Saturday, August 29, 2020

Language creation (quora)


Q
When was the last new language created?
https://www.quora.com/When-was-the-last-new-language-created/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1


Answer requested by
Nathan Defa

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thu
amateur linguist
Do you mean new language actually spoken as native language?

Probably modern Hebrew, by revival of Biblical Hebrew.

Or do you mean language creation as creation of constructed languages?

The last very mediatised ones would be those of David J. Peterson, for Game of Thrones, like Dothraki and High Valyrian, but less mediatised ones have been created since. Since Tolkien’s “secret vice” of language creation became widely known, creating languages has become a cottage industry, though only few examples are very well known.

I tried my hand at sth like a state of Greek still closer to Latin than Mycenaean Greek (where, as you may know qu hasn’t yet become p or t), but the notebook was stolen, perhaps by psychiatry, perhaps by secret services, perhaps by freemasons, perhaps by someone who wanted the paper - it was no longer there, when I came back to the library where I had forgotten it.

Jim Grossmann
Thu
What does “mediatize” mean?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Original Author
19h ago
It means “give public attention through media”.

It may be a Frenchicism from “médiatiser”.

Other
answers, same question

I

Answer requested by
Nathan Defa

Den Hollander
Works in Linguistics & Machine learning
Answered Thu
Languages (except a few artifical languages which are not really living languages) are not “created” they evolve progressively from existing languages…..

American english comes from modern British english istself coming from Elisabethan english which in turn came from middle english whih was derived from old english which came from old north-west germanic which came from proto-germanic - which came from……..ad (almost) infinitum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thu
You are forgetting a thing. Middle English coming, without creation, from Old English is partly true as to the spoken language, but totally untrue as to the written language. Ormmulum and Chaucer tried two new spelling systems for English other than Anglo-Saxon alias Old English, and Chaucer’s is the one that basically survives. So, English was in fact created by the contemporaries of Geoffrey Chaucer.

Den Hollander
Thu
We’ll have to agree to disagree then - For me designing a spelling/writing system is not creating a language, just giving it tools for written expression. The korean language was spoken well before chinese characters started to be used to write it, a later migration using the syllabic “hangul” system did not alter the phonology, grammar, syntax or lexicon of the language…. so to me does not count as “creating a language” - You could say the same about turkish dropping the arabic alphabet for a latin based one, for the numerous spelling reforms - and of course for the (usually latin) writing systems designed for a myriad of languages which initially did not have a written form.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thu
You are missing that SHIFTING spelling system from one to other is changing the available references.

Once spelling changed from Latin to Old French spelling for the spoken language in France, the genitive was no longer available as an optional “high style” form.

Once spelling changed from Anglo-Saxon chronicle to Chaucer, no one had to guess what case it would be in the case declining language.

In the latter case there was a gap between, but there is a continuity over time in any language that has its writing available, and there are therefore different continuities over time when the writing is changed.

“ You could say the same about turkish dropping the arabic alphabet for a latin based one,”

Surely modern Turkish has many fewer loans from Arabic even as options available?

Precisely as post 1970 Greek has no use for being extra posh with a dative form.

II

Answer requested by
Nathan Defa

Ian MacKinnell
Studied some Medieval History at university, which I enjoyed.
Answered Thu
When was the last new language created?

Judging by the rate at which new conlangs — constructed languages — are created, probably in the last week, if not the last day or even hour. Conlangs are a dime a dozen — I was creating my first one at the age of six. Tolkien created many languages, and then wrote The Lord of the Rings and similar works to give the languages a culture and speakers and historical milieu. Hobbyists are out there creating new languages all the time. It is like asking, “when was the last new novel written?” — just wait, there’ll be another new one out in a moment.

Natural languages are not created, they develop naturally out of pre-existing languages. Even an artificial language like modern Hebrew was developed out of biblical Hebrew, with influences from other Semitic languages. Was modern Hebrew “created”, or was it “revived”? A bit of both, I suppose.

