped it so as not to lie). I am not in the least surprised it fell to the ground. That is all it can do, when dropped. If it were to stop where I had held it or in midair, it would prove to a normal mind that someone else held it. If no one else was visible, one could conclude an angel held it.
When St Patrick hung his gloves on a beam of light shining into his cell and they stayed on it, that does not mean this was no longer working, it means an angel, impressed of how he neglected his gloves to praise God, held the gloves for him.
Now, I am afraid Settele forgot about the possibility of heavenly bodies being held and moved about by angels in the text-book. He did not think about it, as far as I know, and then show why even Christians cannot believe that - there is no reason why we couldn't. He just forgot about the mere possibility. When Astrophysics is not based on Atheism, it is based on this kind of forgetfulness.
Now, what did St Thomas have to say about the matter?
I answer that, Philosophers have differed on this question. Anaxagoras, for instance, as Augustine mentions (De Civ. Dei xviii, 41), "was condemned by the Athenians for teaching that the sun was a fiery mass of stone, and neither a god nor even a living being." On the other hand, the Platonists held that the heavenly bodies have life. Nor was there less diversity of opinion among the Doctors of the Church. It was the belief of Origen (Peri Archon i) and Jerome that these bodies were alive, and the latter seems to explain in that sense the words (Ecclesiastes 1:6), "The spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about." But Basil (Hom. iii, vi in Hexaem.) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) maintain that the heavenly bodies are inanimate. Augustine leaves the matter in doubt, without committing himself to either theory, though he goes so far as to say that if the heavenly bodies are really living beings, their souls must be akin to the angelic nature (Gen. ad lit. ii, 18; Enchiridion lviii).
[...]
A proof that the heavenly bodies are moved by the direct influence and contact of some spiritual substance, and not, like bodies of specific gravity, by nature, lies in the fact that whereas nature moves to one fixed end which having attained, it rests; this does not appear in the movement of heavenly bodies. Hence it follows that they are moved by some intellectual substances. Augustine appears to be of the same opinion when he expresses his belief that all corporeal things are ruled by God through the spirit of life (De Trin. iii, 4).
From what has been said, then, it is clear that the heavenly bodies are not living beings in the same sense as plants and animals, and that if they are called so, it can only be equivocally. It will also be seen that the difference of opinion between those who affirm, and those who deny, that these bodies have life, is not a difference of things but of words.
This is from:
S Th I P Q 70 A3 or
Summa Theologiae
I Part, on God and Creation
Question 70 on the Creation of the Luminaries
Article 3, whether they are living beings
http://newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3
Herein he is quite at one with Bishop Stephen Tempier, reputed his opponent, but that was not the case here, Stephen only suspected St Thomas of Averroist or other necessitist errors that were not his. If you know Latin, look it up in Stephen Tempier's condemnations. I have taken the systematic list of condemnations, and put it online on my blogs, here are two relevant chapters:
Capitulum VII, errores de intelligentia sive de angelo
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-vii.html
Capitulum XII, errores de celo et de stellis
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html
These systematic chapters form an appendix to the edition that David Piché made in 1999. I have not plagiarised his main work, page against page with his translations, most of them not wrong, and I have added my own annotations. Each condemned sentence is given both its number within the chapter and its number in the original, and possibly more scrambled version of the condemnations from 1 to 219.
So, if Settele and later commentators forgot that angels could be moving the stars, does that invalidate Heliocentrism? I think it invalidates it as not being proven. Not as being absurdly impossible. It is rather absurd unless proven because roundabout.
Juan Casanovas quoted St Thomas as saying something which I cannot find in new advent Summa. He gave reference as "Summa Theol. I q.32 a.1 ad 3" - but the text for that is:
Reply to Objection 3. There are two reason why the knowledge of the divine persons was necessary for us. It was necessary for the right idea of creation. The fact of saying that God made all things by His Word excludes the error of those who say that God produced things by necessity. When we say that in Him there is a procession of love, we show that God produced creatures not because He needed them, nor because of any other extrinsic reason, but on account of the love of His own goodness. So Moses, when he had said, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," subjoined, "God said, Let there be light," to manifest the divine Word; and then said, "God saw the light that it was good," to show proof of the divine love. The same is also found in the other works of creation. In another way, and chiefly, that we may think rightly concerning the salvation of the human race, accomplished by the Incarnate Son, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.
You see, I q.32 is still the Section about the Holy Trinity, not yet about Creation.
But the quote he gives - no doubt present somewhere else in Saint Thomas, or is there any remote possibility this is a forged quote? - is:
In astrologia ponitur ratio epicyclorum, quod hac positione facta, possunt salvari apparentia sensibilia circa motus coelestes, non tamen ratio haec est sufficienter probans, quia etiam forte alia positione facta salvari possunt.
Now, the fact is that the position is sound. Epicycles and excentrics such as Ptolemy imagined are not the only possibilities to save the appearances - that is to leave them as possible straight effects of something real and therefore real appearances rather than illusions - but then that applies to parallax phenomenon, to aberration phenomenon, to nutation phenomonenon too. And therefore these do not prove Heliocentrism, since they are not proven to have been rightly identified in their causality by astronomers.
Juan Casanovas concludes on a note quite incompatible with Catholicism:
Scientific theories are not always definitive ... Nevertheless philosophers and theologians should have kept pace with contemporary scientific developments and settled old theological questions like that with the literal sense of the Holy Scriptures in order to avoid in time any conflict with science.
The literal sense of the Holy Scriptures has been settled. And the decree of 1616, St Robert Bellarmine, and later Pope Urban VIII were applying it. The decision for Settele and against Anfossi did not pretend to do away with it, but to be still applying it. Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus refers to Biblical inerrancy as still quite applicable. Juan Casanovas asks for a thing which simply is not there in the Catholic Church. He asks fixed doctrine to "keep pace with contemporary developments of science" - and there is no such thing as doing that with a fixed doctrine. A mountain cannot keep pace with a race horse. A house cannot keep pace with a car. Nor should they. And cars and race horses are statistically likelier to come to wrong places than houses and mountains.
I am proud of a doctrine that does not keep pace with contemporary developments in science. I am proud of a doctrine that is sometimes in conflict with contemporary consensus or near consensus in science. And if you ever find me ashamed of it in the future, it will not be because I found a reason against what I now believe, it will be because men have either forged my statement or mistreated me by brainwashing - or rather it will not be at all, if God is with me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Boulogne-Billancourt
Martyrs of Tyrus in Phoenicia
under Diocletian's persecution
20-II-2013
jeudi 14 février 2013
La scolarité obligatoire qui tue
Amanda Todd, selon Le Parisien:
Autrefois douze ans était pour une fille l'âge légal pour se marier - pour le garçon c'était quatorze. On pouvait biensûr attendre plus longtemps aussi - ce qui était moins genant parce que coéducation et rock'n'roll ne faisaient pas encore leur sale œuvre d'hypersexualiser la population.
Les filles de douze restent des filles de douze, certaines sont prêtes à devenir femmes et mères, c'est juste la possibilité de faire quelque chose d'honorable de la sexualité qui leur a été enlevée. Sauf pour les pieuses hardies et d'autres qui arrivent bien (mieux que la moyenne) à s'écarter des tentations. Je ne parle pas que des tentations qui ruinent une réputation, biensûr.
Assurément un homme du monde, un homme de ressources, alors.
Un peu comme les réseaux qui s'acharnent sur moi, sauf qu'ils savent que je ne cède pas au chantage et que je dénoncerais les tentatives.
Je ne sais pas si c'est pour des prétentions sur maladie mentale ou si c'est pour un malfait envers quelque fille qu'ils le font*, mais le résultat est que mes affaires personnelles se gâchent - notemment de me marier pour éviter des malfaits comme ça dans le futur et de ma volonté de répandre le contenu de mes blogs non pas seulement dans sa forme gratuite sur le web mais en forme dérivée et payable qui me nourrirait avec ma future famille. Fois après fois ça se gâche.
Mais revenons à Amanda Todd: dans la société d'il y a cent ans, elle aurait à la fois pu éviter d'être scolarisé et donc hyperexposée à la société et donc harcélable, et elle aurait en même temps eu, au moins depuis l'âge de seize, le droit de se marier. Elle aurait pu trouver un homme pas tout à fait aussi salaud que son harceleur.
Matteo selon Le Progrès:
Effectivement. Ma mère m'a sauvé de soit suicide, soit au moins d'y penser, quand après de le menacer auprès d'elle, elle m'a enlevé pour quelque temps d'un collège et qu'elle m'a scolarisé à maison.
Et le garçon n'a pas eu droit même à quelques mois de scolarisation à domicile? Il aurait du être scolarisé au domicile jusqu'au lycée.
Ce qui ne l'a pas sauvé de la tentation trop forte au crime de suicide.
On avait l'interêt de prétendre que les choses se soient bien passées, qu'il soit vraiment le cas ou non.
Quand après les mois qui m'étaient accordés le sémestre de printemps de notre 8ème** on a voulu trouver une solution définitive (oui, le XXe siècle avait la lubie des solutions finales), on écarta notre propos de me scolariser à maison sous école par correspondence, on m'a envoyé à une école logée. Les choses se passaient mal, je n'espérais pas avoir la compréhension que m'avait montrée ma mère en remenaçant un suicide, et je ne l'ai pas non plus menacé, mais les choses se passaient très mal. Dans les papiers on notaiet toutefois que les choses se passaient très bien. Pourquoi? Dire la vérité aurait été donner raison à ma mère et à notre propos de scolarité à maison. Ce qu'on n'a pas voulu nous accorder, par peur du sectérisme prétendu de ma mère et par - dans cette peur même - leur propre sectérisme séculariste. Donc, on a fermé les yeux sur ce qui s'est passé mal, j'ai eu deux ans de vie scolaire cauchemardesque sous le prétexte que les choses se passaient bien.
