Thursday, 24 May 2018

Harrassment at Nanterre University Library, to Stop my Arguing Catholicism

I was commenting on this one:

Catholicism and the Gospel in Less than 10 minutes!
Chase Jones | 14.XII.2015

Here is a first comment, to the video:

I am sorry, but your historiography has (at least in the presentation here) holes.

"By the time Constantine died, Roman Catholicism had spread like wildfire in the Roman Empire"

In fact, the Christian Church, though persecuted, was everywhere present in the Roman Empire previous to the Edict of Milan.

So, Constantine's legalising it cannot change it. Matthew 16:18, whichever entity is the rock, the Church is built on it. And the Gates of Hades were not prevailing against it, from first Pentecost in AD 33 on to Doomsday.

Supposing then a new entity sprang up around Constantine's legalising the Church, how did it so prevail as to hide the Church that was already 280 years old in 313? It was not just 280 years old, but also fairly wide spread. Including among upper class people who were taking a risk. It could not disappear overnight.

Also, while it is technically possible a local Church receives too many ill prepared converts and is flooded by people believing things alien to the faith, the prospect of many converts coming at a time was not sth alien to the Church Christ founded. In Matthew 28 He told the eleven (including St Peter) to make disciples out of nations - not just out of individual persons from nations, but of nations - in their entirety or quasi-entirety. The Church was meant to be a demographic, not just a club or sect standing aloof from the general population.

Like its predecessor in the Old Testament, the tribe of Judah, where, yes, you do have a situation in Babylon where they had to stand aloof from general population to remain faithful, but you also have a situation in which they were a general population, like under Josaphat or under the Maccabees.

After 280 years in which Catholics had been needing to stand aloof, there came a time for them to be a general population.

That is the true meaning of Ponte Milvio and Edict of Milan ... and not what you just said.

Then I go to other debate, and try to respond to someone:

On the right, you see where I pasted my response with quotes in quotation marks and marking for italics.

On the left, you see where I failed to paste it in response to Rodriguez.

Here are his words:

The apostles founded the church all around the world at the time. Rome went away from some of the teachings for fear of persecution from the Roman Empire. They just took out Jerusalem and a hate for Jews was now part of its government. So the church had to go away from the original teachings in order not to look Jewish. Switching from Passover to Easter but still trying to glorify Christ. From Sabbath to The SUN day ect... but not all. The rest were persecuted for not compromising their believes. It's not about a denomination. Church means called out one. It's a heart for him that God looks for, and the pursuit of truth no matter where it takes you. Traditions of man can take you away from the word of God. Test your faith to the scriptures.

Here is the text I was trying to respond with:

"The apostles founded the church all around the world at the time."

Mostly Roman Empire, St Matthew did get to "Ethiopia" (not the civilised part where Philip went, but barbarian parts of black Africa), St Andrew probably saw what is now Kiev, St Thomas did get to India. But it was in the Roman Empire that the Church spread most.

"Rome went away from some of the teachings for fear of persecution from the Roman Empire."

OK, you say Church of Rome did so ... well, what exact other Church remained faithful?

"They just took out Jerusalem"

Jerusalem was "taken out" 70 AD. St Peter who had been there had gone to Antioch and to Rome and sent St Mark to Alexandria.

"and a hate for Jews was now part of its government."

Like in when the Synoptics tell us Jesus said "woe ye Pharisees" or "woe ye Sadducees" or "woe ye Pharisees and Sadducees", while St John tells us Jesus said to the Jews "woe ye"? Like when in Apocalypse of same St John there is a passage "thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." - meaning adherents of what is now called Judaism, or some earlier proto-version of it while it was rejecting Christ. Is that what you were referring to?

"So the church had to go away from the original teachings in order not to look Jewish."

You are not giving any specific "teaching"

"Switching from Passover to Easter but still trying to glorify Christ. From Sabbath to The SUN day ect... but not all."

These are matters of discipline. Also, Easter is the feast of Resurrection, connected to but not in all respects identical to the OT Passover. Christ was out of the grave on Sunday. The Church had through centuries celebrated Pasch on the Sunday following 14th of Nisan, not on 14th of Nisan itself, and condemned those who did not tie Pasch of Resurrection to Sunday.

"The rest were persecuted for not compromising their believes."

What rest? The Ebionites were long gone before Edict of Milan. Some renewed versions of Quartodecimans were going against the original beliefs in the Divinity and Humanity of Christ.

Obviously, it is a dreadful chore to recopy all of above manually to under Rodriguez' comment. Obviously, this technical difficulty is imposed to stop me from effectively debating Rodriguez. In other words, this kind of harrassment is a kind of impediment to my freedom of expression. In France, this is a crime. But if the internet admins who arranged this have a backing, this is not likely to be punished.