Hobby languages are being created all the time. The latest new language is a very temporary state: any “latest new language” will be supplanted in that role in no time. The answer is volatile ( not to be confused with Volapük).

Quora : history / palaeontology


Q
What is the relationship between history and paleontology?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-history-and-paleontology/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1


Hans-Georg Lundahl
just now
The most basic difference is method.

Palaeontology deals with no longer alive life forms (or life forms thought to be no longer alive) through the remains - plant material or animal tissue nearly preserved to totally permineralised - of life forms no longer thought to be alive.

History deals with the past as observed by human observers through the texts (including oral texts later written down) that these did leave or are thought to have left.

Ideologically, there is another difference of what time it belongs to, since palaeontological creatures are often thought to have died out earlier than last ten thousand years, and human writings and traditions reach back less than 10 000 years for writings and less than ten thousand years for reliable traditions. This difference, unlike the former, is of course contested by Young Earth Creationists.

Monday, August 24, 2020

With Achyuthan Sanal on Same Question


Dialogue with Kira Binkley on Quora about Galileo Case · With James Hough on Same Question (quora) · With Earl Wajenberg, on same question · With Achyuthan Sanal on Same Question

Q
Why was Copernicus not persecuted by the church, but Galileo was?
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Copernicus-not-persecuted-by-the-church-but-Galileo-was


Answer requested by
Mangal Jogdand

Achyuthan Sanal
Taught myself history due to inefficient public education
Answered Fri

[Originally Answered: Why was Coper Nicolas not punished like Galileo?]

Copernicus was an unlikely revolutionary. His book was only published at the end of his life because he feared ridicule and disfavor by his peers and by the Church, which had elevated the ideas of Aristotle to the level of religious dogma.

Galileo’s books were published during his lifetime, which led to him being accused of being a heretic by the Roman Inquisition who tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
“which had elevated the ideas of Aristotle to the level of religious dogma.”

Not correct history. In a first trial Galileo had been answering to St. Robert Bellarmine on Joshua 10 and on Habacuc 3:11.

Achyuthan Sanal
Original Author
Just now
I was not talking about Galileo. The church had indeed elevated the ideas of Aristotle to the level of religious dogma.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Geocentrism is Biblical as well as Aristotelic.

What are you talking about?

I don’t mean that in an offensive way, but I wonder if you were talking about another issue.

Update
five hours later

Achyuthan Sanal
Original Author
3h ago
Oh okay, I get what you mean now

With Earl Wajenberg, on same question


Dialogue with Kira Binkley on Quora about Galileo Case · With James Hough on Same Question (quora) · With Earl Wajenberg, on same question · With Achyuthan Sanal on Same Question

Q
Why was Copernicus not persecuted by the church, but Galileo was?
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Copernicus-not-persecuted-by-the-church-but-Galileo-was


Answer requested by
Eric Mathew

Earl Wajenberg
M.A. History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University (1980)
Answered April 12

The big reason is that Copernicus waited until he was dying to publish his book. He knew it would cause a row—with the academics. He wasn’t worrying about the church. He was himself a priest and his bishop urged him to publish.

As you can see, Copernicus was all for playing it quiet. Galileo was a very different personality. He loved a good fight, and he had one with his fellow academics. Unfortunately, they used some passages from his books to make it look like Galileo had mocked the Pope—a former friend/patron of his. And, to be fair, he probably had. This brought the attention of the Inquisition to bear on him, and things went down hill from there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
You are forgetting that Galileo had defended an earlier book before the Inquisitor St. Robert Bellarmine.

Inquisitors had come to look at his earlier book, because in it, he had treated his idea so much as a fact, that he had considered it as having a bearing on Biblical exegesis. Unfortunately for him, all Church Fathers who had commented on Joshua 10 had done so with a Geocentric view on what actually happened in fact.

