Saturday, 27 June 2015

Certains ne comprennent pas la différence entre preuve historique et preuve scientifique

Répliques Assorties : 1) Deux arguments à propos l'évolutionnisme, entre moi et Motorsport Gigantoraptor, 2) Créationnisme Raciste? Non. Crédible autrement? Voyons!, New blog on the kid : 3) Certains ne comprennent pas la différence entre preuve historique et preuve scientifique

Il y a un débat sur mon blog francophone de débats, où ça me semble être arrivé à mon adversaire:

Répliques assorties : Créationnisme Raciste? Non. Crédible autrement? Voyons!

À vous de juger. En lisant ce message. Pour ici, je vais plutôt donner une illustration pas encore abordé dans le débat.

Prenons les décès de Charles XII de Suède et de Jesse James. Les deux ont eu une balle dans la tête. On a scientifiquement prouvé ça pour Charles XII, on pourra facilement (ou on a déjà?) prouver (-é?) ça pour Jesse James.

On a trouvé une balle faite par un bouton d'uniforme suédoise qui avait des restes de sang, dont le profile tant que lisible coincidait avec celui de Charles XII - ce qui peut confirmer qu'il fut tué par un suédois, d'autres contestent cette hypothèse aussi avec des arguments scientifiques, ballistiques, du terrain etc. à l'appui.

Mais cette examination ne peut pas prouver les circonstances historiques connues sur Charles XII et sa mort, et n'ont donc même pas tranché définitivement pour ou contre la rumeur d'un meurtre commis par un suédois, donc un sujet.

Surtout, ces examinations scientifiques n'ont rien à dire en elles-mêmes sur les circonstances historiques autour de la bataille de Fredrikshald.

Nous savons que Charles XII venait de perdre la Baltique aux Russes et qu'il se tournait vers une reprise de la guerre avec Danemark-Norvège (les deux pouvoirs l'ayant attaqué quand il était tout juste venu au pouvoir, mineur par rapport à l'âge de 25 normalement requis pour être roi), et dans ce contexte il se trouvait à Fredrikshald. Mais nous savons ça grâce aux récits. Aucune examination scientifique pourrait en soi reconstituer ce contexte. Il peut tout juste confirmer ou invalider des questions de détail - et la plupart de ces questions ne sont ni confirmés, ni invalidés par la science, mais reconnus comme connues à cause des récits.

De même, supposons une examination forensique faite sur le crane de Jesse James. Supposons qu'il confirme qu'il ait été tué par un balle du derrière. Ceci est tout ce que peut confirmer l'examination scientifique.

Qu'il avait des enfants, ça ne se voit pas sur le pelvis d'un homme comme pour celui d'une femme.

Qu'il avait fait un vol sur le Danville Train, nous le connaissons également des récits.

Qu'il s'appelait Mr Howard pour se cacher, et qu'il était recherché, et que son tueur ait reçu une récompense, la science reste muette, nous le savons par le récit. Et ainsi de suite.

Pour connaître le passé, il vaut mieux se fier aux preuves historiques comme récits (idéalement confirmés par d'autres) et pas attendre une preuve de la science.

Or, il semble que certains imaginent que chaque détail que les historiens nous donnent sur le passé est confirmé par la science. Quand à certains chambres de gaz, et quand à certains dispersions de cendres après incinération, ça semble certainement pas être tout à fait le cas, certains ont risqué la prison (et y sont, comme Vincent Reynouard, pour avoir osé affirmer que la science prouve le contraire). Le moindre qu'on puisse dire est que les principes épistémologiques de certains (je ne crois pas qu'Arthur Dent soit dans le moindre un révisionniste) sont à géométrie variable. Les récits leur suffisent en absense de preuves confirmants et même en présence de certains preuves au moins incomplètes invalidant au moins en partie - pour la Schoah. Pour le Déluge les récits leur suffisent pas - et je n'étais pas encore venu aux preuves confirmantes celui-ci.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Crescent, disciple de St Paul
et St Jean de Moûtier

Friday, 26 June 2015

That Priority is Not Mine

As a Catholic Conservative (or indeed Reactionary) I am grateful for Brazil. You know the Empress of Brazil in 1888 ...

The ‘Southern Avenger’* Repents: I Was Wrong About the Confederate Flag

States’ rights? Heritage? I was wrong: The Confederate flag has always been about race.

Is that so? A Hillbilly who joined the Confederate Army and fought under the Confederate Flag, was he racist?

A Black man who fought under Confederate flag, was he racist?

And Unionists who fought under the Union flag, were they all antiracist?

There was a Unionist song where there was a line about first liberating the black slaves - and then sending them to Liberia.

A black man who worked on cotton fields as a slave, was he totally worse off than his brother who, after fleeing north, had become a wage slave in the factories of Chicago?

I was wrong. That flag is always about race. Whatever political or historical points the flag’s defenders make, there will never be a time—and never has been a time—in which millions of Americans have looked at that symbol and not seen hatred.

Whether at the outbreak of the war there were or weren't millions of Unionists who in the flag saw hatred, there were millions of confederates who saw the flag as not being about hatred.

The Duke of Alba, as Belloc said, was a villain in Dutch historiography, but a hero in the Belgian one.

We live in a world where loyalties are divided - and will presumably remain so until there is a final division of two major loyalties, for Christ or for Antichrist. And there too each side will have millions who feel a certain way about the symbols of the other side.

But I am here to say there is something at stake far more important than this symbol.

Heritage might not be hate. But battling hate is far more important than anyone’s heritage, politics, or just about anything else. We should have different priorities.

I now have different priorities.

Hate is not battled. Hate is sometimes abandoned by someone hating others, and usually only if he has enough calm to abandon it. Battling "hate" too often means oppressing "haters" in too hateful ways, which make it finally easy to document that they harbour the emotion of hatred.

Dylann Roof is a reminder of what’s at stake.

Indeed. But not exactly as former Southern Avenger thinks.

He may have been a white suprematist when doing his illdeeds. But before that there may have been a time when he simply felt his Southern nostalgia was being oppressed, unduly. If that is not his case, it is the case of several others, perhaps not so radical, but more pervasive in the rise of race hatred and brutality.

Understand this: Imagine your great-grandfather was a slave. Imagine your great-grandfather was lynched. Imagine your grandfather was forced to drink from a separate fountain. Imagine your father or mother was murdered by a deranged man with the Confederate flag all over his website.

Imagine these kinds of horrors were your American heritage. Imagine every time you saw a Confederate flag it reminded you of this.

Now imagine being told you don’t understand what the flag “really” means.

It’s an insult.

Imagine you are dealing with a Jew. His grandparents disappeared in Auschwitz and his best guess about them is they were gassed in such and such a year or month, not sure of the date.

He feels the swastika is just another cross, and the cross just another pagan swastika.

Shall you give up on the cross because he feels that way? You can possibly leave him alone because he is grieving (if he is still grieving for sth that happened 70 years ago). But do you need to give up Christianity because he is misinformed about its relation to Nazism?

Of course NOT!

And imagine that Jew is also insulting you because you are into certain Fascist causes - you specifically mention Austrofascism. He then tells you that even if Austrofascists never killed non-violent people just because of their origins, they nevertheless targetted Jews economically (as Jews had targetted Germany economically in 1933?) and thus "helped to bring the holocaust about indirectly" - are you supposed to tear out Austria from your heart, trample on the memory of Dollfuss (who was killed by a Nazi) and of von Schuschnigg (who spent 1940 to 1945 in Dachau), and of Karl Lueger (whom they and lots of other Viennese admired) - just because Hitler admired him too?

Of course NOT!

I have a right not to be insulted too, not just the guy who is or pretends to be traumatised and who feels insulted by my loyalties!

A 14-year-old black girl attending a pool party in McKinney, Texas, had been manhandled and thrown to the ground by a police officer. The girl had done nothing except talk. She was just standing there with other teenagers.

It was revolting to watch. I asked others to imagine it was their daughter.