This library has some security guards who are Muslims, and obviously Muslims have a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism, since the claim of Luther and Calvin actually backs part of the claim of Mohammed (that the Ummah / Εκκλησία Christ founded had been corrupted, because the Christians were too unstable to stay with the truth).

Yes, Muslims have shown kindness to me physically, but they don't seem to be as kind to my projects of getting independent of them - nor are certain others : Communists, Protestants, Freemasons. And the kind of Novus Ordo Catholic which sides with these by Ecumenism against a Catholic who argues Catholicism as actual truth.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Thursday in Pentecost Octave

Saturday, 19 May 2018

Before You Call Someone (For Instance Me) a Mind Control Victim ...

HGL's F.B. writings : With TM, an Atheist Fanatic · New blog on the kid : Before You Call Someone (For Instance Me) a Mind Control Victim ...

From a post on a debate blog, the following debate on the subject of mind control can be extracted:

People that need God are dangerous!

Marxist clap trap, and Marxists are documentedly dangerous, sorry, that is an insult to dangerous, they are vicious.

Look up Wurmbrandt's Tortured for Christ to see what Marxists did in Romania, and stop equating Theists with Islamic State.

Man is dangerous & more so when they have a "God"

Man is dangerous, because Adam fell.

Having a false "God" - including yours, the absence of God - makes him more dangerous.

All religions involve judgement & punishment they are all mind control

There is not anything like a mind without any kind of judgement or punishment or influence by others, which could with a stretch be considered mind control.

You show some of these.

No your mind is controlled that is why you need a God & a government!

Sounds like yours is fanatic.

I' not a fanatic you American Taliban are the fanatics I'm a scientist

"you X are the fanatics, I/we am/are scientist-s" is a very fanatic statement. I did not call you fanatic due to your beliefs, but due to how you deal with such believing what you don't - as seen in previous exchanges in this debate.

You cannot reason with religous people otherwise they won't be religious!

You mean Atheists can't reason with religious people over recruting them for atheism, right?

IMPORTANT NOTE : this is not one subthread, but straddling some, and many of above statements are truncated to include only subjects like:

  • dangerous
  • mind controlled
  • can't reason with
  • fanatic

Two last here are also given outside the order they were in original debate, for that one, with subthreads correctly numbered, see:

HGL's F.B. writings : With TM, an Atheist Fanatic

I think the important thing to note is, whether someone has gone through anything like mind control attempts or not, is a question about his individual personal history, not about which positions he takes.

Also, a history of attempted mind control may well backfire on those trying to mind control someone - on SSHL, I was cut off from my Christian mother, Catholic students were not allowed to talk too much to me, especially about religion (I think), and I was under constant fire from Atheists and Anticlericals and Antichristians. When deciding to become Catholic, I was not very successful in contacting the Catholic Church at first, and part of the reasons the diocese pushed for "waiting" may have been that people from the school pushed against receiving me at all, or at least doing so rapidly. While they did not get what they wanted, as far as my religious affiliation is concerned, this left scars. Not totally different from those I would have if a mind control attempt had been successful.

If people seeing these scars conclude I was, in my individual history, subjected to mind control, the worst thing they can do - from a care perspective - is to attack my Catholicism as imposed by Catholic mind controllers. They are, in such a case, doing exactly what the people did who attempted to mind control me out of Christianity overall, and they are doing so from fairly similar motives, in the case of Atheists and Anticlericals. As to Protestants attacking Catholicism, they are what my mother protected me largely from - in that respect, even if on other issues joining their worship.

But I did not go to St. Thomas Aquinas or Catholic tradition, because a Catholic attacked the Bible or because a Catholic attacked Dale and Elaine Rhooton's Can We Know? or because a Catholic attacked Wurmbrandt or Edgar Andrews. I went to them because all this was under attack from Atheists, and I found the Catholic history the best support for Christianity - including Creationism (though I took a break from it after converting), including Anticommunism. And as to the kind of broad minded Protestantism which is Evolutionist, Marxist, un-Biblical and proud of it ... I met that to my surprise in the Swedish Church, perhaps saw more if it than there was, because C. S. Lewis had alerted me to it about Anglicanism, but there still was some. I didn't go to the Swedish Church for that. I never liked Modernism than, nor do I now.

What I need in my life is not more opportunities to get away from Catholicism (not the modernist version which more and more dominates the Vatican II Sect), or meet more and more non-Christians to broaden my mind : all such measures impoverish my opportunities to actually work with what I have, to actually earn money on expressing my convictions. Same with meeting Catholics in Modernist parishes, who are then not allowed to follow up with me.