You are also forgetting that a merely personal backstabbing of a Pope is not in Catholic canon law anything like a motive for a lifetime of house arrest. Especially since Simplicio could not be identified as voicing positions of Pope Urban VIII beyond some few close acquaintances, and therefore would not be taken as attacking even the then Pope, let alone the papacy.

As you mentioned Inquisitors, Galileo lived in Italy, where there were some, Copernicus and his bishop in Poland, where they were scarce or non-extant.

With James Hough on Same Question (quora)


Dialogue with Kira Binkley on Quora about Galileo Case · With James Hough on Same Question (quora) · With Earl Wajenberg, on same question · With Achyuthan Sanal on Same Question

Q
Why was Copernicus not persecuted by the church, but Galileo was?
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Copernicus-not-persecuted-by-the-church-but-Galileo-was


Answer requested by
Eric Mathew

James Hough
Studied in the seminary, teach Catholicism to converts.
Answered April 8
Upvoted by Robert Wagers, PhD History of Science, University of Oregon (1973)

Why was Copernicus not persecuted by the church, but Galileo was?

Because Copernicus never attacked the Pope, because Copernicus never went back on his word. Because Copernicus presented his theories (as that is all they were, and could ever be at that point in history as there was no telescope powerful enough at that time to prove his theory) AS theories; whereas Galileo claimed that his theory was fact even if he couldn’t prove it!

Actually, considered all the horrible things that Galileo did, he was never really persecuted by the Church, but actually treated rather well.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
"Because Copernicus never attacked the Pope,"

Galileo lampooned a little known position of the then Pope Urban VIII, as expressed in private to Galileo prior to his election in a character clearly not a Pope in the dialogue, namely Simplicio. Does NOT qualify as "attacking the Pope" in any meaningful sense.

"because Copernicus never went back on his word."

He had never been asked to give a word, and it has been said Galileo hadn't either, the second process was wrong on this account.

"Because Copernicus presented his theories (as that is all they were, and could ever be at that point in history as there was no telescope powerful enough at that time to prove his theory) AS theories;"

A) Copernicus' pupil prefaced his work with a disclaimer it was mathematical hypotheses - that doesn't mean theories about facts, that means constructs making the mathematics easier.

B) No telescope has since proven the theory. St. Robert and Galileo discussed "parallax" as not having been observed, but one which would have had to be uniform in all directions (as much bigger as Pisces gets in Autumn, Virgo needs to get in Spring), since both agreed fix stars were a sphere, a shell, and not a universal "full bag" of stars at a different distance, so the discoveries of Bessel rather disproved the contention that a uniform parallax would be discovered.

"whereas Galileo claimed that his theory was fact even if he couldn’t prove it!"

Since when can a theory be "contradicting the Bible" if not proven, but suddenly no longer be "contradicting the Bible" once it is proven?

"Actually, considered all the horrible things that Galileo did,"

If being right, but not proving it is your definition of horrible - or making a very obscure joke about the person of the Pope - I don't see you as having a very Catholic ethics.

"he was never really persecuted by the Church, but actually treated rather well."

Lifetime house arrest from the trial is not my definition of good treatment. Especially it would not have been merited, if he had been in any way, shape or form right.

II

Scott Bissell
April 8
It was good that church out of Rome admitted they were wrong.

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html


A bit confusing considering, they are infallible.

James Hough
April 8
Hi Mr. Bissell,

The CATHOLIC CHURCH cannot teach wrong in matters of faith and morals when it is teaching to the entire world.

Individual popes, and others, might appear as “the Catholic Church” and might even apologize for things, but in this case, if you read the actual historical documents and what the Church actually did, they were entirely in the right.

Not sure, exactly what Pope John Paul II actually apologized for, but it sure sounds as if he was trying to make people happy….

Pax,

James

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Urban VIII was Pope, and infallible. He was not directly trying the Galileo trial, but he ordered it published all over the Catholic world, once the verdict was available, which can be considered as covering the verdict by his infallibility.

1992, someone in Rome was not Pope and while James Hough considers him a saint, and canonised (by another non-Pope), he gave a rather damning evaluation of the 1992 move : “but it sure sounds as if he was trying to make people happy….”