Sans doute, si les choses ne se passaient pas bien pour Matteo, on ne l'aurait pas noté. Par contre, l'âge de douze peut être un âge assez calme pour les garçons. C'est donc possible que les choses se passaient effectivement bien.
Jeune fille de Lent, selon LaCroix:
Pourquoi était-elle obligée de rester en école? Pourquoi étaient ces "gamins" (sic!) autorisés à rester dans l'école? Une réponse pour les deux questions: le respect pour l'obligation scolaire.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Univ. de Nanterre
Jeudi avant Quadragesima
et la Saint Valentin
14-II-2013
* Qu'elle n'a pas porté plainte pour. Volontairement ou sous pression du même réseaux qui me poursuit? J'ignore. Elle pourrait aussi s'être liée à eux pour avoir une vendette plus complête que la prison.
** Nos classes et les âges:
I-II/III/IV = classes du lycée. Puisqu'il n'est pas ou n'était pas obligatoire, on peut ou pouvait prendre une année sabbatique ou deux avant le lycée. Il comporte en pas mal de filières III classes, mais IV classes existe pour lycée technologique et II pour certaines filières moins exigeantes.
"C'est à douze ans que sa vie se transforme en cauchemar, lorsqu'elle rencontre un homme par webcam interposée."
Autrefois douze ans était pour une fille l'âge légal pour se marier - pour le garçon c'était quatorze. On pouvait biensûr attendre plus longtemps aussi - ce qui était moins genant parce que coéducation et rock'n'roll ne faisaient pas encore leur sale œuvre d'hypersexualiser la population.
Les filles de douze restent des filles de douze, certaines sont prêtes à devenir femmes et mères, c'est juste la possibilité de faire quelque chose d'honorable de la sexualité qui leur a été enlevée. Sauf pour les pieuses hardies et d'autres qui arrivent bien (mieux que la moyenne) à s'écarter des tentations. Je ne parle pas que des tentations qui ruinent une réputation, biensûr.
"Ce dernier insiste pour qu'elle lui montre ses seins, elle accepte. S'en suit un chantage, puis la diffusion de ces photos compromettantes. L'homme n'a pour l'instant pas été identifié mais le mal est fait : Amanda perd ses amis, et sa réputation. Elle change d'école à plusieurs reprises mais le harceleur s'acharne. A chaque fois, il s'arrange pour la retrouver et diffuser les clichés à ses nouveaux amis, auprès de ses professeurs."
Assurément un homme du monde, un homme de ressources, alors.
Un peu comme les réseaux qui s'acharnent sur moi, sauf qu'ils savent que je ne cède pas au chantage et que je dénoncerais les tentatives.
Je ne sais pas si c'est pour des prétentions sur maladie mentale ou si c'est pour un malfait envers quelque fille qu'ils le font*, mais le résultat est que mes affaires personnelles se gâchent - notemment de me marier pour éviter des malfaits comme ça dans le futur et de ma volonté de répandre le contenu de mes blogs non pas seulement dans sa forme gratuite sur le web mais en forme dérivée et payable qui me nourrirait avec ma future famille. Fois après fois ça se gâche.
Mais revenons à Amanda Todd: dans la société d'il y a cent ans, elle aurait à la fois pu éviter d'être scolarisé et donc hyperexposée à la société et donc harcélable, et elle aurait en même temps eu, au moins depuis l'âge de seize, le droit de se marier. Elle aurait pu trouver un homme pas tout à fait aussi salaud que son harceleur.
Matteo selon Le Progrès:
"Les parents du jeune garçon, qui ont découvert le drame, ont déposé plainte contre X pour « non-assistance à personne en danger et homicide involontaire ». Car l’opinion publique a déjà attribué au collège la responsabilité de ce geste fatal."
Effectivement. Ma mère m'a sauvé de soit suicide, soit au moins d'y penser, quand après de le menacer auprès d'elle, elle m'a enlevé pour quelque temps d'un collège et qu'elle m'a scolarisé à maison.
"Au rectorat de Grenoble, le directeur de cabinet reconnaît que le jeune garçon avait rencontré des difficultés avec ses camarades dès son entrée en 6e. Des « difficultés relationnelles » suffisamment graves pour amener ses parents à déposer plainte déjà à l’époque."
Et le garçon n'a pas eu droit même à quelques mois de scolarisation à domicile? Il aurait du être scolarisé au domicile jusqu'au lycée.
"« Cette situation avait été repérée », explique le rectorat, « et nous avions mis en place un suivi personnalisé avec l’adolescent. ..."
Ce qui ne l'a pas sauvé de la tentation trop forte au crime de suicide.
"...En 5e , les choses se sont bien passées et nous pensions qu’il en serait de même en 4e. ..."
On avait l'interêt de prétendre que les choses se soient bien passées, qu'il soit vraiment le cas ou non.
Quand après les mois qui m'étaient accordés le sémestre de printemps de notre 8ème** on a voulu trouver une solution définitive (oui, le XXe siècle avait la lubie des solutions finales), on écarta notre propos de me scolariser à maison sous école par correspondence, on m'a envoyé à une école logée. Les choses se passaient mal, je n'espérais pas avoir la compréhension que m'avait montrée ma mère en remenaçant un suicide, et je ne l'ai pas non plus menacé, mais les choses se passaient très mal. Dans les papiers on notaiet toutefois que les choses se passaient très bien. Pourquoi? Dire la vérité aurait été donner raison à ma mère et à notre propos de scolarité à maison. Ce qu'on n'a pas voulu nous accorder, par peur du sectérisme prétendu de ma mère et par - dans cette peur même - leur propre sectérisme séculariste. Donc, on a fermé les yeux sur ce qui s'est passé mal, j'ai eu deux ans de vie scolaire cauchemardesque sous le prétexte que les choses se passaient bien.
Sans doute, si les choses ne se passaient pas bien pour Matteo, on ne l'aurait pas noté. Par contre, l'âge de douze peut être un âge assez calme pour les garçons. C'est donc possible que les choses se passaient effectivement bien.
Jeune fille de Lent, selon LaCroix:
"La mère de la jeune fille de 12 ans qui s’est donné la mort lundi 2 janvier ... a affirmé que la famille avait alerté l’établissement à « cinq ou six reprises », précisant : « Des gamins l’ont traînée par terre, ils lui ont craché au visage, ils la bousculaient dans les escaliers, lui tiraient sa chaise à la cantine. »"
Pourquoi était-elle obligée de rester en école? Pourquoi étaient ces "gamins" (sic!) autorisés à rester dans l'école? Une réponse pour les deux questions: le respect pour l'obligation scolaire.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Univ. de Nanterre
Jeudi avant Quadragesima
et la Saint Valentin
14-II-2013
* Qu'elle n'a pas porté plainte pour. Volontairement ou sous pression du même réseaux qui me poursuit? J'ignore. Elle pourrait aussi s'être liée à eux pour avoir une vendette plus complête que la prison.
** Nos classes et les âges:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ... | 9 | I | II | (III) | (IV) |
| 7-8 | 8-9 | 9-10 | ... | 15-16 | 16-17 | 17-18 | 18-19 | 19-20 |
I-II/III/IV = classes du lycée. Puisqu'il n'est pas ou n'était pas obligatoire, on peut ou pouvait prendre une année sabbatique ou deux avant le lycée. Il comporte en pas mal de filières III classes, mais IV classes existe pour lycée technologique et II pour certaines filières moins exigeantes.
mercredi 6 février 2013
Open Questions to Rick Ross Center
Quote: Characteristic 3 (of destructive cults) : The use of a coordinated program of persuasion, which is called thought reform [or more commonly, 'brainwashing'"].
I have been exposed also to intimidation from unknown people on account of begging on street with poster of the url to this blog, latest time yesterday. Like by people not wanting my positions to be known or generally unwilling to let begging happen. Or wanting to "help me realise" that I "am wasting my life", when actuelly it is they who waste it by blocking people from using my material (essays or compositions) according to the uses I specified, some of whom might very well if so have been sending me some money for what I help them to. Not all men are dishonest.
Have you by any chance any connexion to people thinking of me as "obliged according to his faith/cultist brainwashing" to abstain from taking money or founding a family? Because, I am not, and if you have connexions with people acting like that over here in Paris, I would like to know.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux, Paris
St Dorothy, Virgin, Martyr
6-II-2013
Update, Monday after Quadragesima:
Yes, I know, this is after below update, but it is also closer to previous subject:
a) Ma contacted me. She has basically been brainwashed to believe herself mentally ill in a severe way and that she destroyed me and that I was saved by social services at age 14, by getting to a boarding school. The reverse is the case.
b) That presumably means that ill news about me and ill intentions for my so called good have had the stamp of her verbal approval.
c) I regard that about as if I had had a relative who was an anti-Communist hero who, when showing the face after years of captivity regards himself as a "poor sucking former agent of imperialist fascism" because he has been brainwashed to it.
This confirms there is a real intent to change my way of thinking and not to let me go until that goal has been reached. Will God help me against those crooks or will they continue to mistreat my life? Continued below.
Update, Quinquagesima Sunday:
Some days are really like if some network had decided long in advance to make vexations abound for me. To deprogram me from my religion? Look at this and jusdge yourselves:
Saturday, yesterday now. The morning up to nine-o-clockish was fairly good. I had only been woken up in the middle of the night and been asked to take another staircase, and succeeded in refusing and got a sandwich and a banana to eat before going to sleep again.
Close by there was an association, Unis Vers Cités, where I got a tea, and when leaving an orange and a coke.
