... on "Medical Reasons" for Late Term Abortions

... on Abortion Debate · ... Gun Rights vs Abortion · ... on "Medical Reasons" for Late Term Abortions

Debunked: Why Women Get Late Term Abortions
Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler on OAN | 12.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkj8a40BWKc

I

1:32 How many of the 7 % "feel too young" would in reality be aliases that lower "parents want me to have an abortion" to the presentable < 0.5 %?

II

By definition, there cannot be any reason at all related to the baby's health to late term abortion or any abortion.

A girl was carried to term and died a week later, in Tennessee.

Now, not quite sure of the "died" part, as opposed to "got killed", since her heart valves and lungs were donated, and the lungs to research.

But obviously it was not making her more likely to die that she was carried to term. On the contrary, it would in best case provide an occasion for getting baptised before dying.

Can you tell me anyone whose health got better due to being killed?

3:23 It seems Omar L Hamada agrees with me, by the way!

... on Sundance Festival, Marina Abramavic, Independent Art, Burden of Proof

IS ANYONE SURPRISED? SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL'S CONNECTION TO SATANISM AND THE OCCULT....
A Call For An Uprising | 8.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYSCS-stebc

I

3:48 "its not the way it happens" = overestimating the power Illuminoids have.

While you may be correct about Sundance Festival, or you may not be, I don't know, I do think Indie production is or should be possible, including to good Christians.

If not, that's not Illuminati power, that's ... Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:17.

Now, if it really is impossible for a good Christian to do money on, for instance, good, innocent entertainment, well, then we ask who is making it impossible, bc that's the way one would be looking for the Antichrist.

However, it strikes me, if you actually are so loudly saying "its not the way it happens" you are arguably helping the process of blocking.

"either gonna steal your idea"

While you are still making it accessible on internet?

Someone is stealing your idea in 2019 which you wrote in 2013, and you can do nothing about it even if you still have your blog? You can show no one the fact you already published same thing in 2013?

In order to steal my ideas (do the same idea, give no credit), they have to do one of two things:

• shut down my blogs (as Bill Gates in Feb. 2009 shut down MSN Groups, mine with all others)
• or make sure it is largely ignored (even by your friends, who must be persuadeded ignoring your blog is for your own good).

While I was victim of the former move in 2009, I seem to be victim of the latter one now. Some kind of "club 21" seems to dominate parts of my readership, and this can be shown by stats:

Creation vs. Evolution : Perceived Needs
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/02/perceived-needs.html

Some stats showing my point are cited there.

"or gonna persuade you to make you join them"

When internet is still open to you?

Btw, in my own case, I am not into movies, that much, not that I don't like them, but I know less about that type of thing. I do know writing and writing music.

Also, persuading someone to join a given business is not the same thing as persuading him to join a given cult running that business.

Chesterton was into the paper The Daily News. Both he and Cadbury opposed the Boer War - Cadbury bc he considered all wars bad, Chesterton bc he consider Kruger right. In the end, that was a mismatch, and Chesterton partly wrote The Flying Inn to get the sack from Cadbury, who was not into his research for instance about Jewish shady business.

So, they didn't persuade Chesterton to join their extreme pro-Jewish cult.

II

4:55 I think The Artist Is Present is a fairly uncanny psychological experiment, but I don't think it proves she is Satanic.

Marina Abramović : The Artist Is Present: March–May 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#The_Artist_Is_Present:_March%E2%80%93May_2010

I also don't think Robert Redford allowing it proves him Satanic.

As said, occultist vows of keeping silence about things are NOT a proven ingredient in Marina Abramovic's either film or party.

Keeping physically silent is quite another thing, it is used by Catholic and presumably also Orthodox monks, and it so happens, she is related to Serbian Orthodox patriarch Varnava Rosić.

And while witches probably do use physical silence to cast spells, they probably took it over from better people, like for instane Christian monks.

6:15 Saying Marina Abramovic does "these rituals" without other evidence she is wiccan, is like saying someone praying with some string contraption is a Muslim praying "99 names of Allah" when it could be an Orthodox with a prayer rope or a Catholic with a rosary, or a Uniate with either, instead.

III

6:29 "[why else would Marina Abramovic] be hanging around, you know, James Franco, Jay-Z, Robert" [Redford, I presume]

You were just using her to prove Robert Redford Satanic, now you are using him to prove her Satanic.

First of all, hanging around with someone sometimes is due to being colleagues, has nothing to do with sharing values on non-professional questions, but more probably they do share personal values too, it's just that, even if, proving one Satanic bec other is, and other Satanic bec one is, that is circular.

Lady Gaga is into LBTG advocacy, which is bad.

If she went bisexual after a rape, it may however be somewhat understandable.

If she were Satanic, she is at least being so discreet about it, you could not bet on Marina Abramovic and the others being certain to know that.

IV

"she obviously holds power over all of these people ... bc of her ranking" [as occult witch]

This is exactly where you lose me.

You are the kind of smear campaigners who used John Todd to attack C. S. Lewis.

I mean, let's presume John Todd was a bona fide defector, though there is some evidence he read up on Illuminati (coming from his ex-wife Sharon, according to what Cornerstone Mag dug up, according to a site I saw the other day), he was 18 when he became "High Priest" on his own account, and when he was 18, C. S. Lewis had been dead for 4 years.