(We'll see if James Hough answers, or if the comment disappears. I am not sure they did before, since I could have put them where he had shared the answer, and not here. The guy has a tendency to treat this Geocentric and Young Earth Creationist a bit like he claims the Church treated Galileo.)

Next day : no, he didn't answer, my comments disappeared, under his answer, but they are still around here, thank God! They are now subthread I, since I added a subthread II)

Dialogue with Kira Binkley on Quora about Galileo Case


Dialogue with Kira Binkley on Quora about Galileo Case · With James Hough on Same Question (quora) · With Earl Wajenberg, on same question · With Achyuthan Sanal on Same Question

Q
Why was Copernicus not persecuted by the church, but Galileo was?
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Copernicus-not-persecuted-by-the-church-but-Galileo-was/answer/Kira-Binkley-1


Kira Binkley*
Fri
Lives in Colorado Springs, CO (2008–present)
[Originally Answered: "Why was Coper Nicolas not punished like Galileo?"**]

Galileo claimed to have proven that the earth revolved around the sun (and he had). The pope, Urban VIII, told him that if he had left it as an hypothesis only, he would not have gotten into trouble with the Church/Jesuits. Keep this in mind: there was some hesitation on the part of men in the 16th and 17th century to let go of the comforting fact of the Deity guiding the “heavenly bodies” and “heavenly spheres”. (If you read Newton’s Principia, you will find that Newton’s “Laws” were the “Laws” of nature, replacing God’s hand, but still perfectly coordinated—-never fear!!)

At any rate, the Church wanted to make an example of Galileo, so as to forestall other attempts at natural explanation of phenomena. Another point to keep in mind, is that Galileo, and others, were saying that the “heavenly bodies” were bodies in the same way that the earth and everything on or in it were bodies—-that is, there was nothing divine about the sun, planets and fixed stars. A complete sea change from any previous belief system. Wondrous in its scope. As you can tell, Galileo is one of my heroes.

Galileo is believed to have said “Nevertheless, it moves”—-”Si, il muove”, when he was forced to recant. Another interesting fact: Pascal, a Jansenist, fired off a complaint to the Jesuits!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
18h ago
“Galileo claimed to have proven that the earth revolved around the sun (and he had).”

He hadn’t.

He had disproven one alternative, the Ptolemaic one, but could neither argue against, nor wanted to believe, the Tychonian one. It was presented to him by St. Robert Bellarmine.

“At any rate, the Church wanted to make an example of Galileo, so as to forestall other attempts at natural explanation of phenomena.”

When exactly did Galileo claim this?

“Keep this in mind: there was some hesitation on the part of men in the 16th and 17th century to let go of the comforting fact of the Deity guiding the “heavenly bodies” and “heavenly spheres”. “

Who says they were wrong? And who says Galileo differred from them?

Kira Binkley
Original Author ·
15h ago
  • 1. Yes, he had. And even if you don’t believe it, apparently the pope did.

  • 2. “I” claim it.

  • 3. “Who says they were wrong?” Do you mean wrong to believe the Deity was guiding the heavenly bodies? Is that your question?

  • 4. Who am “I”, Hans? Is that your question?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
14h ago
  • 1. “apparently the pope did.”

    No, the pope did not believe Galileo had proven Heliocentrism. He believed he had made Simplicio a comic version of himself, so that he had to keep out of the process to keep it equanimous.

  • 2. Galileo however never claimed that his explanation excluded supernatural factors. So, no one was forestalling “other” attempts of natural explanation, since his wasn’t one.

  • 3. Yes, my question is, who says they were wrong to believe “the Deity” is guiding the celestial bodies? That is my question.

  • 4. I am also questioning who - before you - claimed that Galileo claimed “the Deity” was not guiding the celestial bodies.