I need to work with people I agree with and who agree with me. Not with people who agree with TM. On intellectual business, I can't work with them. They are not likely to help me print and sell Creationist stuff. On non-intellectual works, apart from my earning too little to pay the study loan, their presence would be a burden on the coffee breaks. Kunta Kinte was (according to novel, Toby Waller may have been a different matter) an Atlantic ocean away from Juffure and under the British and later US law a slave - two obstacles which should not be stopping me - and in Spotsylvania county he had only few Blacks equally interested in freedom from slavery, most being scared of trying. Fiddler told Kunta, he had seen five or six like him in a long life.

In a city like Paris or a region like Île de France, 2 million or 12 million, there should be at least about 1000 Catholics highly critical of modernism and willing to consider young earth creationism and geocentrism. At least 1 % of them should be in such positions in their lives that they'd be interested in working with me as writer or as one of the writers. Are they ALL manipulated by rumours about me? Are they ALL convinced earthly society needs the oppressions that I oppose, as in school compulsion, psychiatry, child welfare, as in heavy police control of the homeless? Are they all convinced forbidding abortion and gay marriage can be done without allowing something else, like for instance younger marriages and less attention at school, namely leaving only what is voluntary on part of parents and pupils?

Or are there shrinks who tell them, I am some kind of madman or drunkard, while themselves trying to treat me as a mind controlled person who on their theory needs even more mind control to "get well" or "adjust" or whatever they like to label the "cure"? If so, they are dealing behind my back.

Or are all of these obviously young people (people my age usually don't go around looking for a living on intellectual business, and I am only half an exception, since I started working - unpaid - 17 years ago, so they are young) ordered by parents or teachers or parsons to shun me?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pentecost Eve

727 827 "Readers" (Page Views, Really), Just Russia and US

See previous post, 417 805 in US and 310 022 in Russia. Why correct "Readers" to "Page Views"? Well, if you read two pages on each of four blogs, you are the same reader, but you count as eight page views. Computers can register whether a page is visible on a window on a screen, but not directly who is behind the screen. To see my blogs you don't have to log in anywhere, just go to the adress of each - or click a link to one whole or to a page of one.

On what blogs?


New blog on the kid : An Internet Production / Une production sur internet

I give links and stats on those ... stats for my production ... 468 + 249 + 453 + 472 + 632 + 816 + 712 + 676 + 797 + 885 + 121 = 6281

727 827 / 6281 = 116 readers per post, just US and Russia (somewhat lopsided, since the stats are for different periods. But ... some posts do stand out. You as a reader may be better suited than I as a writer to assess which posts you feel like sharing.

But perhaps you'd like to add France and Ukraine?

France first, one blog
France second, six blogs
151, 2162, 2362, 868, 23, 349,
France third, 13 blogs
14992, 15347, 2401, 6342, 583, 366, 334, 708, 6204, 2811, 4193, 11643, 20471
France fourth, ten blogs
105, 2829, 13748, 321, 305, 1417, 20829, 2178, 2287, 656,
France fifth, five blogs
2146, 231, 3254, 83, 3445,
France sixth, three blogs
4, 321, 589,
France seventh, one blog
France total

Ukraine first, one blog
Ukraine second, two blogs
995, 671,
Ukraine third, eleven blogs
155, 323, 3249, 16847, 347, 313, 1659, 31226, 3432, 5423, 668,
Ukraine fourth, sixteen blogs
2270, 3675, 12762, 10320, 1505, 1468, 4073, 98, 1183, 289, 3941, 2204, 3349, 124, 8612, 14925
Ukraine fifth, four blogs
23717, 364, 626, 1884,
Ukraine sixth, three blogs
270, 8, 180,
Ukraine not top ten, two blogs
Ukraine total

In four countries we are now at 1 116 731 page views.

1 116 731 / 6281 = 178 page views per post.

And overall, there are 1 652 373 page views.

1 652 373 / 6281 = 263 page views per post.

But unevenly distributed. Blogs range from 134 to 269 879 page views. Mid point is 14 881 views - except that the average is higher : 42 369. Five blogs have between 100 000 and 200 000 readers each as well as most viewed over 250 000. Only four blogs go under 1000. Here are the numbers:

01 - 05
134 · 155 · 536 · 991 · 1 446
06 - 10
2 513 · 2 773 · 2 874 · 2 877 · 3 262
11 - 15
3 951 · 3 971 · 4 229 · 6 118 · 6 972
16 - 20
7 518 · 10 086 · 12 884 · 14 590 · 14 881
21 - 25
15 916 · 17 617 · 19 804 · 23 069 · 23 146
26 - 30
27 436 · 30 317 · 33 287 · 43 842 · 51 532
31 - 35
52 904 · 72 693 · 90 087 · 115 206 · 159 041
36 - 39
161 173 · 167 647 · 175 016 · 269 879

Here are the big six, over 100 000 page views:

Apologetics, English:
Creation vs. Evolution

General, English/French:
New blog on the kid

Philological, English/French:

Debate, English only and English/French
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
HGL's F.B. writings

On the last two of these, I am often not the only copyright owner, since it incorporates debates with the words from both sides.