The overwhelming response was that she was a “thug” who was “no saint” and needed to be taught “respect.” The comments were as revolting as the act—an adult mob praising the assault of a 100-pound, half-naked and scared black kid. I pleaded again for people to stop defending this. It got uglier.

I am as revolted as the writer.

But how many of the guys who feel they need to sympathise when someone is "taught respect" first had felt they were not getting any - while at school, perhaps while being taught above attitudes about Southern Nostalgia and not accepting them, asking for respect and not getting it from teachers? How many?

Some portion, I would think. Some of this very ugly mob became such very ugly mobsters precisely because they were too long around teachers who thought their one due priority was "battling hate".

Hate is not battled. Sometimes, hate is abandoned. And sometimes it is enflamed. But "battling hate" means battling someone else's hate against who you think deserves no hatred.

I thought a big part of being conservative meant picking a “side” and attacking the other. I thought not caring what others thought or felt was part of it. Some of my Confederate flag debates certainly reflected that mentality.

This is something ideologues do and is by no means exclusive to the right, as evidenced by the way some liberals cartoonishly portray conservatives, Christians, and, yes, Southerners.

True enough.

But some people who are still defending the Confederate Flag are not such.

There are sides which do need to be taken no matter how misinformed people feel about it - as my parallel about the upcoming Harmageddon scenario should suggest.

As a Catholic Conservative (or indeed Reactionary) I am grateful for Brazil.

Slavery was ended because a royal was generous - and hatred was avoided because hitherto slave owners were not considered as either criminals in general or "war criminals". And that is what earlier had been achieved by one Wilberforce in the English Commonwealth as well.

And I am grateful for Queen Saint Balthild:

When Clovis [II] died (between 655 and 658), his eldest son Clotaire succeeded to the throne, aged five. His mother Balthild acted as the queen regent. As queen, she was a capable stateswoman. She abolished the practice of trading Christian slaves and strove to free children who had been sold into slavery. This claim is corroborated by Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg, who mentions that Balthild and Saint Eloi (who was also known as Eligius, according to Dado)[8] “worked together on their favorite charity, the buying and freeing of slaves”. [Reference to: Forgetful of Their Sex: Female Sanctity and Society, Ca. 500-1100 By Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg]

Finally, a point:

A 14-year-old girl at a pool party isn’t a “thug” who deserves abuse. She’s a child. Decent people should view her as such.

She was no thug, but neither is she a child. The marital age limits of the Catholic Church through centuries have been the 14/12 limit (girls develop quicker than boys, in medium two years quicker). Adolescents are not children, and lots of adolescence problems come of modern society treating them as what they aren't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts John and Paul of Rome
martyrs under Julian Apostate

* Jack Hunter - he often appeared in a wrestling mask. I never did. And if I say sth hurtful, to some codebater, I try to make it either of necessity and as little hurtful as possible or in measure for measure the hurtful things he says.

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Supposing Chesterton had been Consulted as Peritus

GKC as we know left this earthly life in 1936. His books may have been consulted (and perhaps not by the most attentive readers), but he was not. Suppose that while he was alive some ecclesiastic friend of his, in a chatty way had told him "oh, by the way, one priest colleague of mine was working on a thesis, and as you did Orthodoxy and Everlasting Man, you are not quite out of the business - have a look at his first sentence, will you?" And then he hands Gilbert a slip of paper which reads:

Gaudium et spes, luctus et angor hominum huius temporis, pauperum praesertim et quorumvis afflictorum, gaudium sunt et spes, luctus et angor etiam Christi discipulorum, nihilque vere humanum invenitur, quod in corde eorum non resonet.

I imagine Gilbert might have first, after taking a good look and a good moment of thought, replied: "will not quite do. The last bit, 'nothing really human is there, which does not resonate in their hearts' is of course true, insofar as 'really human' excludes the fallenness of man, which was a degradation and not an enhancement of Adam's and Eve's, our first parents' human nature. But where do the 'homines huius temporis' come from, even with 'pauperes praesertim et quivis afflicti'? And why the identity in hopes and anguish? The Church is offering a hope and a fear beyond what is commonly felt!"

And here is my reworking and criticism, freely inspired mainly by Chesterton, but in part too by J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis and by Hilaire Belloc.

The Church indeed does share in the main, though not without exception, the joys and sorrows of the common man.

I say "in the main", because if a man gets soak drunk or gets in bed with a girl he is not married to, he may very well enjoy it, even if he is poor and afflicted, but that doesn't mean the Church enjoys it. Indeed, the Church disapproves of it, though not quite as harshly as with some other sins. However, the Church disapproves these things as mortal sins, and will see a man who enjoyed them as needing conversion and penance in order to save his soul. Even if he is poor and afflicted.

A priest told by someone that someone had just shagged a girl he loved would hardly say "oh, how nice! Keep me updated!" He would perhaps say "if you like her and she likes you, why don't you marry?" And he would if this is agreed approve of their love from that decision on, but he would not approve of the act past. He would call it the sin of fornication - and he would worry about the child perhaps not growing up with both parents. He would still less approve of it if the child had been spared that ordeal or threat by the means of "being spared" coming into existence at all. He would call contraception "sin against nature" and rightly so, since nature means birth - and whatever leads up to and comes out of it.

However, common man in many places still today has the good sense not to quite feel solidaric with a man's exhilaration of either fornication of sin against nature. But in some places precisely among men of these times, this good sense is becoming rare (though it was more prevalent a hundred years ago, when Chesterton praised the common man).

So, there are clearly exceptions to the Church sharing the joys of the common man - perhaps fewer ones to sharing his sorrows. But in the main, yes, the Church rejoices with them that rejoice and weeps with them that weep.

However, when it comes to hopes and anguishes, the Church is rather more reserved.

When Lenin promised "do with the collective discipline, do with the violence today, tomorrow evolution will have pushed mankind, through your heroic efforts, to a classless society!" I am afraid the Church had neither duty nor right to share this hope.

When Hitler threatened (and the Social Democrats Myrdal, and quite a few in Canada or parts of US) "if we allow such and such to procreate, our race will be destroyed" I am afraid the Church had neither duty nor right to share this fear.

Even if these hopes and fears were shared by many "men of these times". Even if they were shared by many poor and afflicted men. It is usually not by our mourning, and not very much even by our joys that the devil corrupts us, or damns us, it is more by our hopes and fears for this world. The Church has been sent here to provide another fear and another hope. Desire Heaven. Fear Hell. Despise the world.*

Not the world as in people. But the world as in earthly fears and hopes.

Christ said to his twelve first priests : You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.

Now, salt preserves meat, not be being like meat, but by being violently different from meat. If it were exactly like meat, it would not preserve it, it would rot with it.

As a child I wondered how "salt" - to me it meant the white salt grains, Natrium Chloride - could lose its savour. Natrium Chloride stings and has savour. It does per se not change that property. However, as I recently learned, by "salt" our Saviour meant the back then commercial product salt, where Natrium Chloride and maybe other salts too were packed in a hill of clay**, not unlike the sugar tops, except bigger and clay-ier and salty instead of sugary. And by the savour this product could lose, He meant precisely Natrium Chloride.

A priest who is not sufficiently different from the world, from men of his time, to correct their hopes and fears when disordered, is a "commercial package of salt" which has "lost its Natrium Chloride". And this was perhaps the case with whoever came up with the above sentence.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Prosper

* Rule of St Benedict. Chapter on the tools of good deeds. Perhaps that would be chapter four, since a title I saw was Seventy-Four Tools for Good Living / Reflections on the Fourth Chapter of Benedict's Rule. By Michael Casey.

** If you feel disgust at the thought of cooking with salt that is mixed with clay, don't. Germans often cook or "bake-cook" in clay vessels called Roemertoepfe. And a Roemertopf is clay-y on the inside. The dishes are usually really good.

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Bonum Festum Nativitatis Beati Johannis Baptistae

Bonne fête de St Jean Baptiste! Happy Feast of St John the Baptist!