You seem to be confusing Galileo with Laplace. While Laplace did make use of Heliocentrism, but also of a Newtonian view of the universe overall, in which stars would not attract each other into a big crunch bc there were stars in all direction infinitely, and in which Newtonian mechanics took care of the movements within the Solar System, Galileo offered none of that philosophy. Except the geometric “fact” of Heliocentrism.

Kira Binkley
Original Author
14h ago
The only thing I am confusing is your comment with intelligence. End of engagement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
[linked to this post to show the dialogue, finished on her request, was not wasted for the general public.]

Updated
next day:

Kira Binkley
Original Author
15h ago
Thanks. I can use all the publicity I can get. Try answering my question about arms to Sub-Saharan African nations, and making that public. I would greatly appreciate it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
You are welcome.

Where is the question?

Btw, I think that is way more your expertise than history of ideas is.


* About the Author
Kira Binkley
Former Advisor to Global Governments
Studies Moral Philosophy & Natural Philosophy Expected 2024
Lives in Colorado Springs, CO 2008–present
38K content views 5.7K this month


** Question posed by someone with language difficulties and therefore edited for correct language.

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Catholic Church and Temporal Power (quora)


Q
Why did the Catholic Church also conquer temporal power?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Catholic-Church-also-conquer-temporal-power/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl
just now
Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Check out these last verses of the Gospel of St. Matthew:

Douay-Rheims Bible (Matthew 28)

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Did you get teach ye all nations?

This means, not just individual persons, but institutions - armies, heads of state, cultural personnel and so on - of all nations.

Obeying this command successfully tends to give the one doing so temporal power.

Thursday, August 6, 2020

Reflections on Victimhood


A Victim Mentality Will Ruin Your Life (2/2)
The Fuel Project | 6.VIII.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6PmFNfWAv4


I
There are also very strong motivations, even stronger ones, to claim not to be a victimiser.

This means, if I consider some certain people to have actually victimised me, give them their general type, they have a very strong motive to pretend I am a false victim, addicted to victimhood. At least if they are smart enough to figure out they are on the bench of the accused.

This means, someone's distinguishing between genuine and false victims can be an excellent way for him to escape responsibility for really victimising someone.

Let's ask, why must one differentiate out a false victim? What would you lose by taking him at his word?

And if you think he would lose a good occasion to face up to responsibilities, is that really your concern, with a stranger?

Pharisees generally believe in giving alms. The brothers of the rich man, and therefore he, were Pharisees, because Abraham describes them as having Moses and the Prophets and not believing them. Therefore, the poor Lazarus was not a victim of Pharisees generally not wanting to give any alms, he actually got some just to keep him alive a little longer, he was a victim of them seeing him as a false victim.

Because probably someone had told them, they had to distinguish between real and fake paupers, and that one was not Jesus Christ.

3:49 "if you reward false victims" - note, I am not speaking of cases of personal accusation - "the society will soon be filled with them" - very probably something like that had occurred to the Rich Man, probable Pharisee and his brothers.

4:51 Doles are anyway not the most ideal way of dealing with victimhood, either criminal or a general and pauperising one.

One reason being that doles for the reason given must be checked.

Christ didn't say "build a big government with the capacity of helping real victims and the time to check up on false ones", He said about what YOU have given. Someone claims to be hungry or thirsty, if you have no real big reason to mistrust that statement (as I had once) and if they have not yet come close to impovering you (as two persons begging same neighbourhood sometimes have), Christ will not damn you for giving a meal too many to someone asking that, but He may damn you for giving a meal to few, to someone asking, or for giving one too many when he wasn't asking for a meal. Probably some may have died from diabetes that way.

II
2:19 Well, yes, when the victim is actually accusing someone, that someone else is risking prison or similar victimisation, and we must of course give due process.

However, there are categories of victims that are too seldom believed.

III
2:36 I'd say not giving someone a free pass to ruin someone's life is quite adequate. People being unreliable about victimhood - the rule should be, believe until proven dishonest, not the reverse.

