Four Things I Believe Like 500 Years Ago

4 Things Christians Believed About the Bible 500 Years Ago
Mindshift | 24 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhXdUyGKy34

I Geocentrism

I still support a stationary earth.

A

Youknow Itstrue

@youknowitstrue3826

Too bad objective reality doesn't care what you support.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 You have the private phone number of "objective reality"?

Objective observations do support Geocentrism.

conquest_icon

@conquest_icon-f4w

@hglundahl , The Sun is stationary the earth moves😂😂😂. How much easier do you want me to explain it to you😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w OK, I didn't doubt you had this explanation so now proceed to provide another thing ... the proof.

Especially the proof from observation. Nearly all of the ones astronomy are based on are geocentric ones.

conquest_icon

@hglundahl 😂😂😂😂.

Youknow Itstrue

@hglundahl It sure doesn't, pagan, but a neat little feature of objective reality is that it can be tested, verified and proven. Crazy concept, huh? Of course, you pagans are various degrees of functionally braindead and pathological liars, but since you claimed that "objective observations" support your claim I would love to see the research you don't have. And I bet there's a lot of scientists in all related fields agreeing with you too. Otherwise, do you have any theories as to why not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w OK, have a laugh, you may need it ...

When you're done, get back to proving ... if you can.

In case you skipped logic, proving sth to be true and explaining how it works are not the same logic operation.

conquest_icon

@hglundahl , go read a basic book on astronomy. I am not here to teach you about the earth's revolutions 😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w No, because when it comes to proving, you know you can't.

I did pick up a book on astronomy the afternoon before I became a Geocentric for good.

I did check that the "proper movement" that was largest, 10 arc seconds per year, was a significant portion of the "aberration" and way surpassed the "parallax" ... that and knowing about angelic movers (as per St. Thomas or Riccioli) did it. Parallax didn't prove Earth moved each year, as I had been thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 $"tested, verified and proven."

I don't know what you mean by "Pagan", but I do know that tested, verified and proven are not what you support Heliocentrism with.

My research involves looking up at the sky. So does Herschel's. Now tell me what Herschel saw (which I'm probably aware of) which convinced him and you and on your view should convince me that Heliocentrism is "tested, verified and proven" as you put it ...

conquest_icon

@hglundahl , st Thomas of riccolli 😂😂😂😂. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. We are talking about astronomy. You are quoting the man who taught it was OK to kill heretics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w Both of St. Thomas Aquinas and Giovanni Battista Riccioli thought it was OK to execute heretics under certain court procedures.

It's not just one man.

Both of them spoke of angelic movers, and Riccioli, the one of them who was an astronomer, recognised there is no such science as astrophysics. Especially not on the level of Celestial Mechanics. He did however think angelic movers made most sense.

Youknow Itstrue

@hglundahl What software and hardware do you use? Which book? How did you disprove or explain stellar parallax or Foucault pendelum? Do you believe in gravity? You want us to believe this truth you have, right? So what's the problem?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 "What software and hardware do you use?"

None, my argument is simpler than that.

"Which book?"

I consulted? A paperback from 1980 in Swedish. It said the greatest parallax was 0.76 arc seconds, the aberration 20 arcs seconds (unless I misrecall) and Barnard's star 10 arc seconds (not back and forth, and per year, so c. 1/4 of the aberration).

"How did you disprove or explain stellar parallax"

After looking at the info on Barnard's star and knowing angelic movers: by angelic movers.

"or Foucault pendelum?"

Space has a substance, not just empty coordinates. That substance circles earth up to the height of Fix stars 1 full circle in 23 h 56 min. Moved, not by an angel, but by God.

"Do you believe in gravity?"

I do not believe gravity to be the sole cause in the universe. Even Heliocentrism accepts inertia too. As I believe God exists and angels exist, I see no reason why gravity and inertia should be the sole two causes even on this scale, and therefore none to distrust the immediate observation.

"You want us to believe this truth you have, right?"

Why the heck "this truth you have" .... centuries have had it in millions, I'm not unique, just reactionary.

conquest_icon

@hglundahl , both of them were ignorant as it pertains to basic science 😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w If by "basic science" you mean "materialistic world view" that's not ignorance, it's disagreement.