Kent Hovind Update

Kent Hovind Update: A Four Day Old Letter Indicates That Solitary Conditions Are Cold & Miserable

If he is in cells where he risks pneumonia, there are two possibilities - trying to kill, or trying to break the spirit. As for me, I have heard how the latter has been used by prison authorities on someone whom I spent prison with. Even if he is sick, he might probably be taken out and saved, but when he is weakened, he may be humiliated because of that. And that man, according to what I heard, was an ex drug dealer.

7 * 10 feet = 2 * 3 meters. Pretty closed in. But worse, keeping it cold without a blanket. Or presumably without a blanket./HGL

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

A Law Must be Consistent With Right Reason

Otherwise, it is not a law.

That is very clear from St Thomas Aquinas.

It is also very clear that government endorsing non-laws, rules that go against right reason about the common good of all, are tyrannic.

Now, United Kingdom very clearly has a problem here:

The Guardian : Free schools will not teach creationism, says Department for Education

The Department for Education has said Michael Gove is "crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact" after a warning that the government's new free schools could be exploited by fundamentalist churches looking to promote a literal interpretation of the Bible. ... The DfE spokesman said groups setting up new free schools in the UK will be vetted to ensure that they have "strong education aims" and "high curriculum standards". He said: "The education secretary is crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact. Ministers have said they will not accept any proposal where there are concerns about the people behind the project."

The Guardian : Free schools must teach evolution, ministers announce

All free schools will be forced to present evolution as a comprehensive and central tenet of scientific theory, ministers have announced, following lobbying by senior scientists concerned that Christian-run institutions could exploit loopholes in the rules to present creationism as a credible theory.

The tightening of the funding rules for free schools comes after representations to the Department for Education by the Royal Society and its president, the Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, as well as by secular and humanist groups.

Why this? Because someone had been alarmed at:

The Guardian : Free schools are exploiting loopholes to teach creationism
Andrew Copson

So, some reader might be an Evolutionist. He might say, "look here, evolution is true, this rule is therefore in accordance with right reason, there is nothing tyrannic about it".

OK, treating the Orthodoxy of yesterday is not tyrannic? Like Catholicism was treated under Elisabeth or Gustav Wasa or Frederick III or the regency of James VI in Scotland (as had been that of Edward VI in England)? The Cecils (both Richard and William) and the Cromwells (both Thomas and Oliver) were basically doing everyone in England a favour?

There is sth to be said against that in most cases. I would not disagree with certain early Christian rulers outlawing paganism as practised in public. But then the paganism was hardly a matter of conviction anyway. From Christianity on, religion has been a matter of conviction. And there is something very unsatisfactory to tell people that what everyone of a certain people had hitherto believed sincerely was henceforward to be treated as an error to be actively fought.

Note, there have passed a few generations between when everyone in UK before Hutter was a Young Earth Creationist and now that Michael Gove wants ALL teachers in UK, not just state hired ones, to help uproot it as the error he considers it is. But no one will deny that the Creationists do in fact represent a former Orthodoxy, recognised as such by everyone. As no one could reasonably deny Papism was identical to the Catholicism of the Middle Ages.

This is one right reason to reject this kind of brutality, even if evolution were right reason. It is also one reason to ask oneself very carefully, if evolution really is "right reason" even as a "scientific" account of the history of earth and life.

But if we stick to what law means - I have refuted evolution many times over elsewhere, I have my Creationist blog for that - we can get other indications that the policy is against what can rightly be considered the rule of law.

You see, when Mr Jones's children go to school, even if Michael Gove is sure evolution is true and deserves to be taught to them, and creationism is untrue and deserves to be kept out of their science classrooms, Mr and Mrs Jones might disagree with Michael Gove.

And the question about right and wrong reason is whether the question in practise should be settled according to the will of the Jones couple, because they are parents, or by Michael Gove, because he is Minister of Education.

It is obviously also traditional - thus also yesterday's unanimous orthodoxy - that the answer is that the question should be settled by the Jones family and not by Michael Gove. So, even if he can pretend he is clear enough on the matter, he is clearly representing what will be considered tyrannical by Mr and Mrs Jones - and ideally by some honest evolutionist neighbour (supposing honest evolutionists still exist and Dawkins hasn't managed to either absorb all of them into his dishonest fanaticism or alienate the rest from evolutionism by it) who is aware of the family model of education.

In other words, for Michael Gove to be in right reason, not only does his new theory about the history of life and earth and universe have to be correct, but his equally new morality also. That means not just the world view but also the morality of centuries are discarded.

Michael Gove is therefore very clearly acting and imposing unright reason, wrong reason, someone's personal advantage or collective class advantage at the expense of the good of the common weal.

And the profiteers are of course evolution taught science teachers, who can continue to indoctrinate freely classes which Michael Gove is as carefully as possible cutting off from any news about other points of view than Michael Gove's.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John's Eve

Update, St John's Day:

When I said I had a Creationist blog, you could of course have gone to the tab above where it says:

Alii bloggi, other blogs, autres blogs

If you did, you must have found the Creationist blog very quickly, along the two other apologetic blogs "somewhere else" and "Great Bishop of Geneva!", but if you didn't, here is the url (and title) for it:

Creation vs. Evolution

David Palm's Parallels

Someone not called Sungenis, who is a decided Geocentric, but instead Stephen Hand, a journalist, asked David Palm a question which ended:

... Even if you personally stand with the consensus and think it foolish to embrace geocentrism, is it a possible interpretation of the data? What say you objectively in response in this instance, my brother, and why? You are under oath.

And David Palm answered:

Hey, Stephen, if you want to pursue that answer, I think it's most fruitful to ask if you would consider theories like a spherical earth, the germ theory of disease, and an atomistic theory of matter to be settled science, versus more ancient views?

If you want to pursue the fact he was being evasive, like answering an "is it possible" with "do you mean as if the question were not settled?" and answering a "what would you say under oath in a court room" with "I think it's most fruitful to ask", I suggest that you go to the open letter to Palm, where Sungenis cites this dialogue.

GWW pdf : Open Letter to David Palm for a Public Debate on Geocentrism

I will here rather give my take on the parallels he gave. First I note that as none of them is a total parallel to the question, they are not even parallel to each other.


I will first give my take on a theory like "spherical earth".

It is settled.

It was settled by Vasco da Gama and later. THe later voyages confirming what followed pretty clearly even from Vasco.

It was before him only nearly settled (with flat earth ruled out, but semispheric or other bent earth theories not ruled out), once it was clear that Ganges did not lead directly around to the pillars of Hercules, which would also have settled it if it had been true, but with Eratosthenes showing a discrepancy of angle of zenith same day on different latitudes.

Now, is spherical earth "parallel" to Heliocentrism?

No. We do not have a Vasco da Gama for it. Luke Skywalker is still not a real person. Nor is Princess Leia. Nor are Valérian and Laureline.

The proof from voyage is still lacking for Earth going around Sun each year. Whereas we do have a proof from voyage for Earth being a sphere.

Do we at least have a parallel to how spherical Earth theory was nearly settled previous to Vasco?

Yes and no. Like Eratosthenes proved earth was bent (and assumed the bending made a perfect globe because that is a perfect shape) there is proof some objects orbit the Sun (Mercury and Venus, Mars and Jupiter).

But unlike Eratosthenes, the optic proof we have for Kepler's solar system or universe does not involve any for the body we are here discussing, namely Earth itself. Eratosthenes proved Earth itself had at least to be bent. Kepler did not prove Earth itself had to be circling the Sun. And the proof he had for these other bodies (Mercury and Venus, very certainly, Mars and Jupiter at least probably, by now too a certainty, I suppose) orbitting the Sun was taken over from his mentor Tycho Brahe who believed that Earth was still in the centre. Something which did not satisfy Kepler's taste for perfect simplicity in geometry of the heavens. But something which to this day has not optically been disproven. And I include both annual aberration of star light and annual stellar parallax in the non-proofs.