Before leaving, I gave the hostess of the day for that association's work, and her associate, a coloured gentleman, my board with two of my blogs marked on it, this one and Φιλoλóγικα/Philologica, and that might have triggered what happened the rest of the day. Some coloured gentlemen are not just antiracialist in general from principle, but "antiracist" in the more political sense, and suspicious of white rightwing authors. Maybe he too? I don't know.
In the University Library, I first went down into the toilets of the basement to change to some of my newly washed, since the things I wore were stinking. When I came out, there was a coloured man, I will not call him gentleman, who was making gestures at me like as if he were pointing a gun at me (he did not have one, but the gesture is a bit unpleasant anyway) and he aksed me in a very rough voice not to speak to him. Ever. I was so flabberghasted I did not reply until he was leaving ... anyway, he was another homeless man whom I had not seen often over there, and who I do not feel all that confident he is using the books in the shelves. If he is, it is not in the Greek and Latin lang and lit shelves.
I wondered (in my mind, we were not talking and I couldn't ask him) if he was Ethiopian, if he was blaming the atrocities during February - October or November 1937, those committed by Viceroy Graziani, on Fascism in general. I feel that unfair, and I resent the turn to racialism that Fascism took with Carta della Razza in 1938 - possibly due to Graziani. I feel it even more unfair if he were to believe Avro Manhattan's lies and blame both Graziani and Mussolini in Ethiopia on the Vatican. But, that is what some Ethiopians do. Not that they are stupid or something, they have just been living under Communist Dictatorship for long and got used to some of the lies, as if they were self evident truth.
I did not get as far with Walter Leaf's chapter "Coming of the Achaeans" as I had wanted.
When on the way back to Paris, one Arab came to take the seat next to me. He was talking Arabic in the cell phone. I found it disturbing he took the place next to me, since cell phones in general and Arabic not being my favourite language added on to my suspicion (I might just have been tired of course) that he sat next to me to test my reaction to see if I was a racist.
I went out from Georges Pompidou Library to get some yoghurt - natural, not sweetstuff. One group I asked for money were blacks. I asked them for the eleven cents left before I could pay four yoghurt. One girl among them asked me "you won't use it for beer, will you?" I left the group, got one euro from someone else, went in. She begged me to come back and take money from them and giggled when I refused and went in anyway. When I went out from the shop the group was standing inside and watching what I had bought, although I had not recieved a penny from them.
Then I wrote an article on Φιλoλóγικα/Philologica, not against any race, if possibly in one small part against the Muslim religion, but mainly against Modernism. Fair enough, that is not a chore, but: when I tried to burn the url for that message on o-x, the blog had become "link not valid" for that url burner. I began suspecting the black gentleman at Unis Vers Cités. Again. So I used petitlien as url burner instead, http://petitlien.com/6cg1 or http://petitlien.com/6ci1 if I recall correctly.
Could the manager of that first url burner, o-x, have been alerted that the links were somehow "racist"?
I listened to one concert, three talented pupils of Paris Conservatory. First one lightly coloured gentleman sat down on a chair behind me, then I moved my chair and bags, then he moved on closer to me. Then I felt, again, as I were being tested if I showed a racist reaction - and that during a concert of music. I took another chair further back. Another gentleman of black colour sat down. Next to me, with some space between. I turned my head so as not to look at him, because this was getting ridiculous. He left before the concert was over. An Arab came from somewhere and leaned on the compartments between the seats over the table where I was. I gave him one of these looks, he went. And before the concert was over, the lightly coloured gentleman left the concert too.
Three men who had just attended the concert to see if I reacted as a racist? That at least is my suspicion, if they had liked the music why didn't they stay?
Now, after the concert I quickly tore apart one paper into four parts, one part was with the portrait of two of the conservatory pupils, the other three with the written link http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.com - one for each of the three. I clapped hands, then tore the paper, neatly in the folds, then clapped hands again.
When the three left the stage, I left my seat, wanted to hand them the three slips of paper with my musical site. One of the personnel of the Library interposed herself verymuch as if protecting the three against a madman, and as I saw she had managed to get the girls from the Conservatory flustered - unless they had been tipped off about me beforehand and were flustered about simply seeing me, of course, I felt it was no use to try any more.
Of course the Library is not exactly supporting my success as a writer and composer by such interpositions. Just maybe they thought (or pretended to think) that I was trying to give the recent article against Modernism to the three girls, even so the attitude was too much of "we personnel are adult but girls younger than you are babies which we are going to protect against you". I had sent the article to the newspaper magazine which it answered an article from.
Later that evening, one piano teacher was given one of the slips, and she wanted to know if I could "read music". I tried to explain that the answer was differentiated, but she wanted to know either yes or no.
My guess is: x among musicians hates my site because the conditions prohibit use for the French Telethon which supports preimplantational and prenatal diagnostic to "avoid" - by killing - hereditary diseases. And y - some ten times more than x - have been tipped off my music site "is racist" or just a front for my other "racist" sites. So z - even more frequent - is told by x and y that I cannot honestly have written the compositions I present as my own on that blog "because I cannot read music" - which is partly true and in the relevant sense for the claim sufficiently untrue.
And this noon I was trying to beg on one public street that is also inside a mall. The street is double function. Its being inside a mall might imply the mall owner would be authorised to keep beggars away. Uniquely this mall includes public streets of one Arrondissement of Paris, the First, and is therefore partly public space. According to French Law from 1993 no mayor (of whole city or of Paris Arrondissement), may forbid begging on all of its territory, nor for all of the time. Same law makes "agressive begging" an offense punishable with 3 months prison.
I was seated, I was holding a sign with the url of this blog, I was waiting. I asked the guards of the mall to show me a written decision stating that "Rue du Cinéma, 1er Arr., Paris" was for part of the time forbidden to beggars. And of course also stating that this was only during such and such hours. I got no such written decision shown and told two guards they were doing an illegal thing and if "just doing their job" doing a criminal job, obeying a criminal order by a criminal mall owner.
And of course, such harassments as I have had yesterday and today, and such obstacles to getting my music played - as long as people insist my essays are too controversial to be printed, my music is at least non vocal - seem like a kind of non-obvious captivity for me. Non-obvious to bystanders, that is, but all too obvious to myself. Kind of "let us deprogram you, or we continue" threat./HGL
PS: Two more considerations.
The Parish St Nicolas du Chardonnet has of course not been guilty of the above harassment yesterday and today. It has however been collaborating so as to block my possibilities to succeed as a writer with them and as a composer with them - and since I am trad myself, that means I have been cut off from my otherwise likeliest success so far.
And if the black gentleman of Unis Vers Cités though of my blog as racist, it is not because he is so stupid that he cannot tell one from the other as such, it is because one organism "SOS Racisme" has been attacked on my blog. Not for stating that all French Citizens should enjoy the benefits of French law whatever their skin colour, of course, but simply because they do lots of other quite worse stuff - like supporting the "marriage for all" movement - as in pro male-male or female-female "couples" marrying - and pointed fingers at "the religions" for getting too much involved. As a Catholic and upholder of God's marriage (one man and one woman), I resented that of course and wrote so./HGL
Update of Mardi Gras 2013:
Got thrown out from the public place of Paris within the shopping centre (yes, it sounds paradoxical, but the ground was Paris' property and remains its coproperty, it includes two libraries belonging to Paris and not to the mall, as well as a metro and RER line not belonging to it either).
Rest of Sunday and all of yesterday cool.
Arabs are well informed about what hurts or forwards their reputation, and the Arab in Les Halles seemed aware that he was into fishy business. Also, shopkeepers - small ones, not necessarily shopping center owners - are usually nice. Sunday evening I offered one, an Arab probably one euro for something to eat, he gave me turkey, bread and beer. Worth at least five euros.
And last night Arabs were nice too when I wanted a staircase to sleep in.
However, I have neither asked nor got as yet any excuse from Les halles or from Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou. And the municipal libraries block access to a Swedish newspaper owned by non-conformists as if it were sectarian.* One gets to top of page, but all under the top, including the contact page of the paper, is grey. Shielded off.
Being nice for a moment - as in some days by now - is not tantamount to giving up attempts to reprogramme someone - if such exist. The attitude of librarians or libraries computer responsibles is a case in point./HGL
*That was one library, this one I acessed it./HGL
Monday after Quadragesima, continued update:
I was tired this morning. I was thrown out of a porch at 11 o'clock, woken up by a janitor getting the dustbins out, and after getting back to some sleep was woken up again before it was 7:40.
Yesterday evening I was off my defense and let a man talk to me who was older and Jewish looking. He got links from me, presented himself as a physics teacher or former such and seemed shy. I have so far not heard from him. This morning I went to McDo with a benefactor I only just met and granted him a longer talk.
I had a longer talk with one Catholic friend who is not so friendly but very reserved, Saturday. Male, age peer. He sent me off to a conference on Faith - Personal and Collective, as if I needed it. The problem is not whether I should take my faith from Church or not, but whether I should take it from its most recent present and only use the past insofar as my superiors encourage it, or, as I believe, the past of the Church should be used freely and the present not insofar as it diverges from the past. Since I left the conference at the point when the Franciscan said that if the faith could not change the understanding thereof could, I wanted a reaction from that friend and told him. I have heard nothing back from him since.
Physics teacher - male, older. Benefactor this morning - male, older. Friend who sent me to the Conference - male roughly my age. Other man who calls himself my friend and wants Swedish lessons - he got one today - male, somewhat younger. Female and younger? Nah. Now, that is social isolation pushed very far.