If you mean "basic astronomy" (the scientific discipline), it's ludicrous to call Riccioli ignorant, he beats both of us.

Youknow Itstrue

@hglundahl Take your meds. We're specifically talking about the material reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 Sun, Moon, Earth and presumably Fix Stars are material realitieS.

This does not mean that all of reality is material or that only material realitieS can affect other material realitieS, to the exclusion of non-material realitieS doing so.

As to your insult, are you a damned Swede?*

YOUR attitude is the exact reason why I left my country 2004 and have never returned, apart from the embassy being Swedish ground.

It is also a pretty obvious thing that this kind of marginalisation is an excellent method of keeping anything going even if it isn't true, so, of keeping a lie going even if it's a lie. When it's the opposition to it you marginalise, of course.

After this response, I'm blocking you, and I'm far from certain you aren't personally identic to other profiles I've blocked.

* footnote:

I met a suspected Swede when leaving for the cyber, and it ruins my good mood. I should obviously have asked if he considered Riccioli or everyone else 500 years ago in need of medications.

I'd not be surprised if he did, it would show the "Present Time Exceptionalism" to the nth degree that's so typical and unbearable with today's Sweden. Culturally, it's in many areas (including Malmö) a very Commie country.

I did not wait for his response, I blocked him.

Update: I don't believe all Swedes are damned, but I'm very well aware of this type, and I think, barring a near miraculous repentance for any of them, they are.

B

conquest_icon

@youknowitstrue3826 , read their other comments, this individual if they are not a bot does not deal in reality 😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w You are aware that this kind of marginalisation of opposition is an excellent method of keeping a lie going, even if it's a lie ... of keeping anything going even if it isn't true, that is

I'm not a fan of Luther, Martin, but his view on Copernicus, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day ...

the word is "phenomenological language" and it could apply to Joshua 10:13. As Luther mentioned, it's much harder to fit it with Joshua 10:12, because Joshua is there not telling anyone what happened, but he's on God's behalf ordering the thing that needs to miraculously change behaviour

II Young Earth Creationism

I think you overdo the difference of interpretation, except as to the choice of text version, like LXX over Masoretic timeline (different in Genesis 5 and 11) and between 6 * 24 h vs "one single moment" ...

III Mosaic authorship

again, Moses wrote the Pentateuch

most chapters of Genesis were pre-written by patriarchs or pre-dictated orally, and last chapters of Deuteronomy were written by Joshua

Moses had a vision of creation on Mount Sinai

IV usury

I'm opposed to lending on interest

borrowing is not the borrower's sin of interest taking, but the lender's ...

Yes, I Did Sign Up For Belief in Sacrifice of the Mass When I Converted

I did so consciously. I already believed the Real Presence before my Baptism and as a Lutheran, and was shocked at Calvinists not believing it.

But I learned of and accepted the sacrifice of the Mass while converting.

The BIGGEST Problem With The Catholic Church… (NOT What You Think)
iThink Biblically (Church Adelaide) | 22 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqj86vDBYRA

1:00 You are already misrepresenting.

The bread and wine do not become the Soul and Divinity, these are made present by "natural concomitance" ... (like the Blood under the species of Bread, like the Body under the species of Wine).

What you do get right is, the Human Soul and the Divinity are made present ... God as such is omnipresent, but God is made present in a way He wasn't there before, like when Jesus walked into a room, for instance in the house of Jairus.

1:16 Thank you for calling "many Catholics" basically Anglo-Catholics or High Church Lutherans.

You can be a believer in Real Presence, even so a Protestant, like Luther was, like the Danish born Queen of James I was, simply because you deny Jesus is being Sacrificed in the Mass.

In whatever sense that may be.

I learned this while converting, thank you very much, and that was in my teens. One of the ideas behind a Trad Resistance in Catholicism is taking a distance from the kind of people you referred to as "many Catholics" ....

1:27 "to appease the wrath of God"

I'm not sure you ever find that word used about the as yet unsaved or about God's attitude prior to Calvary ever in the Bible, I just skimmed over 35 mentions of "wrath" in the DRB NT.

I think the Bible uses the word either about an eternally unappeased wrath, against those rejecting His grace, or a wrath leading to an actual temporal punishment. Including but not limited to the end of the world.