For stellar parallax, it should be very clear since 63 Ophiuchi has a "negative" - that is inverted - parallax. Something which cannot be explained according to the theory parallax just mirrors the real but hidden movement of earth.

It can be explained so as to concord with that theory only as an error of measurement. Something which is certainly possible - but if so possible also for all other stellar parallaxeis. If the error was even and if the "measured as negative" parallax for 63 Ophiuchi was really a positive one, the corresponding correction would approach alpha Centauri from 4 light years away to 2 only light years away - or closer. Even that would unsettle modern cosmology. And as stars would be closer, they would also be smaller. How much? We don't know.

If we assume for a moment Heliocentrism is true, we don't know exactly how much positive parallax must be counted as corresponding to the "negative parallax" that is "measured". We do know parallax is too small to measure directly and is measured by comparison to "background" - or to general lack of a parallax deviating the measure of annual aberration. Aberration is in angle size 20″.49552 arcseconds "generally speaking" and parallax is "measured" as variations around that value. No parallax exceeds 1".0 arcseconds. So all stars actually are each year measured as moving between 19″.49552 and 21″.49552 arcseconds or actually closer in to 20″.49552, with alpha Centauri and 63 Ophiuchi on opposite extremes. If Earth is moving, and if all of the 20″.49552 arcseconds are aberration and not parallax, parallactic deviations from it should only be measured in one direction, not in opposite ones.

So, if parallax values are correct, Heliocentrism is proven untrue by 63 Ophiuchi, and if Heliocentrism is true, 63 Ophiuchi must have a positive parallax, and 20″.49552 arcseconds must be no pure aberration, and the positive parallaxes that are measured as positive must be larger, and therefore also modern cosmology breaks down.

So, no, parallax is NOT an Eratosthenes type optical proof for Earth moving around the Sun.

Therefore, Heliocentrism is not even as settled as spherical Earth was before Vasco da Gama. And absolutely not as settled as spherical Earth is since then.


Now, germ theory of disease, yes, it is in a sense as far as it goes, settled. We have DIRECT optical proof for existence of these germs, we have proof of their presence (or for healthy gut bacteria absence) during diseases, we have laboratory proofs they produce some of the toxins which have the bad effects, we have proof they prey on cells, we have proof killing off germs ends diseases.

Microscope is a surer tool than the telescope. We know the distance, angles, and what is being moveed and what is not being moved, at first hand, from the methods of manipulation.

However, there was another qualification than germ theory judt being settled. It was to be settled "versus more ancient views".

These would be demonic view and four humours view.

Both of these can still be defended, as long as they are not understood to deny the germ theory.

Some humoural qualities (like if you eat lots of salt and never sweets and have very lean muscles and very little fat, i e if you are humourally "dry"), you are likelier to get cancer than to get germ infections.

And demons may at times act as "guardian angels" to germs, just as they may do so to germ carrying vermin. Apollo was, like Belzebub, called "Lord of the Flies". Demons can certainly lord over both flies and bacteria. Not meaning they can change their natures, but meaning they can guide where they fly off to. Perhaps give some extra energy. Some Orthodox have made experiments where germs die in labs if sign of the Cross is made over them - "from right to left" - but as the experiment was done with an Orthodox believer that means "as my Church has taught me". When negative results (bacteria not dying off) were registered for sign of the Cross made from left to right, this was probably not done by Catholics, it was probably done by Orthodox too and this means "as my Church did NOT teach me". As far as I know, the experiments have not been verified from Roman Catholic labs to test if our Sign of the Cross will have same effect if done by a believing Catholic.

So, though germ theory is settled, it is not settled versus more ancient views. This case was not a parallel for the simple reason that the modern view does not actually contradict the more ancient ones.


An atomistic view of matter settled science? Which level of the atomistic view? And settled about how much of matter?

In electronic microscopy (which is one step removed from the certainty of the normal optical microscope) we have seen water molecules as one big bulb surrounded by two smaller ones, and chemistry has identified the bigger bulb as involved in oxygen molecule and the smaller ones as being involved in hydrogen molecule. You mix oxygen and hydrogen and you light it, there is a short explosive fire, and there is after that water. Oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen gas can all be tested on a lit match. Take gas from each bottle into a test tube or sth, oxygen will make the flame burn higher and quicker, nitrogen will extinguish it quickly, and hydrogen - as it is in the test tube mixed with air - will give this explosion resulting in water. Look at each gas in electronic microscope, oxygen and nitrogen molecules will be two bigger bulbs and hydrogen two smaller ones, and water will be one of the bigger sizes joined to two of this smaller size. THAT much is settled.

Is it equally settled science that hydrogen has one nuclear particle called a proton, while oxygen has eight and nitrogen seven of them? Plus oxygen and nitrogen also having other nuclear particles called neutrons? Plus each of the "bulbs" - atoms - having as outer wall, what the electronic microscope reflects, very much smaller electrons, one for each proton in all of the molecules here considered (no ions were so far considered)?

Well, at least electrons have never been actually observed. They are what electronic microscopy are supposed to be observing with.

One has observed traces of what is supposed to be electrons in Wilson chambers.

And the theory also states there is empty space:

  • a) between nucleus and electrons
  • b) between the "outer walls" observed in electronic microscopy and those of next not cojoined atom observed in them.

This part of empty space has obviously not been directly observed, one has only observed:

  • a) that one hasn't observed anything inside the outer wall of an atom, the one that is observed in electronic microscopy, which is then supposed to mean one hasn't observed anything between electron and nucleus - but one hasn't directly observed these either, in place in the atoms;
  • b) and that one hasn't observed anything by electronic microscopy between two separate molecules watched in it.

I think it is at least too early to vindicate the "empty space" part of the atomistic view of matter against the "aether" view of space and thus of what is between the molecules observed in electronic microscopy.

Here we have a theory not completely vindicated in itself, and certainly not in its largest contrasts as against more ancient ones. Aristotelian view of space as extended matter and of non-existance of any space that is just empty cannot be ruled out without first ruling out aether, which, as said, we haven't done.

And this is a parallel to the non-proof from physical considerations of Heliocentrism. We could say that an interplay of gravitation (from the two masses and distance of two bodies) and inertia (from own mass of a moving body plus its previous movement) is too rudimentary to allow for Geocentrism on a Tychonian model. But we have not proven this is how the universe works any more than we have disproven aether. So, if we might just imagine allowing God for the daily movement and angels for periodic movements of each heavenly body, would this mean anything we observe had to be wrong? No. Angels would even give an explanation for "parallax" and "annual aberration" that is compatible with Geocentrism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St John's Eve or Midsummer Eve

Update, St John's Day : dialogue with Stephen Hand on FB includes him prompting me to summarise the position, here are some relevant passages from our correspondence:

Stephen Hand
Sir, why is Flat Earth muddled with the question at hand?

Would you kindly state your position on geocentrism here as points? 1. 2. 3. Etc. Thank you.

Was I really so unclear, or are you not the Stephen Hand who interviewed David Palm?

He tried to muddle geocentrism issue with three supposed parallels, and I try to unmuddle the issue, by taking a careful look at each supposed parallel.

Point 1 we have a Vasco da Gama proof for earth being round, we have NO Vasco da Gama proof for Earth going arooun the sun. We had an Eratosthenes proof for Earth itself being at least curved, but we have no Eratosthenes proof for Earth itself circling Sun (though we have such for Tychonian orbits if Earth doesn't).

2 Microscope beats telescope in clarity and access to minute clues about causality. Germ theory does NOT contradict old wisdom, heliocentrism by contrast does.

3 Atomic theory (here we come to closest parallel) is itself not fully proven, just as Heliocentrism isn't.

Which of above poins if any was really unclear?

Perhaps I really did write mainly for readers who already know I am Geocentric. Was my position really ambiguous to someone reading this article of mine as the first item of me they read?

Stephen Hand
I am the same. I simply want to make sure I understand you completely. Thanks.