I do not have the intention to get remade from a team of men, it is hurting my good mood and even health - sleep deprivation, bad digestion - but not changing one idea of mine. Including my preference for marrying a girl under thirty, even as being 44 myself, including my preference for living off writing and composing (have not heard a thing from either Georges Pompidou Library or Paris Conservatory since I wrote them this and asked for an excuse last week). They are wasting their time, except insofar as they are glad to waste my time and destroy my life./HGL
Newest update [so far], just stats, two blogs last month:
Update Wednesday Third Week of Lent, 6th of March 2013:
Yesterday and this morning three occasions coloured people, probably Muslims, have been very kind.
But on another occasion this morning one probable Muslim took a look at my bags in the post when I was away for stamps, although he got back to his place when I returned. Since this happened twice (I went to try to buy stamps twice), there is no mistake.
Yesterday a man who practises no religion but is of Muslim heritage pronounced quite a lesson in front of me, as if I were in some kind of position of power. If I could end the mischief of psychiatry, I would, I have already tried writing about it and so far failed, I have already tried fighting, and am still under some kind of observation.
He repeated a slogan about critical thinking, when he showed none himself about anti-Jesuit calumnies. I think one of the items of whatever network is watching and harrassing me is some kind of concern about my supposed lack of critical thinking.
And others, like the Muslim this morning or like three Muslims on the métro who spoke about "some are in the conspiracy and they want it all" - in my presence though not looking at me right then, I think (I am easy to spot) - are concerned I am in some kind of conspiracy. A bit of openness about my blogs and a bit less of secrecy about what one reproaches me (one could state reproaches in blog comments, if the message is appropriate, I am willing to take debate on quite a few items) might not hurt. Except some who are afraid they or their allies would loose the debate. Of course.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre / Paris X site
University Library
Wednesday Third Wk Lent
6-III-2013
Update, day after the Conclave was over:
One article on that site, the one I first tried to open, was about the White Smoke.
I complained about this to the Paris Municipality, and said that this was a site many people wanted to consult, that it belonged to FSSPX in US, and that it was kind of Soviet Communistic filtering it away./HGL
I can add that on the site of Marion Maréchal LePen I found three very good propositions of laws: 1) making same sex marriage unconstitutional, 2) naming the constitutional council by drawing of lots from four bodies of responsables instead of having them named by politicians, as is now the case, 3) recognising the Genocide of Vendée. When on same site I tried to open a link to an article by someone else praising Hungary (I am from Austria, so I love most Austro-Hungarian things), twice the internet session closed down. That also smells of something which was rotting in the Soviet Union anterior to 1990, if you ask me./HGL
- a) What is the difference between that and the kind of deprogramming: "Deprogramming--that is, providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them." (--Margaret Singer, Ph.D. psychologist author of "Cults in Our Midst") that you were condemned for in the Scott case?
- b) Have you been involved in any kind of deprogramming in my case?
- 1) I have at times been shut up in mental hospital, could that be due to you? To your "expertise"?
- 2) I have much more often been confronted with atrocity charges against the Catholic Church - I am Catholic and Traditionalist - lates Jasenovac as accusation against Stepinac, exaggerated propositions about Inquisition, as well as attacks on Catholic Theology on clearly confessional grounds. Since you represented Jews in the start of your carreer (why was your grandmother in the caring home in the first place - you are not homeless nor were you then, why did you not receive her?) and find Satanists benign as cults go, could it just be something about your view of Catholicism spilling over in your attitude to one Trad Catholic blogger?
- 3) Here is the "clou": at same time, I have been isolated from Catholics, from possibilities to marry into St Nicolas du Chardonnet parish. Of course, it may be the parish priest just hates me, but then it might be he is misinformed or under orders from police acting on recommendation from shrinks - have you any knowledge of this?
- 1) I have at times been shut up in mental hospital, could that be due to you? To your "expertise"?
I have been exposed also to intimidation from unknown people on account of begging on street with poster of the url to this blog, latest time yesterday. Like by people not wanting my positions to be known or generally unwilling to let begging happen. Or wanting to "help me realise" that I "am wasting my life", when actuelly it is they who waste it by blocking people from using my material (essays or compositions) according to the uses I specified, some of whom might very well if so have been sending me some money for what I help them to. Not all men are dishonest.
Have you by any chance any connexion to people thinking of me as "obliged according to his faith/cultist brainwashing" to abstain from taking money or founding a family? Because, I am not, and if you have connexions with people acting like that over here in Paris, I would like to know.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux, Paris
St Dorothy, Virgin, Martyr
6-II-2013
Update, Monday after Quadragesima:
Yes, I know, this is after below update, but it is also closer to previous subject:
a) Ma contacted me. She has basically been brainwashed to believe herself mentally ill in a severe way and that she destroyed me and that I was saved by social services at age 14, by getting to a boarding school. The reverse is the case.
b) That presumably means that ill news about me and ill intentions for my so called good have had the stamp of her verbal approval.
c) I regard that about as if I had had a relative who was an anti-Communist hero who, when showing the face after years of captivity regards himself as a "poor sucking former agent of imperialist fascism" because he has been brainwashed to it.
This confirms there is a real intent to change my way of thinking and not to let me go until that goal has been reached. Will God help me against those crooks or will they continue to mistreat my life? Continued below.
Update, Quinquagesima Sunday:
Some days are really like if some network had decided long in advance to make vexations abound for me. To deprogram me from my religion? Look at this and jusdge yourselves:
Saturday, yesterday now. The morning up to nine-o-clockish was fairly good. I had only been woken up in the middle of the night and been asked to take another staircase, and succeeded in refusing and got a sandwich and a banana to eat before going to sleep again.
Close by there was an association, Unis Vers Cités, where I got a tea, and when leaving an orange and a coke.
Before leaving, I gave the hostess of the day for that association's work, and her associate, a coloured gentleman, my board with two of my blogs marked on it, this one and Φιλoλóγικα/Philologica, and that might have triggered what happened the rest of the day. Some coloured gentlemen are not just antiracialist in general from principle, but "antiracist" in the more political sense, and suspicious of white rightwing authors. Maybe he too? I don't know.
In the University Library, I first went down into the toilets of the basement to change to some of my newly washed, since the things I wore were stinking. When I came out, there was a coloured man, I will not call him gentleman, who was making gestures at me like as if he were pointing a gun at me (he did not have one, but the gesture is a bit unpleasant anyway) and he aksed me in a very rough voice not to speak to him. Ever. I was so flabberghasted I did not reply until he was leaving ... anyway, he was another homeless man whom I had not seen often over there, and who I do not feel all that confident he is using the books in the shelves. If he is, it is not in the Greek and Latin lang and lit shelves.
I wondered (in my mind, we were not talking and I couldn't ask him) if he was Ethiopian, if he was blaming the atrocities during February - October or November 1937, those committed by Viceroy Graziani, on Fascism in general. I feel that unfair, and I resent the turn to racialism that Fascism took with Carta della Razza in 1938 - possibly due to Graziani. I feel it even more unfair if he were to believe Avro Manhattan's lies and blame both Graziani and Mussolini in Ethiopia on the Vatican. But, that is what some Ethiopians do. Not that they are stupid or something, they have just been living under Communist Dictatorship for long and got used to some of the lies, as if they were self evident truth.
I did not get as far with Walter Leaf's chapter "Coming of the Achaeans" as I had wanted.
When on the way back to Paris, one Arab came to take the seat next to me. He was talking Arabic in the cell phone. I found it disturbing he took the place next to me, since cell phones in general and Arabic not being my favourite language added on to my suspicion (I might just have been tired of course) that he sat next to me to test my reaction to see if I was a racist.
I went out from Georges Pompidou Library to get some yoghurt - natural, not sweetstuff. One group I asked for money were blacks. I asked them for the eleven cents left before I could pay four yoghurt. One girl among them asked me "you won't use it for beer, will you?" I left the group, got one euro from someone else, went in. She begged me to come back and take money from them and giggled when I refused and went in anyway. When I went out from the shop the group was standing inside and watching what I had bought, although I had not recieved a penny from them.
Then I wrote an article on Φιλoλóγικα/Philologica, not against any race, if possibly in one small part against the Muslim religion, but mainly against Modernism. Fair enough, that is not a chore, but: when I tried to burn the url for that message on o-x, the blog had become "link not valid" for that url burner. I began suspecting the black gentleman at Unis Vers Cités. Again. So I used petitlien as url burner instead, http://petitlien.com/6cg1 or http://petitlien.com/6ci1 if I recall correctly.
Could the manager of that first url burner, o-x, have been alerted that the links were somehow "racist"?
I listened to one concert, three talented pupils of Paris Conservatory. First one lightly coloured gentleman sat down on a chair behind me, then I moved my chair and bags, then he moved on closer to me. Then I felt, again, as I were being tested if I showed a racist reaction - and that during a concert of music. I took another chair further back. Another gentleman of black colour sat down. Next to me, with some space between. I turned my head so as not to look at him, because this was getting ridiculous. He left before the concert was over. An Arab came from somewhere and leaned on the compartments between the seats over the table where I was. I gave him one of these looks, he went. And before the concert was over, the lightly coloured gentleman left the concert too.
Three men who had just attended the concert to see if I reacted as a racist? That at least is my suspicion, if they had liked the music why didn't they stay?
Now, after the concert I quickly tore apart one paper into four parts, one part was with the portrait of two of the conservatory pupils, the other three with the written link http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.com - one for each of the three. I clapped hands, then tore the paper, neatly in the folds, then clapped hands again.
When the three left the stage, I left my seat, wanted to hand them the three slips of paper with my musical site. One of the personnel of the Library interposed herself verymuch as if protecting the three against a madman, and as I saw she had managed to get the girls from the Conservatory flustered - unless they had been tipped off about me beforehand and were flustered about simply seeing me, of course, I felt it was no use to try any more.
Of course the Library is not exactly supporting my success as a writer and composer by such interpositions. Just maybe they thought (or pretended to think) that I was trying to give the recent article against Modernism to the three girls, even so the attitude was too much of "we personnel are adult but girls younger than you are babies which we are going to protect against you". I had sent the article to the newspaper magazine which it answered an article from.