Here is, in French, first message on my pilgrimage story from 2004 (copied to this account in 2011 from weeklong blogs made in 2006):

La première cinquième du pélérinage : 15-VII-2004, Svallerup, Kalundborg, AArhus

The way to view those five blogs is to click to next message in the comment section. If you do so, you should generate 17 page views per blog. It is irritating how often I have seen 21 page views - more than of one making one page view per page, less than two making two page views per page. It seems so many have just thought "oh, yes, he brags about making a pilgrimage". It is not really bragging. A pilgrimage is usually not to be kept secret anyway, and mine has generated misunderstandings by 2006, with first version of this. I wrote it to counter the misunderstanding. My pilgrimage was not carried out as an extreme penance, it was not made with the purpose of becoming a monk. If you read the actual story, you will see it. If you only hear the rumour "Hans / that Swede made a pilgrimage" and look up the blog to verify "oh, yes, seems to be a pilgrimage blog" and "oh yes, it says Hans Georg Lundahl", well, then you won't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pentecost Eve

And Sweden? My own nation state?

Sweden not top 10
most of the time
Sweden fourth - 1 blog
Sweden fifth - 1 blog
Sweden seventh - 2 blogs
263, 403
Sweden eighth - 1 blog
Sweden tenth - 1 blog
Swedish total
should be more than these 4430, they were mostly "under the radar" for all time top ten.

Thursday, 17 May 2018

Someone Else Has Difficulties : Life Site News

They asked for prayers : + JMJ

Here is the news in my mail:

I get one more "authentification demand" as I am preparing this:

Note, this is coming as there is an upcoming Referendum on Ireland./HGL

Domination russe parmi les lecteurs - et harcèlements numériques à la BU de Nanterre ...

On vient d'intimider que le genre de harcèlements dont je pense pourrait être un pur beug. Je n'y crois pas.

Des choses comme ça, ça rend ma consultation plus stressante - ce que pourraient vouloir certains.

18 avr. 2018 – 17 mai 2018
IV fois la Russie ne fut pas premier pays - Pologne , Émirats arabes unis (bis, une fois ex aequo), Italie - et soit il manquais une fois, je ne sais pas sur lequel, soit j'ai loupé les statistiques pour un blog.

23 960 sur 39 blogs en 30 jours =
799 vues par jour
614 vues par blog

Dont 21 494 de pays identifiés =
21 494 / 23 960 = c. 90 %

Dont la Russie 10 623 =
10 623 / 23 960 = c. 44 %

Dont ceux avant la France, 5 pays =
la Russie, l'Italie, les États-Unis, les Émirats arabes unis et l'Ukraine
10 623 + 3066 + 2288 + 1619 + 1470 = 19 066
19 066 / 23 960 = c. 80 %