In Trent Session XXII you do not find "propitiatory sacrifice" defined as "to appease the wrath of God" ...

3:40 Yes, we believe that ...

I was well aware of it when I converted in 1988.

4:05 The Bible teaches that Christ is not killed more than once.

It doesn't say the presence of His Sacrifice comes only at Calvary.

The one death is being shown forth in each ... sacrifice.

Get your Bible quotes straight!

On Calvary, He made once an oblation ... but it makes Him forever a priest on the order of Melchisedec, so, He is offering that one oblation again, as priest in the consecrated person, the duly ordained priest, and as victim in the consecrated Host. We would only be contradicting Hebrews 10 if we taught the Mass were another oblation than that once on Calvary.

So, how is it the same? 1) Same priest, Jesus. 2) Same victim, Jesus, His Blood separated from His Body. 3) Same goal of sacrifice, to propitiate, to atone for sins, to give thanks and to give praise.

4:19 Your quote and bishop Challoner's comment:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others
[Hebrews 9:25]

[25] "Offer himself often": Christ shall never more offer himself in sacrifice, in that violent, painful, and bloody manner, nor can there be any occasion for it: since by that one sacrifice upon the cross, he has furnished the full ransom, redemption, and remedy for all the sins of the world. But this hinders not that he may offer himself daily in the sacred mysteries in an unbloody manner, for the daily application of that one sacrifice of redemption to our souls.

5:33 Now, the quote, and a very clearly referenced parallel text:

But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool
[Hebrews 10:12-13]

The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool
[Psalms 109:1]

But read on here:

The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech
[Psalms 109:4]

For "priest" the Hebrew uses "kohen" the same term as for Aaronite priests. And the order of Melchisedech was this:

But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God Blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth And blessed be the most high God, by whose protection the enemies are in thy hands. And he gave him the tithes of all
[Genesis 14:18-20]

So, the eternal sacrifice of Jesus looks like bringing forth bread and wine ... well, that's exactly what we are saying.

6:11 "never to be offered again"

In the same manner.

Democracy is Neither Best Nor Per Se Best for Basic Freedom Or Equality

Tolkien's (VERY) Controversial Take on Democracy
Sword and Scroll | 14 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjs8rKzN1s

I

E F

@eafky3935

I think the biggest problem with democracy is that it basically allows two idiots to out vote a genius and trust me....
Whether we like it or not accept it or not a huge portion of people around the world are simply not smart...
And even a bigger portion are outright stupid....
Just like socialism or communism is a good dream....
A bad idea....
And terrible outcome....
This are only good if it wasn't for us humans because let's accept it... HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL
Never was and never will be equal
No matters how hard you try to force everyone to live just like cattle we love to do our things and be different its in our nature....
Some are smarter
More competent
More diligent

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

I think you have, from Tolkien's perspective, from Chesterton's or from mine, given the worst possible criticism of Democracy.

That it assumes voters are, before the law, equal.

A voter doesn't have to be smart. He just has not to be currently hoodwinked into some miserable gamble.

And your gamble on finding the superior man is one of the most miserable there is.

E F

@hglundahl with all respect brother 🙏
It's just my opinion ....
But I have witness what's happened when you give fools right to choose and power to control....
Im Iranian and i lost almost my entire youth to this so called democratic Islamic republic of iran
Democracy is almost always fundamentally weak if not lead by great and honourable people...😢
It's not from Tolkien perspective but mine....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@eafky3935 OK ... but are we talking of fools or non-Christians there?

II

Ian

@monkeymox2544

Except Aragorn does actively seek and desire kingship. It isn't a mantle that he takes on reluctantly, he pursues (or at least prepares for) it for his whole life, he believes it is his right, and he guards that right. He does so with humility and pragmatism, but he still does it. Of course a part of that is his desire to be with Arwen, but that isn't the whole story. In this video you seem to be talking about the film version of Aragorn, not the book version.

Tolkien clearly thought that part of the problem with the world is when the wrong people are in charge instead of the right people. And the right people are often defined in terms of... well... right. Some people are lesser, others higher, and being higher, they are fitter to rule.