I thought you were clear, but others, new to these questions and working their way through these problems have asked for point by point propositions when possible on the side. So I asked. I appreciate your helping.

Sunday, 21 June 2015

Pas circoncis, non.

1) Christian or Jew? Christian. And Antimasonic., 2) Pas circoncis, non.

Il y a quelques jours, peut-être une semaine et un jour*, que je viens de trouver dans le métro, là où on a su que je passe, le graffito "[étoile de David] ou [croix]? Il faut choisir!"

Ajourd'hui quelqu'un a voulu utiliser les pissoirs pour savoir si je suis circoncis, la réponse est non.

Si je ne suis pas baptisé tout de suite, c'est que, même si mes parents étaient les deux Chrétiens, mon père étant à l'époque Adventiste de Septième Jour n'a pas cru que je devais être baptisé comme enfant et ma mère a été impressionée. Donc, mon baptême a attendu.

Je suis Chrétien. Je ne confesse ni ne pratique le Judaïsme. Je ne mélange pas, je ne prends pas plus des Juifs que ce que je considère qu'un Chrétien peut prendre licitement. Je leur fais confiance en grammaire de l'Hébreu (langue que je ne parle pas), mais pas en théologie.

Je les considère comme des branches coupées, qui peuvent être réinsérés dans l'olivier, mais pas comme l'olivier vivant, qui est plutôt l'Église Catholique. Ai-je enfin réussi à clarifier ma position, ou va-t-on encore essayer à brouiller les pistes et soulever des questions que je devais normalement regarder comme répondues?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Quatrième Dimanche après Pentécôte

* Moins, mercredi passé!

Vous connaissez l'explication héliocentrique des solstices et des équinoxes, je présume?

Sinon, informez-vous, d'abord, sur ce lien:

le planétarium : Le solstice d'été

C'est fait? Alors, c'est bien, vous connaissez l'explication héliocentrique de ces phénomènes.

Ce mouvement du Soleil qui semble monter et descendre dans le ciel n'est qu'apparent car ce n'est pas le Soleil qui bouge mais bien la Terre. Chaque jour, la Terre tourne sur elle-même en 24 heures par rapport à un axe de rotation incliné passant par les pôles, appelé "axe polaire". Pendant que la Terre tourne sur elle-même, elle effectue chaque année le tour du Soleil en maintenant son axe polaire toujours penché et orienté dans la même direction du ciel.

Qu'en est-il pour l'explication géocentrique?

Dans le mot solstice, on retrouve deux mots issus du latin : « sol » qui veut dire Soleil et « stice » qui vient de stare qui signifie « s’arrêter ». Chaque jour, le Soleil est le plus haut dans le ciel à midi (heure solaire). Si on mesure cette hauteur tous les jours, on constate qu'elle varie.

Cette variation de hauteur du Soleil entraine alors une variation de la durée du jour.

Le 21 décembre correspond à la hauteur du Soleil à midi la plus basse de l'année et au jour le plus court.

Le 21 juin, le Soleil atteint sa hauteur la plus haute de l'année à midi et cela correspond au jour le plus long.

Ce mouvement du Soleil qui semble monter et descendre dans le ciel ...

... est bien réel, et non seulement apparent. C'est pour ça que je dis que le géocentrisme est empirique et l'héliocentrisme gnostique.

Nous les géocentriques, nous croyons les apparences (à moins de preuve du contraire) réelles. Et vous, les héliocentriques (car pas mal de mes lecteurs le sont encore) les croyez juste apparentes et l'inverse de la réalité.

Sinon "sans preuve" au moins sans preuve acceptable pour un Chrétien. Car, pour un Chrétien, les effets de gravitation et de l'inertie qui découlent de la masse et qui sont censés être les vraies explications méchaniques de cette explication géométrique héliocentrique, ne sont pas les seuls causalités admissibles, et cette explication, avec ses possibles corrolaires géométriques inverses aux apparences, n'est donc pas la seule explication possible. On a Dieu pour faire bouger l'Univers autour de la Terre, chaque jour. On a les anges pour faire bouger le Soleil et la Lune autour de l'écliptique chaque année solaire ou mois lunaire. Donc, le géocentrisme reste possible. Et s'il est possible, et s'il colle mieux aux apparences, il est préférable.

Mais, si les preuves pour l'héliocentrisme ne sont pas exactement acceptables pour un Chrétien, ils sont néanmoins très souvent acceptés parmi nous. Le malfait découle d'une école publique dont un des points culturels quasi universels est de prôner une astronomie sans référance à Dieu ou aux anges et donc aussi une astronomie héliocentrique.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Quatrième Dimanche après Pentécôte

Friday, 19 June 2015

À Terni, peut-être?

Aujourd'hui, j'ai dû attendre longtemps devant une toilette. Peut-être celui d'avant (qui m'avait vu) avait pris le temps de taguer celle-ci avec une comparaison entre Algérie/Afrique 1962 et Europe/France en 2015.

Bon, comme déjà dit, dans les endroits où ces immigrés font le mal, je les considère comme étant expulsables. Comme à Terni où un garçon vient de harceler une fille de 12 à l'école parce qu'elle portait un crucifix. Là, on pourrait rendre Terni aux Italiens, car ils ont souffert comme d'un occupant./HGL

Deux choses à ajouter:

1) Ceci est une des choses qui aurait pu être évitez sans la saleté d'obligation scolaire. C'était mieux sous l'ancien régime, qui en Terni finit en 1860, quelques ans avant celui de Rome.

Sans obligation scolaire, quoi de plus facile que d'expulser (ou en occurrence avoir expulsé) le malfaiteur dès qu'il y a une malice notable?

En plus, l'école n'était pas mixte pour les deux sexes (le malfaiteur était un garçon, la victime une fille). La mixité scolaire a aussi fait ses dégâts.

2) Je ne sais pas si vous connaissez des immigrés qui disent des choses comme "il est malade".

Je ne veux pas dire qui le disent à propos de quelqu'un qui vomit, a diarrhée et fièvre, ou d'un patient de cancer.

Je veux dire ceux qui le disent à propos un vrai ou juste supposé fou, toxicomane ou alcoolique.

Il me semble qu'ils le disent plus souvent que les autres, dans ce contexte - mais je pourrais me tromper.

De toute manière, des gens qui disent ça, ce ne sont pas les amis de nos libertés, quelle que soit leur origine./HGL

Thursday, 18 June 2015

"skeptics" Don't Know How to Think

A pretty bold claim, but either they demonstrated that or did a very huge lapsus without correcting it.

Background. Sungenis has issued a 100,000 USD challenge for experimental proof that the Earth (yearly) revolves around the Sun.

If I were to try to claim it, I would dig up data of how space craft when linearly distancing from Earth was either observed from Earth as showing an apparent zig zag anually, or, that from them, Earth was observed in different angles depending on time of year. Because, the mathematical origo for its trajectory which it left behind certainly is one point (at least stable in relation to solar system at large), but, according to the Heliocentric theory, Earth does not stay in it, but rather anually passes through it once and then gets out of it for another year.

However, I have (as a Geocentric) looked into this. I suspect this experimental data is not available because the two possibly decisive kinds of observation were not thought of as important.

ALSO, I have thought that observing stellar annual parallax from Mars would show whether it was really a parallactic apparent movement, since distance to any star would be the same (roughly, we are speaking of a difference of light minutes on a scale of light years) and since the period (Mars year as opposed to Earth year) as well as the source of parallactic illusion in proper movement of Mars has a defined and in each case proportional difference to that of Earth, if Heliocentric interpretation of the data were true, observing parallax from Mars would very clearly and decisively confirm this.

However, the appropriate apparatus is not landed on Mars AND the negative parallax of 63 Ophiuchi also shows a problem in the Heliocentric interpretation of data.

Now, here is the link and quote from salient detail of Sungenis' challenge:

GWW : The $100,000 Heliocentric Challenge

Salient sentence:

This challenge is simple. Anyone who can provide qualified experimental proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun will be paid $100,000.