Russie (38 blogs), 10 623
102 + 943 + 212 + 67 + 32 + 308 + 1479 + 642 + 105 + 161 + 300 + 28 + 172 + 507 + 57 + 645 + 30 + 42 + 38 + 68 + 28 + 46 + 48 + 65 + 63 + 178 + 73 + 286 + 1004 + 274 + 166 + 161 + 448 + 429 + 17 + 338 + 20 + 1041
Italie (5 blogs), 3066
702 + 579 + 526 + 972 + 287
États-Unis (33 blogs), 2288
567 + 1 + 58 + 28 + 3 + 18 + 19 + 28 + 385 + 43 + 43 + 7 + 4 + 17 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 178 + 12 + 38 + 49 + 6 + 71 + 38 + 3 + 164 + 244 + 3 + 5 + 246 + 1
Émirats arabes unis (37 blogs), 1619
43 + 42 + 82 + 60 + 151 + 45 + 21 + 14 + 23 + 21 + 46 + 63 + 128 + 20 + 21 + 21 + 28 + 6 + 66 + 42 + 146 + 121 + 44 + 2 + 21 + 11 + 63 + 46 + 54 + 21 + 11 + 7 + 21 + 42 + 17 + 29 + 20
Ukraine (21 blogs), 1470
64 + 6 + 25 + 19 + 11 + 77 + 6 + 611 + 138 + 4 + 9 + 3 + 1 + 79 + 11 + 111 + 2 + 23 + 19 + 12 + 239
France (33 blogs), 829
96 + 1 + 32 + 6 + 24 + 6 + 2 + 4 + 33 + 14 + 19 + 18 + 23 + 1 + 3 + 8 + 153 + 30 + 32 + 16 + 4 + 98 + 1 + 12 + 27 + 11 + 5 + 109 + 13 + 17 + 5 + 2 + 4
Allemagne (18 blogs), 342
49 + 11 + 9 + 7 + 7 + 71 + 16 + 2 + 35 + 7 + 3 + 7 + 57 + 35 + 5 + 4 + 15 + 2
Pologne (6 blogs), 295
3 + 96 + 30 + 63 + 82 + 21
Vietnam (10 blogs), 192
74 + 5 + 52 + 3 + 33 + 4 + 10 + 4 + 6 + 1
Irlande (3 blogs), 127
121 + 2 + 4
Japon (2 blogs) 119
61 + 58
Canada (25 blogs), 78
1 + 4 + 2 + 4 + 2 + 9 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 28 + 3 + 1 + 2
Brésil (8 blogs), 66
22 + 9 + 19 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 6
Chine (2 blogs), 61
31 + 30
Espagne (9 blogs), 48
4 + 5 + 1 + 16 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 11 + 3
Pays-Bas (4 blogs), 48
5 + 27 + 14 + 2
Turquie (7 blogs), 48
4 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 9 + 5 + 24
Suède (2 blogs), 38
15 + 23
Royaume-Uni (8 blogs), 28
9 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 1
Corée du Sud (2 blogs), 21
1 + 20
Australie 20
Philippines (6 blogs), 16
2 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 1
Algérie (2 blogs), 13
5 + 18
Indonésie (5 blogs), 12
3 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 1
Norvège 5
Inde (2 blogs), 5
2 + 3
Israël (2 blogs), 4
1 + 3
Autriche 3
Mexique 2
Argentine 2/2
1 + 1
Thaïlande 1
Danemark 1
Colombie 1
Afrique du Sud 1
Finlande 1
Malaisie 1

Y a-t-il une autre indication aussi?

TM : I' not a fanatic you American Taliban are the fanatics I'm a scientist You'r American Empire is going to implode! Watch & see!

HGL's F.B. writings : With TM, an Atheist Fanatic

Mais la phrase "Talibans Américains" - c'est une phrase qu'il me semble par exemple des Russes utilisent pour les Fondamentalistes ... et TM, pas Russe lui-même, mais donc influencé par eux, habite Paris./HGL

Et les Russes par le passé, leur visite tout le temps?

Russie premier pays 15 blogs
1094, 159, 7790, 27 908, 271, 6252, 64, 84, 1091, 841, 658, 8944, 9288, 6530, 673
Russie segond pays 19 blogs
31 894, 4999, 24 330, 2505, 9545, 22 682, 520, 477, 546, 1847, 2909, 3129, 10 055, 31 894, 3997, 9050, 17 592, 966, 30 260
Russie troisième quatre blogs
2116, 2143, 594, 302,
Russie quatrième un seul blog
24 023
Russie en total
310 022

Encore un harcèlement, pendant que je cherche les statistiques pour les États-Unis:

Oui, blogger fournit les statistiques, ceci pour la semaine. Mais voici les statistiques pour les États-Unis, qui pendant le temps, mais pas le dernier mois, a dépassé la Russie:

États-Unis premier pays 19 blogs
65 379, 2656, 3136, 11 990, 2484, 1415, 63641, 602, 536, 584, 1999, 3467, 10 079, 54 746, 42 584, 667, 21 174, 1288, 35 000
États-Unis second pays 11 blogs
267, 518, 5584, 20503, 208, 5318, 20, 719, 642, 3707, 7119, 5124,
États-Unis troisième pays 7 blogs
33 905, 4048, 119, 18 (ex aequo), 978, 2485, 2475,
États-Unis quatrième pays un seul blog
États-Unis en total
417 805

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

Deepfake - a Technology Open for Abuse

Deepfake Videos Are the Future of Porn Scandals

There are other possible abuses than porn, I could have been victim of a faked footage.

Here is a real footage of me, I complained about it being shortened to cut out some parts of what I said to selectively support the written conclusion, but the parts where I speak are real:

Conversation with Hans-Georg Lundahl
Edoardo Rossi | Ajoutée le 20 oct. 2012

Here are my comments:

HGL's F.B. writings : A Heavily Edited Video with me - and my Comments to Editor thereof.

But, apart from the complaints of the video being too short and cutting stuff out, it is the only video with me that I have authorised.

Other videos with me could be either deepfake's or taken without my approval. If deepfakes, it should be somewhat difficult - I hope! - to make them speak and move facial musculature like me, but that could come as well.