Just look at his so-called 'free peoples' - they aren't actually free. Their freedom consists entirely in their freedom to be ruled by their own, rather than foreign lords. But those people are still ruled, subject to the whims and fancies of absolute rulers. They aren't free by any sensible definition. And Tolkien never questions whether they really do have a right to rule, he seems happy that these kinds of power relations should exist. Tolkien often talks about Sauron having 'slaves', whereas Aragorn's subjects towards the end of the Return of the King are described as 'servants', but in terms of the actual power relation, it is a distinction without a difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"whereas Aragorn's subjects towards the end of the Return of the King are described as 'servants',"

Are they?

I don't think so.

I think some of them are described as that, because that was their precise function. I don't think he ever described an old woman of Minas Tirith or a fisherman in Dol Amroth (not sure of the landscapes) as his own servant, but some were his servants, like Beef Eaters are servants of Charles III.

The difference is, is a man in his own house in no public function in Cornwall the servant of Charles III or any of his administrations, or isn't he?

The freedom isn't in having a say in who rules you. The freedom is in your being ruled in a way that doesn't ruin your freedoms.

Ian

@hglundahl I can't find the quote about servants, just flicking through, I'll have to have a closer search when I have a moment. I remember noticing it on my last read.

Freedom, though, can't be secured without the ability to choose who governs you. If you're ruled absoloutely, then you are not free, even if the person ruling you grants you all the superficial freedoms you desire.

'Ruled' is the key word, really. No-one who is ruled, is free. The less absoloute and arbitrary and fixed a form of government is, the more free it is, provided certain foundational freedoms are also protected.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@monkeymox2544 "Freedom, though, can't be secured without the ability to choose who governs you."

That's a claim by politologists which I think Tolkien would disagree with and so would I.

"even if the person ruling you grants you all the superficial freedoms you desire."

What's superficial about having freedom in your own life?

"provided certain foundational freedoms are also protected."

A proviso that Democracies have not been good at providing ....

"'Ruled' is the key word, really. No-one who is ruled, is free."

A state need not be a free person for its citizens to be such ...

But seriously, that word is obfuscating realities. If you are not a hermit living totally offgrid or a ruler, you are ruled. It means you can be required to do or let be things by people like the police.

Me and Garabandal

The video poses a question near the end, I'm giving that answer first below it.

The REAL Reason Garabandal Was Never Approved
Messenger of God | 19 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsmYg9OBjXA

I'm somewhat in between, but closer to believers' side.

As an adherent of Pope Michael II, I do have a problem with "there is now no other Pope to obey than Paul VI" which, if I recollect correctly was said to Conchita. Unless it meant sth like absence of other Popes (like "Clement XV" or "John Gregory XVII") or impossibility to obey one (if Siri was the real Pope but acting only through his limited influence on "Paul VI"), rather than a direct endorsement of "Paul VI" as actual Pope.

However, before I landed there, I was a devotee of Padre Pio and Garabandal, because Tom Zimmer was. I met him while converting. That Tom Zimmer, the Pilgrim of Loreto.

I didn't know he was mostly staying in Loreto, I met him in Rome. His tract Hope 84, to Honor Our Lady's Assumption (honor without ou, he was US American), it was like an extra catechism to me.

25:54 "Fr" Spitzer looks a lot like Joey Mangino, and is still alive.

So, if on the day of the miracle "Fr" Spitzer SJ receives new eyes, it will be kind of a fulfilment.

27:24 Pope Michael I, one Pope. Pope Michael II, two popes, not yet dead.

If "Paul VI" through "Leo XIV" are false popes, that could still be fulfilled.

---

Here is an argument that "Leo" isn't Pope:

Leo's Vatican Begins The Process To Canonize Teilhard de Chardin
Return To Tradition | 16 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjkZmjulmvM

No Flat Earther Here, Sirs (Nor Many in Early Church History)

@answersingenesis
Did the Church Teach That the Earth Is Flat?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1YUIhlLloRs

While the Church didn't teach the Earth was flat, it seems individual Church Fathers did.

And that's good, it means they rejected Greek cosmology. Now, is Greek cosmology that bad? Not really, but Greek cosmology taught concentric solid and transparent (so, crystalline) spheres.