Note, the question is about Earth revolving around Sun, i e the yearly orbital (as Heliocentrics suppose) movement of Earth. Not about Earth revolving around itself, i e daily axial (as Heliocentrics suppose) movement of Earth.

Anyone who knows how to think knows these are two different questions.

Earth could theoretically be revolving around itself each day, while the larger movement of the year was even so provided by an orbit of the Sun along the Zodiac around Earth. So, proving (if one could) daily rotation of Earth would not prove the thesis that the challenge was about.

Now, here we come to skeptics:

Skeptics Stack Exchange astronomy : Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? [closed]

Questioner refers to challenge and says:

Isn't there any experimental proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

And here is one answer (after it was given, the thread was closed):

The simplest thing I can think of is the Foucault pendulum which, assuming the laws of motion are correct, demonstrates that the earth is turning rather than sitting still with the sun spinning around it.

[image of Foucault's pendulum]

Though I can imagine someone playing silly bugger could just make up a more complex model to explain that so the utterly essential first step is to get them to actually commit to and fully explain the model they want dis-proven.

If they're a parody site trying to encourage people to properly follow the scientific method then that may be possible but the money is unlikely to appear. If they're a genuine group then nothing is likely to be accepted.

Now, notice, first of all, Foucault's pendulum is supposed to prove Earth is TURNING (daily), not it is ORBITTING (yearly). This huge difference of issue adressed is masked by the use of a contrast: "rather than [Earth] sitting still with the sun spinning around it."

According to Classic Geocentrism (abhorring the TWO theses condemned in Galileo case), Sun is spinning around Earth in a double fashion : 1) daily westward, and 2) yearly, either going with the aether mainly and having a proper movement eastward which takes a year to complete or even (other Geocentric model) having its proper movement westward, the one observed, but lagging behind the stars, so it takes them a year to circle its slower course.

Obviously Foucault's pendulum only adresses the daily motion. And a Geocentric might put it down to aether rotating around earth and affacting bodies in any way near free fall (as the swing of a pendulum, for instance). Which I do. Or to the gravitational forces of the entire universe rotating westward around Earth, as I had gathered once that Sungenis does.

So, no, Sungenis is not putting forth a parody site, but he is trying to force Heliocentrics to use the scientific method with sufficient thought taken to discover it doesn't necessarily support Heliocentrism.

And, though for myself I have no 100,000 dollars to offer, so am I with this blog (and my previous ones).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Ephrem of Edessa (Ephrem the Syrian)

Mad Monarchist thought Sweden less Socialist than US

Reason : lower tax on corporations in Sweden.

However, in Sweden last year the highest personal income tax was 57% - a record for Europe surpassing even Denmark./HGL

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

Christian or Jew? Christian. And Antimasonic.

1) Christian or Jew? Christian. And Antimasonic., 2) Pas circoncis, non.

I agree with John Vennari on a few things:

Revolution in Tiara & Cope: The Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church
Defeat Modernism

And when I have said more than once Jews should convert and Jews are wrong, it should be pretty clear.

Unfortunately some idiots are spreading between them quite a few unnecessary doubts, I saw a graffito in the subway (where it was foreseeable I would pass, and Gipsies had seen me over the area), so, better be clear./HGL

PS, when I consider John Vennari is right on a few things, I do not include his praise of Masons during the time when Alta Vendita was issued for "maturity". This cult of "maturity" is not quite Christian. A Christian who has his goal in another world can achive his goal in his lifetime, namely to attain Heaven. Asking for a maturity which puts main goals beyond one's lifetime is not Christian./HGL

Sunday, 14 June 2015

Quelqu'un à Georges Pompidou Abuse le Système Olféo

Walid Shoebat "raciste, discriminatoire et révisionniste"? Ou des Musulmans qui cherchent une excuse de le bloquer?

Voici le filtrage de la Bpi:

La consultation du site est interdite sur les postes informatiques de la Bpi, conformément aux prescriptions de la Charte d'utilisation d'Internet que vous avez acceptée en vous connectant.

L'url est dans la catégorie : Racisme, Discrimination, Révisionnisme

Service de filtrage Olféo de la Bpi

Voici le lien:

Shoebat : Pope Francis Appeases The Religion Of The Antichrist ...

On pourrait ajouter que même quand il pourrait y avoir un automatisme, il semble y avoir incompétence.

Une page sur Heath Ledger et sa mort est bloquée comme "sexe, pronographie":

La consultation du site est interdite sur les postes informatiques de la Bpi, conformément aux prescriptions de la Charte d'utilisation d'Internet que vous avez acceptée en vous connectant.

L'url est dans la catégorie : Sexe, Pornographie

Service de filtrage Olféo de la Bpi

Vigilant Citizen : The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus and Heath Ledger's Sacrifice

"imagina" en "imaginarium" la raison du blocage? Je ne sais pas.

Par contre, l'attitude envers le site de Shoebat, ça n'a normalement pas pu être un programme qui cherche des mots clefs pour racisme etc, ça doit être classé par main, et chaque site ajouté à Olféo. Là, quelqu'un a sournoisement appliqué, contre le converti Shoebat, la politique de Mostafa Al-Adwy:

EuropeIsrael News : Un prédicateur égyptien « Un Chrétien n’a pas le droit de répandre sa religion. Elle est fondamentalement erronée »

Et je ne peux pas exclure que dans le cas de Vigilant Citizen il y ait question d'une politique semblable.

Saturday, 13 June 2015

Overdoing the Cui Bono

That Marxism and Freudianism are systems of analysis (of society and psyche) which show off a certain subtlety in discarding obvious and overt motives for actions or for systems, while seeking "more convincing ones" by a systematic mistrust of the obvious, is fairly well known.

Also, it is fairly well known that the mistrust very generally takes the form of asking "who is to gain" or "cui bono", like coroners and detectives on a crime scene, sometimes not even asking their Freudian or Marxist selves whether the scene they are coming to is really criminal.

Now, here* is where this was very neatly OVER-done:

Several petition have been organised calling for her [Bahar Mustafa's] resignation, one gaining almost 13,000 signatures.

It reads: "Bahar Mustafa should be removed from Goldsmiths University with police interaction and degree revocation” on the grounds of “using hate speech based on race and gender.”

The ‘hate speech’ refers to her use of hashtags such as #killallwhitemen and #misandry, as well as publicly calling someone 'white trash' under the official Goldsmiths' Twitter account.

Not very pleasant, but is this really ‘hate speech’?

In a seven minute long video defending her actions, Ms Mustafa articulated a compelling philosophical argument for why she rejects all such accusations of sexism and racism.

This is impossible, she claims, because “racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

"The current system would have to be one that enables only people of colour and women to benefit economically and socially on such a large scale and to the systematic exclusion of white people and men, who for the past 400 years would have to have been subjected to block colonisation. We do not live in such a system, we do not know of such a history, reverse racism and reverse sexism are not real."

Did you get it?

She is not just saying racism and sexism are criminal, because there is inegalitarian gain in them. She is saying they exist only where there is inegalitarian gain in them. Imagine murder being murder only when it enforces the class system. She is also saying that as there is no inegalitarian gain (?) in female and non-white privilege, because these don't exist (?), a female anti-male tirade and a non-white anti-white tirade cannot be racist or sexist, no matter how hateful.

She somehow missed on the fact that the legal definitions of "hate speech" do not take account of her no doubt Marxist, possibly also Freudian, analysis of what racism and sexism are.

It is very obvious she has committed hate speech. That the hate speech is not in support of an already present system of non-white privilege (if it is still a fact, e g in academia), that the hate speech is not in support of an already present system of female privilege (if it WERE a fact in certain publically financed circles depending on tax money) do not really change that.

In fact, they do not even change the fact that her hate speech was in an obvious way both racist and sexist.

Racist, because directed against whites. Sexist, because directed against males.