Internet is a great place for getting truths out. Some are bent on making it seem unreliable. But a deepfake video need not be on the web, it could be presented as a genuine non-web footage./HGL

PS, obviously a footage on which I show a blog of mine is as welcome to me as a photo of it. Like the footage in above around 19 seconds:

Unfortunately, the short link for the first link, by someone else (so as not to promote myself alone, I sometimes did and do that), has gone down. While exists, it has closed down my short links./HGL

Fulton Sheen said God should have mercy on me....

Wasting Your Life - Venerable Fulton Sheen
CatholicClips (I'd prefer knowing when the speech is from*)

At 25:08 - 25:11

Those of you who don't like football, close your ears and may God have mercy on you.

I have effectively very little to say on football ... perhaps he meant rugby? I don't like that either, but I do like rugby players./HGL

* The video was uploaded on 20.V.2013

Un hectare, 21 ares, 40.7 mètres carrés et une vache

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Pour Peugeot et Semblables · New blog on the kid : Un hectare, 21 ares, 40.7 mètres carrés et une vache

En anglais, ça se dit plus simplement : three acres and a cow.

Conversion de l'unité agraire:

3 acres : 12,140.7 mètres carrés

12,140.7 mètres carrés. 10,000 = 1 hectare  2,140.7 mètres carrés  2,100 = 21 ares   40.7 mètres carrés

Traduction de l'article anglais sur la wikipédie, la partie de texte qui raconte l'histoire de la phrase:

Three acres and a cow was a slogan used by British land reform campaigners of the 1880s, and revived by the distributists of the 1920s. It refers to an ideal land holding for every citizen. "Three acres and a cow" était un slogan de la campagne pour réforme agraire britannique des années 1880, et revitalisé par les distributistes des années 1920. C'est une possession de terre idéale pour chaque citoyen.
The phrase was invented by Eli Hamshire in letters written to Joseph Chamberlain and Jesse Collings during the early 1880s.[1] Hamshire did, in fact, own 3 acres (1.2 hectares). Collings used the phrase as a slogan for his 1885 land reform campaign, and it became used as part of the political struggle against rural poverty.[2] He became derisively known as "Three Acres and a Cow Collings."  La phrase fut inventée par Eli Hamshire en des lettres adressées à Joseph Chamberlain et Jesse Collings, début des années 1880. Hamshire, en effet, possédait 3 "acres" (un hectare, 21 ares, 40.7 mètres carrés). Collings l'utilisa comme slogan pour sa campagne de réforme agraire en 1885, elle devint partie de la lutte politique contre l'empauvrissement rurale. On l'appela par dérision : "Three acres and a Cow Collings".
Chamberlain used the slogan for his own "Radical Programme": he urged the purchase by local authorities of land to provide garden and field allotments for all labourers who might desire them, to be let at fair rents in plots of up to 1 acre (0.40 ha) of arable land and up to 4 acres (1.6 ha) of pasture.[3] Chamberlain utilisa le slogan pour son propre "programme radical" : il demanda aux autorités locales d'acheter de la terre pour donner des lots jardiniers et terrains pour tous les travailleurs qui pourraient les désirer, loués pour des loyers équitables en des lots de jusqu'à un acre (soit 40 ares) de terre arable et jusqu'à 4 acres (soit 1 hectare, 60 ares) de pâturage.
In What's Wrong With the World, G. K. Chesterton used the phrase to summarise his own distributist opinions.[4]  Dans What's Wrong With the World, G. K. Chesterton utilisa la phrase pour épitomiser ses propres opinions distributistes.

Comme on voit, la réforme agraire en question était modérée, elle ne voulait pas déposséder les grands propriétaires, elle voulait acquerir de la terre pour les pauvres (ceux qui le désiraient) par achat et d'autres contrats licites, nullement par expropriation.

En Irlande, ou il y a eu une réforme agraire, elle n'était pas basée sur expropriation, par contre un grand patron terrien devait soit garder sa terre, soit la vendre en des lots plus petits. Ceci est la cause pourquoi les Anglo-Irlandais ont cessé d'être des grands propriétaires en Irlande, en Éire ou "Irlande du Sud" ou République irlandaise.

La note [4] va à l'œuvre assez magistrale par Chesterton:

What's Wrong with the World
G.K. Chesterton (1910)

Notez, dans les parties III et IV, il s'oppose au féminisme et à un état qui prétend à la toute-puissance sur les familles, notemment des pauvres (ce n'est pas le fils de Donald Trump qui est obligé à aller dans une école publique s'il y va mal ou simplement s'il a d'intérêts qui s'étudient mieux dans une école privée spécialisée sur le sujet, ce ne sont pas les fils d'Emmanuel Macron qui risquent dans l'immédiat d'être enlevés des parents).

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St. Ubalde de Gubbio
Mardi de la Novène de Pentecôte

Is "Vatican II" in Continuity with Trent and Vatican "I"?