Meanwhile, this leaves all of the early Church teaching that "Earth" ... sorry LAND ... has four corners, which is what Eretz means in contexts like Apoc. 7:1 (not sure of the precise extension of meaning of the Greek "ge" but it's used as a calque of Eretz), and all of the early Church teaching that Earth (this time, it's the correct English term) doesn't move, but Heavens move around Earth up to the stars.

(Solid spheres were refuted by Tycho Brahe, by the way, when observing a comet as not purely atmospheric and which would have passed through several solids if they had been there).

Life expectancy

The Life Expectancy Lies That Won't Die
vlogbrothers | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B209EM_IJM

4:07 For my wikipedian genealogies with statistics (latest tracing ancestry of Eugene of Savoy to 1400's*), I actually give minima, maxima, medians, lower and higher quartiles.

AND I admit, though it was some time ago, that this gives an "ancestor bias" which like "professional bias" means, the persons would have lived past childhood.

Taking Eugene of Savoy stats:

Men died

Min 25, Lower Quartile 38, Median 51, Higher Quartile 58, Max 72

Women died

Min 20 or 21, Lower Quartile 34, Median 55, Higher Quartile 68, Max 86

So, half the men died between 38 and 58. Half the women died between 34 and 68.

We can take marriage too:

Men married

Min 14, Lower Quartile 22.5, Median 25, Higher Quartile 31.5, Max 47

Women married

Min 11 or 14 (depending on how you count), Lower Quartile, 15.5 or 16, Median, 17.5 or 18, Higher Quartile 21.5 or 22.5, Max 35

The words "depending on how you count" refer to a marriage and its consummation at 15, which only in the legal case is the lowest age. There are other discrepancies, since for some women the birthyear or even the year of marriage is not given on wiki.

Do you find these statistics surprising or (if you admit ancestor bias) misleading?**

5:42 Checking your stats link:***

For example, 15-year-olds in 1816 in France had a life expectancy of 58 years. By 2021, the life expectancy of 15-year-olds increased to 83.

This obviously doesn't cover all ages, just the ones we have good statistics for.

* Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Eugene of Savoy
Saturday, August 22, 2026 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 9:01 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2026/08/eugene-of-savoy.html

** Giving him a week to answer before this is published.

*** Meanwhile, living to 58 when if surviving to 15 is a fairly good match for the statistics I have given for previous centuries. Here is the link:

Key Insights on Life Expectancy: Life expectancy has increased at all ages
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy?insight=life-expectancy-has-increased-at-all-ages#research-writing

Was Anthony Stine misconstruing Cardinal McElroy? I find it possible

American Cardinal Declares You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy
Return To Tradition | 15 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUuoNU83QY

2:10 No one intrinsically owns anything.

Did you note the word "intrinsically"?

The corrollary is, all private ownership is extrinsically assigned, by a kind of art.

Now, what did St. Thomas say?

Reply to Objection 1. Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (II-II:57:3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.

Reply to objection 1 is in article 2 of question 66 of Secunda Secundae, in case you wonder.

Sometimes when people find me childish in expression, I am going by wordings that simply translate St. Thomas. Like "thing" for "substance" or "can be" for "is in potency" or "is actually" for "is in act" ... and sometimes when people find me not a Christian conservative in content, it's because that's what they would think of St. Thomas too, if they actually read him (and some Protestant Conservatives actually do think that).

3:08 For "co-creators" I'd definitely prefer Tolkien's term "sub-creators" ...

3:25 Catholic teaching certainly says that private property is in a sense a right.

1) It is a right to have property for what one needs, collective or private.
2) Once it has been allotted either way, usually privately, one usually has a right to undisturbed use of it, even if it should exceed one's needs, it's not as if everyone had to give away all according to his possibilities and just keep the bare needs, or as if keeping more than one strictly needs were immediately in respect to everyone having less an injustice.

Same article, this time I give the corpus:

I answer that, Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.

The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. On this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:17-18): "Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others," etc.

3:52 Let's cite Divini Redemptoris:

In consequence he has been endowed by God with many and varied prerogatives: the right to life, to bodily integrity, to the necessary means of existence; the right to tend toward his ultimate goal in the path marked out for him by God; the right of association and the right to possess and use property.