All we know about society in general, we do know by relying. People being unreliable is not an argument against that. Whatever you accept as confirmed in someone's story is what you find confirmed from another source which in most cases could be equally unreliable if it came to that.

There is a commandment against lying and bearing unnecessary witness against the neighbour, and especially combining both, as in the textual case of bearing false witness. It is also against mistrusting someone without due ground.

IV
with debate

Hans-Georg Lundahl
5:24 You refer to Jordan Peterson?

You are aware he's not a Christian? That his ethics are more Jewish than Christian, right? And his supernatural beliefs non-extant?

He said one very valuable thing which I think is being misapplied to me.

It is in a sense true that I can do some printing of my texts even in the street - not many examples, but some, more when I have and fewer now I haven't a very good place to print out and copy. It is in a sense true that if I had an appartment first, I could do much more for printing out my texts. But it misses that point that if I did, I would for one be taking away time from my writing, and for another giving the impression that others printing out for me would be kind of stealing from me.

Which is a very false one.

It most certainly misses that most authors are NOT required to do the printing and marketing of their texts themselves. It artificially places me in a situation no author would survive as an author. And which I am still surviving by begging.

Ethereal One
What does that have to do with anything? Many people are not Christians it doesn’t make them wrong.

emaNyM
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, and if so, I apologize for the tone of this reply. With respect, to my knowledge, The Fuel Project doesn't use exclusively Christian sources; however, as a Christian channel, I'm pretty sure they use the Bible as their PRIMARY source. Citing Jordan Peterson doesn't negate the point they're making or even give it less credence because he is not a specifically Christian source. I think they realize that non-Christians have valuable things to say, too 😏

As for Peterson's ethics being "more Jewish than Christian", well...where did Christ's (Who is fully God AND fully man) earthly ethics come from? They came from His Jewish heritage. Christian ethics are (or should be) true Jewish ethics -- not the pharisaical, works-based system of ethical/moral behavior which put undue burden on God's people (all of the excessive, man-made laws they added which said you must do this and not do that), but the godly ethics (the Ten Commandments) Moses received and first laid-out in the Torah, and which were affirmed in the New Testament by Christ in Matthew 22:37-40,

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. `This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@emaNyM There is a problem when you try to approach true Jewish ethics from the false Jewish ethics of Ashkenase and Sepharad Christ-deniers. One should approach true Jewish ethics from the ones He left to the Church he founded, i e the Catholic Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Ethereal One All people have some access to the natural law, because God wrote it in the hearts of the Gentiles.

However, all non-Christians have some defect in the apperception of the natural law, at least when grown or old adults in cases where they could have become Christians and didn't.

I don't mind your citing non-Christians about facts or even about logic, but "psychology" touches the natural law.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@emaNyM again, I looked at the clip.

My Left Foot, well, even with lots of doing things with his left foot, he still needs lots of catering. It was his dad's choice to force him to use the left foot, perhaps wisely, perhaps unwisely. If the author was thankful, it was perhaps wisely.

However, this doesn't translate to each and every person thinking they are doing someone else a service by denying the help actually asked being actually wise and right, because he is imitating a wise man who is cited by Jordan Peterson, who is maybe less wise.

V
10:10 How many people have thought they are following your advice, when trying to discourage me from writing, when writing wasn't wallowing in self pity in the first place, and when "encouragements" were welcomed for the opportunities they gave me to write, not because I needed or wanted or asked for pity?

Take a look at this (if you know French): https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/08/parce-que-je-suis-dans-la-rue.html

And at this: https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-am-i-still-on-street.html

Look especially at the "pancartes" - card boards - copied as to text on the French article.

Some people want to see me as asking for pity when that is simply not the case.

VI
13:59 Creating or validating a non-existent offender.

Very good point.