New blog on the kid : Is "Vatican II" in Continuity with Trent and Vatican "I"? · Creation vs. Evolution : Agreeing with the Biblical World View

It would seem Montini and Ratzinger claimed so:

Montini / "Paul VI" to Mgr Lefèbvre
“You permit the case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor. It is true that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose. How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?”

Then "Cardinal" Ratzinger
(subdivisions added by me)
a) “One must clarify first of all that Vatican II is based on the same authority as Vatican I and as the Council of Trent: that is the pope and the college of bishops in communion with him. b) Concerning the content, we must also recall that Vatican II falls in close continuity with the two previous Councils and that it re-iterates them on certain decisive points. (…) It is impossible to side ‘for’ the Council of Trent and Vatican I and ‘against’ Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II, denies the authority which upholds the other two Councils and abolishes it in its very principle. [This applies also for what is called ‘traditionalism’, in its extreme forms.] c) Here, any partisan choice destroys the whole, [the very history of the Church], which can only exist as an undivided unity.”

This is quoted from :

On the Authority of the Second Vatican Council: Infallible or not?
By Fr. Pierre Marie O.P. in (SSPX) Newsletter of the District of Asia April - December 2008

The original contexts are Letter of Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 29, 1975 and Cardinal Ratzinger, in the Ratzinger Report for which latter the explanation of the brackets is given as:

(French edition, 1985, pp. 28-29 with the following remark: “Words … in brackets have been added on the manuscript of the present book.” in Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p.33)

To Montini's argument
St. Athanasius also combatted the even more recent Council of Sirmium, one confession of which had (though by force, then not universally known) obtained a signature from Pope Liberius.

To Ratzinger's argument a)
Only if Roncalli and Montini ("John XXIII" and "Paul VI") were real Popes and the bishops in union with them not in de facto schism.

To Ratzinger's argument b)
If "Vatican II" reiterates Trent or Vatican "I" on nine points of ten, or nineteen of twenty or ninenty nine of hundred, and contradicts either on one, and that one is dogmatic, "Vatican II" is thereby shown heretical.

To Ratzinger's argument c)
While the real Church of Christ certainly exists as an undivided whole, again and again it seems to be divided, as groups of unfaithful leave her in important numbers. Under Rohoboam the Samarians left her, siding with Jeroboam, under Our Lord Himself and St Peter Jews left her, siding with Hannas and Caiphas, under St Leo IX, Michael Caerularius left her, and under Leo X and successors, Luther, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, the two Sozzini and Münzer left her, followed by Anglicans and Calvinists, and joined by earlier dissidents like Valdensians and Moravians.

So, is the undivided unity that of Vatican II or that of some version of Trads? SSPX, Sede, some version of Orthopapism? Note, one false such continuation may truly denounce another false one, SSPX can be false and yet on some points truly denounce Vatican II, like Lutheranism was false and on some points truly denounced Zwingli and Calvin.

Note, in 2008, I was still straying among the Orthodox, and while not denying filioque (which was not a great hit with them), I considered instead of Popes, each ordinary as successor of St Peter and the chorepiskopoi or auxiliaries as successors of the other among the twelve. This would have meant in 1975 Mgr Lefèbvre was equally a successor of St Peter, by being emeritus archbishop in Dakar and in Tulle, as Paul VI by being bishop of Rome or as recently before John Maximovich of Shanghai and San Francisco or as their contemporaries in Moscow, Alexy I and Pimen. The faithful ones being Lefèbvre and Maximovich.

I do now deny this possibility, while adhering to Pope Michael - if you deny it, adhering to Pope Michael (or even back then hoping "Benedict XVI" was restoring things) is more logical than SSPX.

In that light, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II would have been non-ecumenical councils, the validity of which doesn't automatically imply infallibility, but Trent and Vatican I (except as I though then, on papacy) were in fact faithful to apostolic tradition. Trent coincided largely with the "equally" not ecumenical councils of Jerusalem and Iasi, which condemned Protestantism on the Orthodox side.

Note, on some of the divisions of schismatics from the Church, it is not immediately apparent to all which side is the really traditional one. In 1053 Rome and Constantinople each could see its bishop as continuing in the line of his forebears. In AD 33 to 70, Judaism could say "look, we have the temple" - as had been the case before then. For Catholicism, there may be a situation in which Vatican II seems to be in continuity due to such institutional factors, followed by one in which this is apparently no longer so - destruction of Temple and ... well, Amoris Laetitia (though for my part, I was already convinced at "canonisation" of Wojtyla and Roncalli).

I have elaborated a bit long on the argument c), undivided continuity of the Church. Let's go a little bit deeper about arguments a) and b), non-papality of Roncalli and Montini and successors and material contradiction against the known magisterium of the past. I feel I was a bit shallow. A bit summary.