Later that evening, one piano teacher was given one of the slips, and she wanted to know if I could "read music". I tried to explain that the answer was differentiated, but she wanted to know either yes or no.
My guess is: x among musicians hates my site because the conditions prohibit use for the French Telethon which supports preimplantational and prenatal diagnostic to "avoid" - by killing - hereditary diseases. And y - some ten times more than x - have been tipped off my music site "is racist" or just a front for my other "racist" sites. So z - even more frequent - is told by x and y that I cannot honestly have written the compositions I present as my own on that blog "because I cannot read music" - which is partly true and in the relevant sense for the claim sufficiently untrue.
And this noon I was trying to beg on one public street that is also inside a mall. The street is double function. Its being inside a mall might imply the mall owner would be authorised to keep beggars away. Uniquely this mall includes public streets of one Arrondissement of Paris, the First, and is therefore partly public space. According to French Law from 1993 no mayor (of whole city or of Paris Arrondissement), may forbid begging on all of its territory, nor for all of the time. Same law makes "agressive begging" an offense punishable with 3 months prison.
I was seated, I was holding a sign with the url of this blog, I was waiting. I asked the guards of the mall to show me a written decision stating that "Rue du Cinéma, 1er Arr., Paris" was for part of the time forbidden to beggars. And of course also stating that this was only during such and such hours. I got no such written decision shown and told two guards they were doing an illegal thing and if "just doing their job" doing a criminal job, obeying a criminal order by a criminal mall owner.
And of course, such harassments as I have had yesterday and today, and such obstacles to getting my music played - as long as people insist my essays are too controversial to be printed, my music is at least non vocal - seem like a kind of non-obvious captivity for me. Non-obvious to bystanders, that is, but all too obvious to myself. Kind of "let us deprogram you, or we continue" threat./HGL
PS: Two more considerations.
The Parish St Nicolas du Chardonnet has of course not been guilty of the above harassment yesterday and today. It has however been collaborating so as to block my possibilities to succeed as a writer with them and as a composer with them - and since I am trad myself, that means I have been cut off from my otherwise likeliest success so far.
And if the black gentleman of Unis Vers Cités though of my blog as racist, it is not because he is so stupid that he cannot tell one from the other as such, it is because one organism "SOS Racisme" has been attacked on my blog. Not for stating that all French Citizens should enjoy the benefits of French law whatever their skin colour, of course, but simply because they do lots of other quite worse stuff - like supporting the "marriage for all" movement - as in pro male-male or female-female "couples" marrying - and pointed fingers at "the religions" for getting too much involved. As a Catholic and upholder of God's marriage (one man and one woman), I resented that of course and wrote so./HGL
Update of Mardi Gras 2013:
Got thrown out from the public place of Paris within the shopping centre (yes, it sounds paradoxical, but the ground was Paris' property and remains its coproperty, it includes two libraries belonging to Paris and not to the mall, as well as a metro and RER line not belonging to it either).
Rest of Sunday and all of yesterday cool.
Arabs are well informed about what hurts or forwards their reputation, and the Arab in Les Halles seemed aware that he was into fishy business. Also, shopkeepers - small ones, not necessarily shopping center owners - are usually nice. Sunday evening I offered one, an Arab probably one euro for something to eat, he gave me turkey, bread and beer. Worth at least five euros.
And last night Arabs were nice too when I wanted a staircase to sleep in.
However, I have neither asked nor got as yet any excuse from Les halles or from Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou. And the municipal libraries block access to a Swedish newspaper owned by non-conformists as if it were sectarian.* One gets to top of page, but all under the top, including the contact page of the paper, is grey. Shielded off.
Being nice for a moment - as in some days by now - is not tantamount to giving up attempts to reprogramme someone - if such exist. The attitude of librarians or libraries computer responsibles is a case in point./HGL
*That was one library, this one I acessed it./HGL
Monday after Quadragesima, continued update:
I was tired this morning. I was thrown out of a porch at 11 o'clock, woken up by a janitor getting the dustbins out, and after getting back to some sleep was woken up again before it was 7:40.
Yesterday evening I was off my defense and let a man talk to me who was older and Jewish looking. He got links from me, presented himself as a physics teacher or former such and seemed shy. I have so far not heard from him. This morning I went to McDo with a benefactor I only just met and granted him a longer talk.
I had a longer talk with one Catholic friend who is not so friendly but very reserved, Saturday. Male, age peer. He sent me off to a conference on Faith - Personal and Collective, as if I needed it. The problem is not whether I should take my faith from Church or not, but whether I should take it from its most recent present and only use the past insofar as my superiors encourage it, or, as I believe, the past of the Church should be used freely and the present not insofar as it diverges from the past. Since I left the conference at the point when the Franciscan said that if the faith could not change the understanding thereof could, I wanted a reaction from that friend and told him. I have heard nothing back from him since.
Physics teacher - male, older. Benefactor this morning - male, older. Friend who sent me to the Conference - male roughly my age. Other man who calls himself my friend and wants Swedish lessons - he got one today - male, somewhat younger. Female and younger? Nah. Now, that is social isolation pushed very far.
I do not have the intention to get remade from a team of men, it is hurting my good mood and even health - sleep deprivation, bad digestion - but not changing one idea of mine. Including my preference for marrying a girl under thirty, even as being 44 myself, including my preference for living off writing and composing (have not heard a thing from either Georges Pompidou Library or Paris Conservatory since I wrote them this and asked for an excuse last week). They are wasting their time, except insofar as they are glad to waste my time and destroy my life./HGL
Newest update [so far], just stats, two blogs last month:
| Φιλολoγικά/Philologica 3 feb 2013 – 4 mar 2013 | |
| Frankrike | 290 |
| Ryssland | 205 |
| USA | 142 |
| Tyskland | 96 |
| Polen | 36 |
| Ukraina | 30 |
| Turkiet | 24 |
| Kina | 21 |
| Storbritannien | 19 |
| Malaysia | 16 |
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera 3 feb 2013 – 4 mar 2013 | |
| USA | 557 |
| Kina | 333 |
| Frankrike | 300 |
| Polen | 285 |
| Ryssland | 189 |
| Ukraina | 82 |
| Rumänien | 55 |
| Taiwan | 50 |
| Tyskland | 48 |
| Sverige | 33 |
China more than France? Look at this: Call me SiMoN !! : The End | |
Update Wednesday Third Week of Lent, 6th of March 2013:
Yesterday and this morning three occasions coloured people, probably Muslims, have been very kind.
But on another occasion this morning one probable Muslim took a look at my bags in the post when I was away for stamps, although he got back to his place when I returned. Since this happened twice (I went to try to buy stamps twice), there is no mistake.
Yesterday a man who practises no religion but is of Muslim heritage pronounced quite a lesson in front of me, as if I were in some kind of position of power. If I could end the mischief of psychiatry, I would, I have already tried writing about it and so far failed, I have already tried fighting, and am still under some kind of observation.
He repeated a slogan about critical thinking, when he showed none himself about anti-Jesuit calumnies. I think one of the items of whatever network is watching and harrassing me is some kind of concern about my supposed lack of critical thinking.
And others, like the Muslim this morning or like three Muslims on the métro who spoke about "some are in the conspiracy and they want it all" - in my presence though not looking at me right then, I think (I am easy to spot) - are concerned I am in some kind of conspiracy. A bit of openness about my blogs and a bit less of secrecy about what one reproaches me (one could state reproaches in blog comments, if the message is appropriate, I am willing to take debate on quite a few items) might not hurt. Except some who are afraid they or their allies would loose the debate. Of course.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre / Paris X site
University Library
Wednesday Third Wk Lent
6-III-2013
| Update 12 of March 2013: |
|---|
| 215 578 page views since May or June or something 2010: |
| 25 840, 13 107, 20 686, 3 688, 255, 10 021, 17 890, 5 792, 3 726, 15 309, 14 233, 6 585, 3 863, 3 942, 39 891, 7 075, 1 001, 3 551, 2 714, 423, 118, 2 070, 588, 794, 741, 865, 616, 1 556, 4 456, 4 182 |
| Last Month, Muslim Countries (within top ten) 205: |
| Malaysia 74: 4, 6, 6, 9, 13, 4, 5, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 5, 3 |
| Förenade Arabemiraten 65: 14, 13, 22, 1, 12, 3 |
| Turkiet 46: 26, 20 |
| Indonesien 15: 14, 1 |
| Irak 3 |
| Saudiarabien 2 |
| Last Week, Muslim Countries (within top ten) 107: |
| Förenade Arabemiraten 66: 1, 14, 13, 22, 1, 12, 3 |
| Indonesien 20: 2, 14, 4 |
| Mali 5 |
| Saudiarabien 4: 2, 1, 1 |
| Turkiet 4: 2, 2 |
| Irak 4: 1, 3 |
| Malaysia 3 |
| Algeriet 1 |
| Last month for "basic english blog" |
| which contained a list of o-x.fr short links ...
http://writingthisinbasicenglish.blogspot.com/2011/05/short-links-repertorium.html |
| Ryssland 4 |
| Ukraina 3 |
| Malaysia 2 |
| Nederländerna 1 |
| http://o-x.fr/2a5 gives: |
| Forbidden |
| You don't have permission to access /2a5 on this server |
| BUT: |
| I am not sure, but it is quite possible that the man who was nice to me today (I asked for something to eat and got a sandwich, a flan patissier, and a cherry coke) was a Muslim. However, last few days French have been less generous. Markedly so. Are they obeying Muslim friends who are obeying Malaysian or United Arabian Emiratic orders? |
Update, day after the Conclave was over:
Le site web que vous souhaitez consulter apparaît en contradiction avec la politique de filtrage des contenus du Système multimédia des bibliothèques de prêt de la Ville de Paris.