Now, the journalist, Jemima Thackray, has her reason for supporting Bahar Mustafa. Here it is:

This is a growing phenomenon for me personally; the current issue in my household is the ‘reverse sexism’ my husband perceives in children’s television programmes – the blundering idiocy of Postman Pat, the incompetence and egoism of Daddy Pig, the general absence of any positive male role models or father figures.

It is also a growing feature in the national debate, as male commentators express an increasing sense of uncertainty about how men ‘fit in’ in our evolving society.

For while I do agree that white men are sometimes belittled and portrayed negatively (occasionally seeming like the gender equivalent of Ukip as the target of all liberal scorn), this is not sexism.

It may not be very pleasant or constructive, but it cannot be put in the same category as the systematic and institutionalised prejudice experienced for hundreds of years by minority groups.

Jemima, being a minority group and experiencing racism for hundreds of years may be unpleasant, but the fact remains that the racism you experienced as a minority group (like the Irish) was not experienced hundreds of years at a single helping and was in fact experienced year after year. And each year then hurt as much as each year now.

And the fact remains, that when it was really unpleasant, it was not inflicted as much by "the majority" as by those in power with the support of the majority. Precisely as the white males at Goldsmith university are now experiencing something unpleasant from the people in power at the university, including but not limited to Bahar herself.

With the best will in the world, British men who talk about being treated with sexism (unless they are of a minority culture) have no understanding of the kind of default discrimination that is still woven into the fabric of almost every society around the world - the kind of subtle, even unconscious, attitudes which pre-judge another individual on the grounds of sex.

If sexism is for hundreds of years unconscious, how do you tell it is sexism?

By the way, in Islam you might find attitudes that are sexist in not so subtle and not so "unconscious" ways. You cannot compare obvious things like encouraging a suspicious man to let mistrust go from words to denial of bed and from denial of bed to hitting, even if he has no obvious reason to mistrust his wife, even if he never gets any proof, just because he doesn't find her act of asking for trust convincing enough, with the "sexism" that says males can be priests and not mothers and women can be mothers and not priests.

Unfortunately, you seem to have gotten yourself into the kind of position where you are systematically calling that "sexism":

And even in the church (my spiritual home and the institution I am dedicating myself to when I start training to be a vicar next year), I work alongside people who deny my ministry because I am not a man.

Ah, we are talking a priestess, here.

How come I am suddenly less surprised at your attitudes, Jemima?

Do not worry of me working alongside you, I left the Lutheran "Church" over the arrival of a priestess to my parish. Besides, I am not in for priesthood anyway.** I am Catholic and a layman.

But I am shocked of your writing alongside me and writing such bad analyses over the place.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Anacletus, Pope and Martyr

* The Telegraph : Accusing this ethnic minority woman of 'hate speech' is small-minded and hysterical
By Jemima Thackray / 8:00AM BST 21 May 2015

** How Ormulum prefutes you can be read here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Ormulum vs. Priestesses

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

Les Français et le Créationnisme

Un Jacques Arnould, censé être dominicain, ordinis praedicatorum, peut faire ses divagations sur la présence des paraboles et sur la possibilité que d'autres textes bibliques que les seules paraboles signalées comme telles soient à lire comme des paraboles. Il peut prétendre que la tradition nous y invite.

Or, dans un sens précis, oui. La tradition nous invite effectivement à aller au-delà du pure texte de la Genèse et d'y faire des découvertes d'un sens parabolique - mais pas historique, sur la création, mais prophétique, sur ce qu'allait faire Jésus-Christ. Tous les six jours et le septième aussi ont un rapport avec ce que Jésus fit entre l'entrée triomphale à Jérusalem (ou même la vielle, le jour qu'Il résuscite St Lazare) et la Résurrection.

Mais ce n'est pas ce sens traditionnel là que nous enseigne Jacques Arnould. Non, il veut simplement donner des excuses pour fermer les bouches des gens qui prennent les six jours comme tels, quand il s'agit du sens primaire du texte, quand il s'agit de la création du monde.

Est-ce une illustration suffisente?

Bon, prenons Lydia Jaeger! Elle est évangélique de confession, comme on dit. Elle est invité à la maison diocésaine de Valence (j'ai commencé la vidéo) et quand elle ouvre la bouche, d'abord elle est embêtée par le choix du thème, ensuite elle le réinterprète comme une invitation à parler sur la théologie de la création, en général - sans faire trop d'attention à ça des six jours et de tout ça.

Ou Harun Yahya. Quand un français ouvre finalement un livre par un créationniste, c'est L'Atlas de la Création, par Harun Yahya. Or, Haurun Yahya est Musulman. Donc, le créationnisme est Musulman.

Ou encore, confusion entre créationnisme, visant à recrédibiliser une vue traditionnelle sur la création, et "concordisme", un phénomène mise en place par Buccaille.

Ce Buccaille était certainement pas en premier ligne créationniste, ni réactionnaire dans les sciences.

Il trouve des "données" de l'héliocentrisme dans le Qoran. Quelque part il est dit qu'Allah aurait fixé les cycles pour la lune et le soleil et ils disent "le soleil aussi? c'est que par miracle Mahomet (pssn) a su que le soleil tourne autour de lui-même ce qui se montre avec les tâches de soleil" (et ça ne pourrait biensûr pas simplement être le genre de cycle que le soleil a à faire selon le géocentrisme!)

Si quelqu'un trouve le Big Bang dans le Qoran, soit c'est Buccaille, soit quelqu'un agissant dans son esprit.

Or, je crois que plus qu'un à marre de Maurice Buccaille. Ensuite, il y en a qui ont marre de Harun Yahya à cause de Musulmans qui adulent Buccaille. Et après on fait un mélange mental entre Buccaille et Yahya, entre Yahya et le créationnisme en général, et finit par avoir le créationnisme six jours "des Américains" en même dégoût que Maurice Buccaille.

Or, le créationnisme et Buccaille font à peu près les chemins inverses.

Buccaille partait du fait que la Bible était tellement précise qu'elle était "réfutée par les sciences exactes" tandis que le Qoran avait un flou qu'on pouvait réinterpréter selon les données modernes.

Les créationnistes par contre, nous nous vantons du fait que les six jours sont incompatibles avec ce qu'on appelle "la science moderne" et nous trouvons dedans un indice que c'est, en réalité, de la pseudo-science.

Et notre débat n'est pas un fade "on peut interpréter ça comme ça, et ça colle avec les sciences", au contraire, nous sommes contre cette démarche, notre débat est au contraire (pour la plupart du temps) d'argumenter scientifiquement contre le pseudoscience moderne.

Si par exemple un docteur me dira que les bactéries dans ma gorge sont probablement une souche qui a évolué, je suis bien d'accord, la souche a pu changer. Mais les streptocoques restent essentiellement des streptocoques, ils ne deviennent pas amibes, ni virus, ni organismes pluricellulaires. C'est lui, pas moi, qui doit faire une habile "interprétation" pour trouver de l'évolution (dans le sens contraire aux six jours, dans le sens qui présuppose millions d'années, etc) dans un phénomène somme tout assez banal.

Rappelons à ce propos que Maurice Buccaille était docteur. Espérons qu'il était mieux pour les patients en otorhinolaryngologie que comme intellectuel. Et si j'irais à un docteur (la grande partie de mon mal à gorge étant déjà soignée, avec grande consommation de protéines et de vitamine C), j'espère que son traitement serait plus apte aux maux médicaux, que son discours peut parfois être dans les mots non-médicaux.

Mais le fait que je dois même les évoquer dans ce contexte dit long et large sur ce que j'ai commencé à m'attendre des français.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Margarèthe d'Écosse

Pour restaurer un jour enlevé injustement et y rester sur le thème écossais, je viens d'écrire sur le jour de St Colomba d'Iona, le 9-VI-2015, la veille de Sainte Margarèthe./HGL

Monday, 8 June 2015

Ayant fait pèlerinage en 2004, je me confie à Dieu, à la Sainte Vierge et à St Jacques

Contre ceux qui ont voulu y voir un pèlerinage permanent et qui ont voulu encourager ça et décourager mes autres démarches.