We can take a shortcut : if Wojtyla and Ratzinger, succeeding Roncalli and Montini and in faithful obedience to Vatican II contradict on one item Trent or Vatican I, it is not just Bergoglio who is a cuckoo in the Vatican II nest, it is the Vatican II nest itself which is bad.

Around the time of second Assisi prayer meeting, the one for peace in Bosnia and which was apparently answered by Srebrenica massacre, the worst massacre in the Bosnia war, "John Paul II" also did some other things. Pastorally, he made peace with psychiatry (I only know this from a p-d-effed headline in a British Catholic newspaper also mentioning Assisi II, and that one not available, and I did not get any reply when I sought a confirmation from the now redaction of that paper). Liturgically, he changed the year of Christ's birth from 5199 after the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth and 2957 after the Flood to "unknown ages" and "several thousand years". This contradicts the unanimity of the Fathers that Biblical chronology is reliable. In doctrinally related canons, Ratzinger condemned Fundamentalist Bible reading. While it is true some Fundamentalists, or even most, do reject the non-literal senses, notably the allegorical, the main problem Ratzinger has with them is they do NOT relativise the literal one. Hereby he contradicted a consensus of fathers which refused to relativise the literal sense.

I have written previously on both things:

Creation vs. Evolution : Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994

Or, you can take a more direct approach on Vatican II:

In English : Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Is gaudium et spes an orthodox text?

Or in French : Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Gaudium et Spes pas si Orthodoxe que ça, quand même ...

An even more direct question is, how could so many external trappings of Catholicism go to the Vatican II sect, if in fact is is, as Traditionalism of divers shades (including Pope Michael who rejects the term, since it is so associated with SSPX and the Recognise and Resist position, which I cannot defend on such long terms any more than he likes it) not identic to the Catholic Church? One would have to take into consideration the possibility of a Pope not being sufficiently vigilant. Was Pope Pius XI non-vigilant and Pacelli / Pius XII a non-pope? Or was Pius XII non-vigilant, opening a back door to heresy without thinking he was doing that? Either way, the considerations about Pius XII may well centre on Humani Generis. On which, "surprise, surprise", I have also written previously:

MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : One group member promoted Hutchinson

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Fr Spitzer's Wrong on This One - Huge Wrong (Humani Generis Revisited)

And, since the case of Evolution is in so many minds associated with Galileo and Providentissimus Deus, let's note that Pope Leo XIII never in that encyclical actually said in so many words that one is allowed to believe Heliocentrism as understood by the "science" of his time, nor that the potential solution of phenomenal language pertains exclusively to the Geocentric language of the Bible, so that his words on that one would mean he recommended it in this particular case, nor that it solves ALL the Geocentric language passages in the Bible. I argued specifically against Protestant Fundies that phenomenal language does NOT solve the verse Joshua 10:12.

HGL's F.B. writings : A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture

Same point, but not involving someone else's copyright:

New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

So, how do Heliocentrism and Evolution contradict Trent, which never directly took a stance on them? Because they contradict the unanimity of the Fathers:

In Latin : New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Ubaldo of Gubbio
Tuesday in the Pentecost Novena

Monday, 14 May 2018

Comme catholique ou comme royaliste, on n'est pas censé détester les bobos

On n'est pas censé détester qui que ce soit qui peut être un chrétien à cause d'autre chose qu'il ne l'est pas ou qui peut être un sujet loyal pour autre chose qu'il ne l'est pas.

Bobo ne veut pas dire sodomite, ni rebelle.

Si Mélenchon pouvait se réclamer les "punks à chat" (comme punks, mais plus ra-fi-nés, donc, bobos), c'est peut-être que certains Chrétiens ou Flics ou Militaires en FN sont un peu bobo-phobes.

Un bobo athée ou ésotérique qui veut rester bobo, parce que son métier de bobo est confortable et intéressant, parce que ses voisins bobos sont sympas, parce que la classe de yoga (très bobo) des enfants les rend en apparence harmonieux (et sur un plan matériel, pas juste en apparence), va-t-il se convertir si les Chrétiens qu'il rencontre cultivent une rancune "prolétaire" mais encore plus prolétarianiste, contre les bobos?

Un bobo qui vote Mélenchon, va-t-il se convertir et voter que ce soit Axel de Boer (qrep!) ou Marine ou Bruno Gollnisch? Demandez à Frigide Barjot! Oui, elle s'est converti, mais pas parce que la paroisse (elle n'est pas à St Nicolas) est bobo-phobe.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Boniface de Tarse

PS : je ne suggère pas qu'elle ait voté FN, mais il me semble qu'elle était pour la liste d'Axel de Boer, contre l'avortement.