Page demandée : http://angelqueen.org/
Raison : This Websense category is filtered: Web and Email Spam.
One article on that site, the one I first tried to open, was about the White Smoke.
I complained about this to the Paris Municipality, and said that this was a site many people wanted to consult, that it belonged to FSSPX in US, and that it was kind of Soviet Communistic filtering it away./HGL
I can add that on the site of Marion Maréchal LePen I found three very good propositions of laws: 1) making same sex marriage unconstitutional, 2) naming the constitutional council by drawing of lots from four bodies of responsables instead of having them named by politicians, as is now the case, 3) recognising the Genocide of Vendée. When on same site I tried to open a link to an article by someone else praising Hungary (I am from Austria, so I love most Austro-Hungarian things), twice the internet session closed down. That also smells of something which was rotting in the Soviet Union anterior to 1990, if you ask me./HGL
mardi 5 février 2013
lundi 4 février 2013
Aucun droit à la réponse, Emmanuel Ratier?
Je viens de vous déplacer de ma liste des amis de FB le jour que j'ai découvert que vous êtes auteur de quelque chose qui puisse s'appeler "Lettre Confidentielle". Pour moi, ça sonne "méthode maçonnique" ou d'autres perfidies de l'élite moderne. Je vais citer quelques mots de votre autodéclaration:
Ça le serait plutôt si votre lettre confidentielle n'était pas si ... confidentielle. Vous vous publiez à haute voix, vous faites la pub là où vous pouvez, moi je fais la pub pour mes blogs pratiquement là où je peux moi-même, parfois même devant les musulman et déjà souvent devant la gauche, sans oublier la droite. Et je le fais aussi depuis longtemps sans un procès, sans un droit de réponse. Mais on pourrait prétendre que si je ne cherche pas la confidentialité moi-même, il y a d'autres qui me l'imposent dans la pratique. Vous le cherchez. Comment est-ce que les concernés sauront qu'il y a quelque chose sur laquelle exercer peut-être un droit de réponse, si votre lettre est trop confidentielle pour eux?
Vous leur communiquez l'article ou le numéro qui le contient? Fort bien, je le fais aussi, dans la mesure de mon énergie - un sdf harcelé se trouve parfois fatigué.
Bon, une chose je vous exige: que vous ne contribuerez pas à rendre mes blogs confidentielles par recommandation de ne pas les lire ou de les lire juste en cachet ou en groupes ... confidentiels./HGL
(PS, si vous l'avez déjà fait, ou écrit d'autre chose qui me concerne, j'aimerais le droit de réponse - je le donne librement quant au contenu de mes blogs, déjà dans la case commentaires).
*Lien:
http://faitsetdocuments.com/la-lettre-confidentielle-faits-et-documents/
Backup:
http://www.webcitation.org/6EB2QPf5l
En treize ans, aucun procès, pratiquement aucun droit de réponse. Ce qui est évidemment un gage de fiabilité.*
Ça le serait plutôt si votre lettre confidentielle n'était pas si ... confidentielle. Vous vous publiez à haute voix, vous faites la pub là où vous pouvez, moi je fais la pub pour mes blogs pratiquement là où je peux moi-même, parfois même devant les musulman et déjà souvent devant la gauche, sans oublier la droite. Et je le fais aussi depuis longtemps sans un procès, sans un droit de réponse. Mais on pourrait prétendre que si je ne cherche pas la confidentialité moi-même, il y a d'autres qui me l'imposent dans la pratique. Vous le cherchez. Comment est-ce que les concernés sauront qu'il y a quelque chose sur laquelle exercer peut-être un droit de réponse, si votre lettre est trop confidentielle pour eux?
Vous leur communiquez l'article ou le numéro qui le contient? Fort bien, je le fais aussi, dans la mesure de mon énergie - un sdf harcelé se trouve parfois fatigué.
Bon, une chose je vous exige: que vous ne contribuerez pas à rendre mes blogs confidentielles par recommandation de ne pas les lire ou de les lire juste en cachet ou en groupes ... confidentiels./HGL
(PS, si vous l'avez déjà fait, ou écrit d'autre chose qui me concerne, j'aimerais le droit de réponse - je le donne librement quant au contenu de mes blogs, déjà dans la case commentaires).
*Lien:
http://faitsetdocuments.com/la-lettre-confidentielle-faits-et-documents/
Backup:
http://www.webcitation.org/6EB2QPf5l
mercredi 30 janvier 2013
De l'un des deux mais pas des deux ...
Page avec vidéo d'Alain Escada. Je cite:
Et l'entrevieweuse aborde la question posée à propos de l'eugénisme au lion de Munster "qu'est-ce que vous y vous connaissez, vous êtes célibataire", lui répond: "je vous interdis d'insulter le Fuehrer", et M. Escada d'évoquer que M. le Président n'est pas très exemplaire lui-même. Peut-être juste un peu moins que Clément Auguste von Galen évêque de Munster, Adolf Hitler Fuehrer d'Allemagne et Alain Escada. Car, si Hitler était néfaste en politicien, notemment en eugénisme (comme le Téléthon français aussi, non sans évoquer la "loi" Veill), il était un bon oncle sauf qu'il était trop stricte. Ce qui a poussé la nièce au suicide./HGL
PS: Et comme le dit le feu Poujadiste Belge, un certain Pierre Bergé est impliqué à la fois dans la pièce blasphématoire et dans la propagande homosexualiste. Peut-être qu'on achète un peu moins Yves-Saint Laurent?/HGL
PPS: Une situation ou deux pédés ou deux lesbiennes élèvent un enfant dont l'un ou dont l'une est vrai parent, c'est une question si en certains cas ils ne feront pas mieux d'essayer une réunion avec l'autre vrai parent. Je connais un cas comme ça (qui a omis ma bonne solution, hélas) en Suède./HGL
- Il pourrait être l'enfant de l'un d'eux.
- Vous dites bien, de l'un d'eux, mais pas des deux.
Et l'entrevieweuse aborde la question posée à propos de l'eugénisme au lion de Munster "qu'est-ce que vous y vous connaissez, vous êtes célibataire", lui répond: "je vous interdis d'insulter le Fuehrer", et M. Escada d'évoquer que M. le Président n'est pas très exemplaire lui-même. Peut-être juste un peu moins que Clément Auguste von Galen évêque de Munster, Adolf Hitler Fuehrer d'Allemagne et Alain Escada. Car, si Hitler était néfaste en politicien, notemment en eugénisme (comme le Téléthon français aussi, non sans évoquer la "loi" Veill), il était un bon oncle sauf qu'il était trop stricte. Ce qui a poussé la nièce au suicide./HGL
PS: Et comme le dit le feu Poujadiste Belge, un certain Pierre Bergé est impliqué à la fois dans la pièce blasphématoire et dans la propagande homosexualiste. Peut-être qu'on achète un peu moins Yves-Saint Laurent?/HGL
PPS: Une situation ou deux pédés ou deux lesbiennes élèvent un enfant dont l'un ou dont l'une est vrai parent, c'est une question si en certains cas ils ne feront pas mieux d'essayer une réunion avec l'autre vrai parent. Je connais un cas comme ça (qui a omis ma bonne solution, hélas) en Suède./HGL
mardi 29 janvier 2013
SOS Racisme? - Non, ce sont des gauchos antichrétiens!
Cité d'après LaCroix:
Ah bon? Elle et bonne celle-là!
On peut avorter par l'aide d'un médecin - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Le médecin reste médecin, et la facture pour le meurtre est payée par les imposables en certains cas - et les religions ont trop de poids?
La plupart des élèves, que ce soit en primaire, en collège ou en lycée sont enseignés dans des écoles ou l'enseignement religieux n'a pas de place - et les religions ont trop de poids?
L'honnêteté souffre tellement par ce manque de religion dans l'enseignement que l'on s'est décidé d'introduire la "morale laïque" dans les écoles - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Des gens peuvent sentir un moment un peu trouble à propos leur sexualité*, on les encourage à explorer la possibilité homosexuelle, on les indoctrine que la position chrétienne était une persécution contre tous qui sentaient un tel moment trouble, ils se décident donc parfois de devenir "homosexuels" ou de se reconnaître tels et de chercher la sodomie ou l'acte lesbien, et personne se dit qu'il y a quelque chose qui va mal - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Ceci porte des mauvais fruits, ceux-mêmes que dénoncent les autres égarés d'hier - tel pacsé était moins riche que son conjoint, après la séparation il n'y a pas de sécurité financière - les jeunes homosexuels se suicident cinq fois plus souvent (par mille personnes de chaque, mais en somme moins souvent donc) que les hétérosexuels - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Les adolescents ont de moins en moins de chances de se marier tôt, et ils se suicident de plus en plus souvent, et pour les filles adolescantes la situation s'est empirée le 24 mars (jour de St Gabriel!) en 2006 en France, en obéissance à l'idéologie de Betty Friedman, qui regarde le mariage comme une trappe pour les femmes mais trouve que c'est au moins quelque chose si une fille a reçu "une éducation" - sous-entendu une éducation pour tout autre chose que le mariage et la maternité - avant de se marier - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Quand je pense que la bonne Inquisition fut tellement gaspillée sur les Vaudois, qui étaient presque chrétiens - et il n'y en a pas pour SOS Racisme! Et les religions ont trop de poids? Trop peu plutôt! Surtout la religion catholique.