Let's presume that this includes sime kind of gradation, given the Pope said "varied prerogatives", and let's assume the basic rights are given in their order of importance:

In consequence he has been endowed by God with many and varied prerogatives:

1) the right to life,
2) to bodily integrity,
3) to the necessary means of existence;
4) the right to tend toward his ultimate goal in the path marked out for him by God;
5) the right of association
6) and the right to possess and
7) use property.

The main problem during the Holodomor wasn't that Ukrainian farmers were denied property. The main problem is, that therefore they were also denied the necessary means of existence and therefore also bodily integrity and life. However, the denial of property was in this specific case the necessary means from taking away their rights to means of subsistance.

In the Irish Famine, which was also manmade, English landlors in Ireland were not denied their property, rather they made the utmost of it. Irish tenants were not primarily denied their property, since the wheat they grew by right of contract belonged to the landlord, the potatoes they grew to themselves. Now, certain years, there were no potatoes. The landlords didn't step back one millimetre from their contractual rights and as a consequence Irishmen starved or fled.

4:04 As many individuals and families as possible should own as much property as they need for independence.

When the property one owns denies some people both independence and even the relative independence (compared to the dole) of being a hired worker, one might be owning too much.

A Swedish popup politician from Örebro (pronounce Ur-rebroo) missed getting elected even in his district yesterday, but he made a comment about the "transferiate" ...

Formerly, Employers and Workers were the main contenders about the produced goods and their monetary value, but now they are both up against a third class, the "transferiate" ... people living by transfer via the tax bill.

It has an upper class, like social workers, integration officers, project leaders and so on. It has a lower class, and for some reason he doesn't count genuinely needy Swedes as part of this "lower class transferiate" but does count improductive (currently so) immigrants as the lower class of the transferiate.

The thing is, the more things are rationalised in production, the bigger first non-necessary sectors and finally the transferiate become. The mouths to feed don't become fewer just because fewer are engaged in physically producing food. The eyes to read don't become fewer just because fewer are engaged in printing. And crucially, their tastes in reading don't diversify enough to accomodate all new authors. Some authors are also blocked for other reasons. Therefore, rationalisation means more and more need to get their food and possibly reading from other things than earning them. Like tax transferred resources, like becoming social workers or private security or the cases they work for or against.

There genuinely is a sense in which ownership doesn't justify rationalisation, especially in the case of ownership by big banks.

"Every bit of land in a country that is a monarchy is owned by the monarch."

That degree of Communism (alias State Capitalism) is not common to all governments, it was reached in England at the Norman invasion.

Like, William I wanted sth to reward fellow Normans with.

In France, the theory is actually somewhat different. Private ownership of land is real. Roman and Frankish giant fortunes have since then become socialised into divisions of government. And when I speak of giant fortunes getting socialised, that's not a figure of speech. In the Roman Empire, each Civitas (often centred on a city i e urban centre, hence the modern meaning) is to some degree self governing, and the theory is basically, there is a double citizenship, of that city and of Rome.

And in each city, the very richest man each year is chosen as Decurion. This meant, he was personally giving to the poor in a dignified way, simply from his fortune. Next year he was reelected if he was still the richest. If he got ruined, he got a place at the table. Now, in Pagan times, that office was tied to Pagan sacrifices, and one Christian martyr was martyred for refusing it on this ground. However, in whatever place has been referred to as Bannavem Taburniae, a certain couple who were certainly Christians were the Decurion and his wife. Their son is St. Patrick.

But a local ruler as former ex highest fortune and it's succession, once he was truly a local ruler, tended to become a ruler, not an owner. Former serfs were in practise new and smaller owner.

8:27 No ... a country is NOT property of the governing class, it's field of jurisdiction of the governing class.

Aristotle would have argued that if the governing class assumes property over everything (qua governing) that makes the government a bad one.

A tyrant is a king who treats himself as owner of the country. A king is in some ways like a tyrant, but instead acknowledges smaller owners.

---

[Skipping the part on immigration.]

---

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 66
Article 2. Whether it is lawful for a man to possess a thing as his own?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article2

DIVINI REDEMPTORIS
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html