Contre ceux qui ont voulu y voir un pèlerinage permanent et qui ont cru devoir me faire des blocages pour que mes démarches ne deviennent pas tel./HGL

Et m'ayant confié à Dieu contre mes ennemis, je les pardonne quand en moi, et pour les choses passées. Par contre, je ne renonce pas au droit de me défendre dans le futur, ni de recevoir si occasion sera donnée des récompenses./HGL

Thursday, 4 June 2015

Sanctum Festum Corporis Christi

lectoribus exopto.

Ces Profs de Philo ...

Le mien était Russellien (pas Russellien d'après Charles Taze, mais d'après Bernard, celui avec la théière). Un autre ne brûle que pour Bruno (soyons heureux que ce n'est pas avec lui). Et voici, un troisième, qui ne connaît pas le texte de Tolkien et qui ne vérifie pas le texte d'où un étudiant tire son illustration:

Tolkien et la philosophie p. 1

Tolkien et la philosophie p. 2

Je croyais que si un étudiant a dépassé son professeur en quelque lecture, c'est au professeur de rattraper?

"De ce que je comprends l'analyse était pas mauvaise, mais il n'a pas émis d'avis car il ne connaît pas en détail l'oeuvre de Tolkien, si ce n'est de nom..."

En cas pareil, une semaine entre mars et mai pour lire l'œuvre qui fut abordé n'aurait pas été de trop!

Bonne fête de Corpus Christi! Bonne Fête-Dieu!

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jeudi 4-VI-2015

PS : Parions que St Thomas d'Aquin aurait fait un meilleure œuvre comme corrigeur. Il a même pu une fois écrire les hymnes d'aujourd'hui, ce qui n'est pas accordé à chaque prof de philo./HGL

Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Tzipi Hotovely et Rashi ...

J'ai les nouvelles à travers un blog tradi.

La nouvelle ministre israélienne adjointe des Affaires étrangères Tzipi Hotovely évoque l'autorité des écrits religieux juifs pour justifier l'annexion de tous les territoires compris entre Jourdain et Méditerranée. Qu'en disent les partisans de la "laïcité" républicaine en France ?

Que disent les partisans de la laïcité, je m'en fous. Par contre, si toute la terre est aux Juifs elle est également aux Chrétiens de souche Palestinienne et même aux Musulmans de souche partiellement Palestinienne.

CAR ces peuples descendent des Juifs et des Samariens du Premier Siècle Anno Domini : les Juifs des gens rejetant Notre Seigneur, parmi seuls les Juifs de Judée et Galilée, les Palestiniens des gens qui l'acceptaient parmi Juifs de Judée et Galilée ainsi que parmi Samariens de Samarie.

Mme Hotovely a cité Rashi, un rabbin français du Moyen-Age, selon lequel la Torah s'ouvre sur la création du monde "pour que, si les peuples du monde viennent vous dire que vous êtes des voleurs et que vous occupez la terre des autres, vous leur disiez que toute cette terre appartient au créateur de ce monde et que, quand il l'a décidé, il l'a leur a prise et nous l'a donnée".

Un propos presque correct quand au remplacement des pouvoirs non-chrétiennes et idolâtres, notemment en Philippines et pas mal des Amériques, aussi partie d'Afrique, avec des pouvoirs chrétiens. Mais les Chrétiens de Palestine ne sont ni idolâtres, ni autrement "les peuples du monde" et le propos n'est pas correct quand à eux. Et les Musulmans de Palestine ont des ancêtres qui remontent pas juste des envahisseurs sous Omar, mais aussi des envahis Chrétiens. Donc, somme tout, pas une bonne boutade contre Palestiniens.

Par contre, tenir le territoire ensemble n'est pas une mauvaise idée du tout en soi : on peut partager le pouvoir législatif et juridictionnel selon les personnes à juger. Donc avoir tout le territoire entre Jourdain et la Méditerranée sous Knesset - quand aux habitants de confession juive. Tout le territoire entre Jourdain et Méditerranée sous Ramallah - quand aux habitants Musulmans. Et tout le territoire entre Jourdain et la Méditerranée sous encore une autre autorité, spécifiquement chrétienne, quand aux Chrétiens.

C'est ce que je viens déjà de proposer:

HGL's F.B. writings : I have written on Jews and their relations with others

Et pas en mon nom, car si j'aurais l'honneur de réaliser ce plan par conseil ou quelconque autre moyen, je le nommerais après John Ronald Reuel Tolkien : il décrivit une société qui entre populations des hommes et des hobbits fonctionnait sur ce plan, dans un de ses romans.

On m'a attaqué sans cause sur mes propos quand à l'origine pas très dubitable des Palestiniens chrétiens des Juifs, Samariens et Galiléens chrétiens du Premier Siècle, ce n'est pas m'a conclusion qui est gâché par le dogme catholique (parce que nul part dans un quelconque catéchisme je n'ai trouvé ceci, ni dans les pères de l'église), je viens de faire l'observation à partir de l'histoire connue des temps entre Chosroës et Omar, merci à The Desert a City, merci à Derwas Chitty. Et ceux qui m'ont attaqué, c'est leur conclusion qui est gâché par les dogmes de la Juiverie.

En considérant que les Chrétiens des premiers temps étaient "apostats", ils considèrent que ces sémites de Palestine Salutaire étaient devenues "goyim" - ce qui ne les ont pas empêché à reconnaître la Juiverie de Perse, dont beaucoup sortent de Palestine avec l'expulsion de Chosroës, qui avant leur (vraie!) apostasie au judaïsme avaient été Chrétiens.

Ça fait temps qu'on cesse de me casser la tête sur ce fait, comme si l'identitée palestinienne se resumait aux seuls Musulmans. En effet, ceux-ci ont fait du mal aux autres et ils ont été en plus augmentés en nombre par Circassiens et Algériens émigrés des pouvoirs à l'époque russes et français. Mais leur immigration n'a rien de quoi expliquer les 30% de Palestiniens qui sont Chrétiens. DONC, ce n'est pas relevant à la question, surtout celle des droits des précisément Chrétiens de Palestine. Car le gouverneur turque qui a fait venir gens d'Algérie et du Caucase n'a certainement pas invité les Chrétiens, il a invité les Musulmans seuls.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Ste Clotilde de Paris
Reine des Francs

Some of you Know, I am Writing a Pro-Life Novel

But there have been no more chapters added for some time now.

Well, fortunately, this year has seen a pro-life novel make it to print.

Her Choice [Paperback – August 12, 2014]
by Dean Thompson (Author)

OK, even last year!

That is my recommendation this day of St Clotilde!/HGL

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

Un Celte Noir

Wikipedia : John McWhorter


John Hamilton McWhorter V

Et à la fois Hamilton* et le préfixe Mc (fils en celtique gaélique étant macc) sonnent très clairement comme des origines écossaises ou irlandaises.


Ça dit, un lapsus qui ne tient pas compte des spécificités des populations celtes et noires outre-atlantiques, pour la grande partie, ne mérite pas une peine de prison.

Et si Boris Le Lay a voulu dire que les Soudanais immigrés d'Afrique n'ont pas les coutumes des Celtes, ni les mêmes origines après la Tour de Babel, il a dit une chose parfaitement raisonnable.

Étrange coutume judiciaire selon laquelle on ait pu inculper des propos comme ça. Si ce n'est pas plutôt une coutume récente politique.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Sts Pothin, Blandine
et d'autres Martyrs à Lyon

* Bon, Hamilton est un clan des Lowlands, et le nom est anglosaxon : Walter fitz Gilbert of Hambledon. Reste le "Mc". Et effectivement, malgré le "wh" qui pourrait faire croire à un nom anglophone, c'est un nom celte : "The McWhorter surname is an Anglicized form of the Gaelic 'Mac Chruiteir' a patronymic created from the occupational byname 'Cruiteir' or 'a player of the crwth'." Source.