Mes remarciements à Emanuelle Réju du quottidien LaCroix (du 25, donc de Conversion de St Paul) pour m'avoir fourni la citation avec d'autres utilisées mais non citées verbatim, car je ne me serait certainement pas rendu sur place pour cueillir des propos comme ça de gens comme ça!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard
St François de Sales
29-I-2013
*Ce qui ne m'est pas arrivé pendant ma jeunesse, pas comme ça, sauf très peu. Ce qui a fondu une allergie vis-à-vis des hommes que je prends pour des pédés ou qui me les rappellent. Une allergie certes maîtrisé de temps en temps par charité, mais cette allergie ne constitue certes pas une altération de la sexualité.
Les motivations des manifestants ne sa'rrêtent pas à la défense de l'égalité des droits. SOS Racisme souhaite ainis marquer son désaccord sur la place prise par les problématiques religieuses dans le débat. "Les religions ont trop de poids ici, déplore un des porte-parole de l'organisation. Nous voulons auss demander à François Hollande d'être moins frileux sur tout ce qui concerne la jeunesse."
Ah bon? Elle et bonne celle-là!
On peut avorter par l'aide d'un médecin - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Le médecin reste médecin, et la facture pour le meurtre est payée par les imposables en certains cas - et les religions ont trop de poids?
La plupart des élèves, que ce soit en primaire, en collège ou en lycée sont enseignés dans des écoles ou l'enseignement religieux n'a pas de place - et les religions ont trop de poids?
L'honnêteté souffre tellement par ce manque de religion dans l'enseignement que l'on s'est décidé d'introduire la "morale laïque" dans les écoles - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Des gens peuvent sentir un moment un peu trouble à propos leur sexualité*, on les encourage à explorer la possibilité homosexuelle, on les indoctrine que la position chrétienne était une persécution contre tous qui sentaient un tel moment trouble, ils se décident donc parfois de devenir "homosexuels" ou de se reconnaître tels et de chercher la sodomie ou l'acte lesbien, et personne se dit qu'il y a quelque chose qui va mal - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Ceci porte des mauvais fruits, ceux-mêmes que dénoncent les autres égarés d'hier - tel pacsé était moins riche que son conjoint, après la séparation il n'y a pas de sécurité financière - les jeunes homosexuels se suicident cinq fois plus souvent (par mille personnes de chaque, mais en somme moins souvent donc) que les hétérosexuels - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Les adolescents ont de moins en moins de chances de se marier tôt, et ils se suicident de plus en plus souvent, et pour les filles adolescantes la situation s'est empirée le 24 mars (jour de St Gabriel!) en 2006 en France, en obéissance à l'idéologie de Betty Friedman, qui regarde le mariage comme une trappe pour les femmes mais trouve que c'est au moins quelque chose si une fille a reçu "une éducation" - sous-entendu une éducation pour tout autre chose que le mariage et la maternité - avant de se marier - et les religions ont trop de poids?
Quand je pense que la bonne Inquisition fut tellement gaspillée sur les Vaudois, qui étaient presque chrétiens - et il n'y en a pas pour SOS Racisme! Et les religions ont trop de poids? Trop peu plutôt! Surtout la religion catholique.
Mes remarciements à Emanuelle Réju du quottidien LaCroix (du 25, donc de Conversion de St Paul) pour m'avoir fourni la citation avec d'autres utilisées mais non citées verbatim, car je ne me serait certainement pas rendu sur place pour cueillir des propos comme ça de gens comme ça!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard
St François de Sales
29-I-2013
*Ce qui ne m'est pas arrivé pendant ma jeunesse, pas comme ça, sauf très peu. Ce qui a fondu une allergie vis-à-vis des hommes que je prends pour des pédés ou qui me les rappellent. Une allergie certes maîtrisé de temps en temps par charité, mais cette allergie ne constitue certes pas une altération de la sexualité.
À propos le thème culture
On doit être très sans, si on peut qualifier les miracles comme "contre nature". Ce qu'ont fait des manifestants hier. Les miracles sont audessus de la nature. ce qui est contre la nature sont des actes comme meurtre, sodomie, inceste, prise de l'interêt (sauf le cas précisé par le Concile de Latran V: si l'interêt pris ne suffit que pour indemniser les coûtes d'un mont de piété, mais c'est mieux encore de les indemniser à moitié par impôts). Car ceci sont des choses qui sont contre la nature de la fertilité (ni les culs ni le fric produisent des petits) ou contre la naturelle affection (les deux autres)./HGL
Dernières nouvelles / Latest news
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
Eng
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2013/01/answers-about-forbidden-book.html
Eng
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2013/01/discover-how-word-was-preserved-through.html
Eng
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/darrow-et-bryan-dayton-lundi-20-juillet.html
fr
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/give-me-five-five-ways-of-st-thomas-vs.html
Eng
Last Messages here / Dernières messages ici:
http://www.webcitation.org/6E1zj9XUw
http://www.webcitation.org/6E1zuylUc
Back in 2012, now month by month
Déjà revenus en 2012, alors mois par mois
Dec.
http://www.webcitation.org/6E2039nyh
Nov.
http://www.webcitation.org/6E2172nvL
http://www.webcitation.org/6E21AvrLq
http://www.webcitation.org/6E21EW5Ql
http://www.webcitation.org/6E21IvUPE
Which brought us up to October
Ce qui nous ramène en Ocobre
http://www.webcitation.org/6E21NTvdc
http://www.webcitation.org/6E21TIsfj
Which brought us back to September:
Ce qui nous ramène en Septembre:
http://www.webcitation.org/6E21WgM7y
Which brings us back to the old indices already made:
Ce qui nous ramène chez les vieux index déjà faits:
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/2012/09/index-i.html
et c:
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/p/index-indicum.html
Sur les webcite, les hauts de chaque message en haut de page, mais non pas les autres messages, sont rendus cachés par le bleu. Un beug pour le genre de template (modèle de mise en page) que j'ai? Ou un sabotage pour ce blog précis? Je viens d'essayer avec un des messages sur Great Bishop of Geneva (avec le même modèle), et là le bleu cache le haut du blog mais non pas le titre du message. Pour pouvoir lire les messages en haut de chaque page sauvegardée, allez vers la dénumération de commentaires (aucun ou chiffre selon les cas) et clicquez, comme si vous voudriez regarder les commentaires. Alors le message apparaîtra avec le bas en haut de l'écran, il n'y a que de scroller en haut.
On the webcites, the tops of each message that is on top of a page, but not of the others, is hidden in blue. A bug for this template? Or a sabotage for this precise blog? I just tried it out with one of the messages of Great Bishop of Geneva, and there the blue hides the head of the blog, but not the title of the message. In order to read partly hidden messages, go to bottom of it, click on the number of comments, as if you wanted to read the comments first, even if it says "no comments" or "aucun commentaire", and then scroll up so you can read message from its title.
Better index upcoming, English and French separate / Un meilleur index sera mis en place, et un pour chaque langue, français et anglais.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard, Paris
(Library / Bibliothèque)
St François de Sales
29-I-2013
mercredi 23 janvier 2013
To impose suffering on one-self is heroism.
It is also a good thing when that heroism is warranted. Sometimes it is not.
To impose sufferings on the guilty, or sometimes on objectively guilty in their acts though subjectively innocent, is sometimes warranted. If it makes the one doing so suffer, he might have a duty to take that suffering. The cases are pretty clear cut, and they do not include raising hours and lowering wages for your employees, unless you are certain they will have no job tomorrow even if you have only twice as much as they in income, nor do these cases include forbidding your daughter to marry a man unless you are certain she will suffer from a bad man in such a case. And even then it does not include stopping her unless she is about to make a marriage that is not valid in the sight of God and the Church. And even then that non-validity must not rest on any hasty presumption the other contrahent is mad, and today relying on a psychiatrist for such a judgement may very well include making precisely a hasty judgement. But if the contrahent is a sibling or a Jew or Turk not baptised, that is one confessing Judaism or Islam, the marriage is certainly not valid. And may be actually stopped. If it is of a non-Catholic Christian, it is illicit unless given dispensation to marry by the Church and unless marriage is conducted by a Catholic priest.
The cases that are there are, and here we talk about death which is as extreme a thing as you can suffer at one time:
- Legitimate capital punishment, justly applied for a heinous crime;
- Legitimate just war, justly declared for a heinous agression (not necessarily against the own territory, there are other agressions that warrant just war, like Azaña unjust war against clergy, against the souls of school children, and his refusal to punish red terrorists guilty of murder of clergy or rape of nuns)
- Legitimate self defense or defense of other innocents.
Curing someone of an illness warrants imposing suffering on him only as much as the patient allows. Not actually imposing it, unless it be in measures where his life is immediately in danger (confer the right to righteous defense). And of course not taking a death penalty as an "immediate danger" to avoid by unwanted cures.
There was a Pope in the 17th. C. who did make a list of errors about legitimate self defense in the killing phase. Some people back then thought that being insulted verbally or having two coins pilfered were offenses grave enough to warrant legitimate deathbringing self defense. That Pope taught us otherwise. He may have been considered too softhearted for thieves and for people who deny the honour of honourable men by some in his day.
To be "good-hearted" about really bad people is not a duty. Franco had no "good-hearted" qualms about sending someone guilty of Church desecration to "vile garrote". He did however not send an Anarchist to the vile garrote when that precise Anarchist, precisely as a good hearted man, had stopped for a while the atrocities going on in Cárcel Modelo. That Anarchist got a few months for fighting on the wrong side, he had after all saved people not doing so. But to be "good-hearted" about really bad people is not a sin either. It may lead to sin, like by omission of duty, but it is no sin. And it can be used in better ways. And to be "good-hearted" about people not obviously bad, is not only not a sin, it is even likely to preserve from sin.