How if this is the case:

  • 1) With Jews making gas chamber claims about the Holocaust? Not saying there was no NS criminality, camps were to survivors a lot like Jordan Peterson's point to the umpteenth power, which becomes criminal.
  • 2) With Jews making claims of Catholics abetting the actual NS criminality?
  • 3) With vicarious victimhood among Protestants on behalf of Albigensians?
  • 4) and in some cases like Pell - the two boys, one was a suicide before the process, the other a wreck, and the other testimony came from one who had validated the victimhood by Pell for the suicide.


VII
16:49 People can become enfeebled by a victimhood imposed by others.

Like, someone second guessing my situation as a result of my having been sodomised by a priest, when I never have been so and never said I had been so.

Their ideas about my actual foibles become a social feebleness, tricking me up every time I try to get a life living off my writing, for instance.

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

A Little Correction on Alexander Tschuggül's Story of Rudolf of Habsburg


First, a video I clearly recommend:

Alexander Tschugguel discusses Catholic history of Austria, receiving Communion on tongue
4th August 2020 | The John-Henry Westen Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_8DIzFi1T8


And now my little correction:

2:44 I think I need to correct Alexander Tschuggül on the story.

Not King Rudolf, at the point when he gave the horse to the priest, but as yet Count Rudolf - and he only became Emperor Elect (King of the Germans) and even later King of Bohemia (which included the Duchy Austria, today Vienna, Lower and Upper Austria) after meeting the priest and showing his devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.

At least as far as I recall the story from an article in Mitteilungsblatt der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X, an issue I read back in 1990's.

Monday, August 3, 2020

Diane Chapman on Day-Year


From comments under a video, which I may rewatch before posting full comment on it ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
7:42 "after the fall of Rome" - as HRE last monarchic successor state fell in WW-I, when Karl der Letzte left Hofburg, this means Antichrist may have come since then.

Diane Chapman
After the fall of Pagan Rome, came papal Rome Papal Rome was restrained, until Pagan Rome fell. The Roman Catholic Church was established in 538a.d. After the fall of Pagan Rome

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Diane Chapman "The Roman Catholic Church was established in 538a.d."

Let me check ... "The Third Council of Orléans takes place and prohibits rural labor on Sunday." - is that what you mean?

Bc the Councils of Orléans, while approved by the papacy, were still local to regional councils for the South of France, not universal ones.

This means, the decision changed exactly nothing, except for a laxness in the Sunday worship just around Orléans.

Diane Chapman
Hans-Georg Lundahl that is what I said. Because that is the beginning of the 1260 year prophecy to 1798 when the pope was kidnapped by General berthier and died a year later. This time was the deadly wound for the Catholic Church

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Diane Chapman There is no 1260 year prophecy, there is a 1260 DAYS prophecy, if you look at the actual texts.

A Pope getting kidnapped is not a fatal wound, happened to Boniface VIII who died in prison.

Diane Chapman
Hans-Georg Lundahl you forget in prophecy 1 day equals a year so 1260 days is 1260 years

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Diane Chapman "in prophecy 1 day equals a year"

Doesn't say that in the Bible either.

Diane Chapman
Hans-Georg Lundahl since you know it all, I won't send you the two texts. Must be nice to think you know it all. Bye

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[33] Your children shall wander in the desert forty years, and shall bear your fornication, until the carcasses of their fathers be consumed in the desert, [34] According to the number of the forty days, wherein you viewed the land: year shall be counted for a day. And forty years you shall receive your iniquities, and shall know my revenge:

Numbers 14 - the 40 days were 40 days previous to this prophecy, and the 40 years are designated as precisely 40 years in this prophecy.

Ezechiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished this, thou shalt sleep again upon thy right side, and thou shalt take upon thee the iniquity of the house of Juda forty days: a day for a year, yea, a day for a year I have appointed to thee.

Again, no prophecy in which "a day" is mentioned and in which "a year" is meant. Again, one of the items is past history. And the other item is penance which the prophet must bear.

One can say the difference between "full price" and "penance" here, since full price for 40 days' sin is 40 years' misery and penance for 40 years's sin is 40 days' penance. But one cannot conclude from either or from both together that "days" in prophecy generally mean "years".