Tradition in Action gives a quote from Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, and I find the quote wanting and somewhat lopsided. But then I am not a Latin. Neither are the Englishmen or Americans quoting him. And at least this man is not accusing good-heartedness of being behind complacency with abortion: there you have something which requires as much hardness and lack of goodheartedness as any Franco or Plinio would like, only it is applied the wrong direction, against innocents rather than guilty. However, Tradition in Action sees fit to publish the quote or article along with a picture of not quite so good hearted young or even Catholic pro-choicers. To fathom the depth of that evil frame of mind, you have to get far beyond "good hearted" errors only. But let us take a few quotes where I disagree with his analysis, and this one first:
I know of one Catholic who counseled against a campaign against immoral magazines because it would make their editors suffer!
If the magazine was immoral, the editors deserved to suffer. If the magazine was not immoral, the thing to be said is that the campaign made them suffer unjustly, without due justification for imposing suffering.
I know of a Catholic educator who affirms that he is against scholarly awards because they make the less dedicated or intelligent students suffer! I know of religious organizations that tolerate bad elements to the detriment of the whole institution in order not to make the wrongdoers suffer.
Obviously a man like George Gheoghan ought to have been thrown out of sacred orders long before he comitted his first offense, not to mention the second one. But readmitting him was not just a matter of "good heart" but very decidedly of heeding bad advice - of the psychiatrists who back then were exploiting the "good heart" to get listeners. Now they tend to the opposite. But their advice is no purer from error for that. And if George Gheoghan had been thrown out, he might have been alive instead of killed in a prison by a fellow prisoner.
Nor does he admonish the sinner about the gravity of his moral state or speak of mortification, penance, conversion because these admonitions also make one suffer.
If you admonish an only presumed alcoholic, only presumedly homsexual, only presumed to be wasting his time, you make a possibly just man suffer undeservedly. But when you have knowledge someone is drinking every day onto the limit of drunkenness and past it, you have to tell him to sober up - or avoid him. When you know a homosexual lives in relation with someone of his sex, he should be told that he should leave the guy, either to find a wife understanding enough or - if he has already gone that far and therefore finds no wife to understand him (or if a clear vow of celibacy blocks marriage) - to live alone in order to live chastely. Fasting on wednesdays and fridays up to three o clock and even after three o clock from dairy eggs and meat might be helpful to some. It is hardly hurtful to anyone, even innocent, for that matter, unless they suffer severe physical deprivations in other ways, like sickness or being in the cold or getting too little sleep.
Likewise, the “good-hearted” man does not speak about the Devil, Hell and Purgatory nor warn the sick when they are near death.
Not warning the sick when near death is not ordinary goodheartedness, but as in the George Gheoghan case, a particular abuse of good heartedness, recommended by bad practitioners of medical professions. Though in this case, unlike the psychiatrists, real doctors, people doing the somatic medicine, properly so called.
The man of “good-heart” is complacent with divorce because he pities the spouses. He is favorable toward doing away with religious vows and clergy celibacy because of the sufferings these obligations impose on persons consecrated to God. He is quick to justify birth control with the excuse of pity for the suffering of the mother.
Or incomplacent with divorce because he pities the children of breakups. As for doing away with obligations for those clearly once obliged to the religious state for life, no, that is not good heartedness, it is seeing the small picture of someone getting more than he bargained for but not the big picture of thousands of people content to serve God and be obliged to certain privations for it.
The “good-hearted” man is opposed to any polemic among religions even when it is just and balanced; he is against the Index of Forbidden Books; he is against the Holy Office; he is against the Inquisition (even considered without some abuses that existed in some places); he is against the Crusades, because it caused suffering.
I am not aginst these things. And I shrink at stepping on a snail.
I am however against people who are NOT the Index Congregation, NOT the Holy Office, NOT in any kind of position to be Inquisitors, neither bishops nor dominicans nor franciscans, nor on any mission by Rome, taking on themselves to supply the lack nowadays of the Index.
Just before the Index of forbidden books was taken away by Paul VI - a freedom which we should freely enjoy but not abuse - I have found two of its decisions that I find doubtful.
Under John XXIII there was an Index decision against an "anonymous" book by someone very well known actually: Maria Valtorta. It was not anonymous, and the writer had and has a reputation for holiness. Since it is under John XXIII, a sedisvacantist is free to ignore it.
And under Pius XII there was a decision not against the Fifteen prayers of Saint Bridget but against the Fifteen promises that go with them, and it was based on modern methods and presuppositions of critical research: the researchers had not been able to find the promises in the available revelations to St Bridget (which edition did they use?) but finds them first mentioned centuries later - close to the printing press. I know at least one devout Catholic who ignored that decision - possibly by ignorance of it. But I am reminded of the calendar wipe outs of St Christopher and St Barbara.
I do not know exactly why Les Misérables was on the Index, but as a friend of Taverners, I find it clearly probable that using the cynicism of a Chemist named Thénard (who was against limiting working hours for children) as model for the cynicism of one neither a Chemist nor engaged into politics, like the Taverner Thénardier, might have been seen as objectively very abusive, especially as there were (though Victor Hugo might not have known that) in some countries people trying to shut all taverns. If the then Pope was into free working hours (not just in taverns where a late night can be compensated by a late morning after, but in factories), he was at least contradicted by Rerum Novarum, by Pope Leo XIII which is better than Les Misérables.
And as Victor Hugo was no Catholic nor living among Catholics only, but enjoyed a very secularised public, he did not suffer any pains of not being able to pay back the bills of any Taverner he might have had a grudge with because of such bills.
Now, the quote or article by Plinio does indeed end with something I quite agree with, verbally, but I have shown some disagreement about his applications of his own grudge.
This long list of examples is intended to better focus the problem I formulated at the beginning of this article: that all hatred is necessarily evil and a sin for the man of “good-heart.” To show that this is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine - i.e., that there a legitimate and virtuous hatred against evil exists - I will present the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas on this topic in my next article.
I had formulated the answer to that question quite in accordance with it. Unfortunately Tradition in Action does not immediately link to Plinio's next article. They link to a lot of related articles on the topic on their site, but not to the next one that Plinio wrote.
And so I cannot find where Plinio found St Thomas said there is a legitimate and virtuous hatred against evils (including bosses that inflict working hours such as make impossible a decent and Christian life to their employees, though Plinio seems to have ignored that one, and including fathers who positively run their children's life into havvoc rather than grant them the freedom - even if then avoiding them - to live by their choice). But I can look it up in the Summa. Or thought I could. Well, I tried a google on "utrum odium sit semper malum" and it seems the question is so ill formed that St Thomas did not treat it. He treated "odium inimicitiae" in one passage ... here is anyway his treatment of Hatred:
Summa Theologiae I-II Q 29 Hatred
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2029.htm
See especially Article four:
Summa Theologiae I-II Q 29 A 4 Whether a man can hate himself
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2029.htm#article4
It seems St Thomas quite admits that a miser (and Thénardier is a miser, an avaricious man, even if as such he is not at all representative of the profession he has in the play) is hateful. He admits that either Thénardier should hate his own avarice or he is unfortunately uncapable of doing so, but is thereby hateful to others.
Now, if a miser gets a real turnabout of the conscience, he might of course act as St Francis for the rest of his life, out of penance. But he might also act as Scrooge (after seeing the Ghost of Christmas Future) and stay in his line of business, but pay better and be kinder, to workers as well as to other poor people. A Christmas Carol is not on the Index, I hope?
Similarily if a lesbian wants to better her life, she may act as St Magdalene, and stay chaste the rest of her life, but she may also marry a man (who knows about her past and about her good resolution and trusts it).
It may similarily seem excessive good heartedness to some that I recommend this rather than recommend the St Mary Magdalene approach only, and it may seem excessive good heartedness that to Renault I recommend not selling their shares to the next guy and giving it to the poor, not even primarily giving their shares to the Rénault workers (collectively as "the Renault workers of such a site" or individually, another share to another worker so long as the former share holder has any), but what I have in fact recommended:
- if they sell the site, sell it to the workers so they may continue the car building or similar outside the company but within old buildings (a grissini factory did that in Buenos Aires and the now self employed workers are doing a "Germany after 45 kind of economic miracle" of the company that was closing, or rather of its assets)
- or that they buy, while restructuring, farm land to make villages for willing former Renault workers.
What I do not recommend them - but some Catholic confessors might differ and I am not a father confessor, I am just a layman - is do what they are doing i e threaten workers to sack unless they sign a competivity clause. Just as I do not recommend homosexuals to stay in homosexual pseudo-couples. There also some Catholic priests seem to differ, Perry Lorenzo came across one who recommended him to stay with his partner but chastely. It appears he did obey that. He is dead. Reading his blogs won't encourage him to continue sinning. It won't encourage the reader to sin either, not in that way: Perry is not recommending his own sins. If it is a sin to accept Benedict XVI as a Pope, of course the blog of Perry Lorenzo should be read as cautiously as that of any other Catholic who holds Benedict XVI is the Pope.
Reading Perry Lorenzo incorrectly, as taking him for a priest who scandalised by openly living in a gay relationship, just because he is treating of spiritual things, and was found out apart from his blog to have been gay while alive, and reading me incorrectly, as if I pretended to be a priest, when I do not so pretend, because I sometimes speak of spiritual things, or because the man reading me finds I knows St Thomas Aquinas as well as his priest does, where he does not himself, is of course incitement to sin. But when I recommend my blogs (it is Mark Shea who recommends Perry Lorenzo's) I understand that the reader should not take an A for a B or a C for a D nor otherwise things for what they are not. But that also goes for looking at other people's lives, not just their blogs. Or books. Or plays. Or films.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library, Paris
St Emerentia
23-I-2013
Here is the page from Tradition in Action:
The ‘Good Heart,’ A Romantic Deformation of Charity (by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, on TIA)
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/D030_Goodheart_1.htm
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)