So, supposing he was not lying (I have been more prone than now to this position, his being a bona fide real defector), he would have been deluded by someone else, like the guys he got initiations from told him CSL was their man, to show their power, and it so happened that he believed them, when he shouldn't have.

"she obviously holds power over all of these people ... bc of her ranking" [as occult witch]

It's like me saying, "you obviously say this, because you were a hardcore John Todd fan, back then" and that is being unjust to myself in comparison.

When I used to speak up about conspiracy, like when researching John Todd was an option for me, when I was into Henry Makow, I considered the conspiracy was about things like this:

• reducing population
• keeping banking usurious
• making people incapable of big families by forbidding young marriages and prolonging (unmarried) education
• using CPS and shrinks to eliminate those who were obviously pulling in some other direction
• involving an élite of pharmaceutic companies, doctors, teachers and a few more in above projects, apart from bankers also being that kind of élite.

I still think that. And if Hollywood productions often serve this agenda, it is not because all actors are initiate witches, it is because a Hollywood actor doesn't want to end up among shrinks any more than a university professor wants to do so. Shrinks looking after him, that is. Add Bohemian Grove to this? Well, quite possible. There seems to be at least pictorial evidence of either a human sacrifice or a stage show of it, and the guys claimed the latter, and the police don't want to dig in it, they prefer small fry.

Also, being nostalgic (overtly) about Carthage and Tyre is not innocent, they have found Topheth's in Carthage, and the most pro-Carthaginian archaeologists I talked to at the museum claimed "maybe it wasn't babies, maybe it was feti" - they were probably into late term abortions too. I had a party date as one of them, and quickly lost interest in her when I found out she was pro-abortion. So, apart from population reduction, maybe Carthaginian or Chanaanean cults are involved in the conspiracy I think exists, about abortion.

But two more items, some cults, like Jews, Calvinists, Freemasons, Muslims, they like exercising excessive parental control even after children grow up to teens, and so, prohibiting young marriages and allowing (parentally enforced, though that is not stated) abortions, is a boon to parental over dominance. Plus abortion seems to be part of Talmudic medical ethics. Mark Shea said so, when defending Soros openly por-abortion stance.

But saying "this actor kept physically silent for an hour" and concluding "and therefore is a witch" or "therefore was under the power of a witch" that is ridiculous.

Oh, wait, she was into Spirit cooking.

Not hard proof either way.

It could be sth which really was kind of invoking spirits from Hell, it could be this kind of thing was just quirky humour.

Having some experience with Balkanics (you know Zlatan, from socker news, right?) that is the kind of thing they could consider a very broad, but still at the heart of it, innocent, joke.

Also, "she obviously holds power over all of these people ... bc of her ranking" [as occult witch] - that is like saying, if I speak up with an argument and you don't answer, I obviously do not hold power over you because of my non-ranking ... guess what, when I see an argument, I answer it and don't care two pence of the "ranking" of whoever made it.

But you may not be like me, in that one.

V

8:12 she openly admits it?

Where? Why didn't you say so in the first place? Link to her openly admitting she's a witch would be appreciated.

This is not an open admission, but comes a bit closer:

"At the end of our conversation in New York, Marina suggested that everybody in the room take part in an exercise from the Abramovic method: put your hand on your neighbor's shoulder, and close your eyes, and think about the power of community. For one minute. Marina told us that, while being a warrior, the most important and the most difficult thing is to keep on being tender and vulnerable. Like a witch."

The one interviewing her, namely Nadya Tolokonnikova (Pussy Riot) claims she is a witch.

i-D Vice : nadya from pussy riot on why her friend marina abramović is a witch
activism | by Nadya Tolokonnikova | 25 May 2018, 10:00am
https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/59q93x/nadya-tolokonnikova-pussy-riot-on-why-marina-abramovic-is-a-witch

How well they know each other before or after, or how much is a joke is not quite clear. They are certainly into idealising witches.

That's bad. But it is also sth which is true about say at least 25 % of the products (or, OK, perhaps just 10 %) of the products of modern education.

Some of the images here make it obvious she is at least cultivating "witch vibes" in an artistic sense, going well beyond Sabrina:

Proof Marina Abramovic Is Satanic Through Her Art
Pastor 2LiterJay ForTheReal World-Wide HoodStar | 26.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2WTpjFZg_E

Even so, I'd not pronounce her guilty of witchcraft. If there are ever witch trials again, she might be questioned.

But the witch nostalgia has made it fairly easy for one genuine and Satanic witch to camouflage behind 1000 fake ones, and Marina still could be one of those. Of the wannabes.

As you say "there is no debating she's a witch" I think of Salem Witchtrials.

The Inquisition was more stringent on innocent till proven guilty. At least from 1620 on. But at least somewhat before that.

VI

10:22 Back to "anyone" who has a good film etc ... how about someone (notnecessarily you) making sth independently of both Hollywood big producers and Sundance?

I have to go independent of Xulon Press, while a Christian author, for two reasons : I can't pay for publishing, and I also don't want to give monopoly on republishing my blogs or send in anything same text as my blogs and pretend it's just a text and not from my blogs first.

This documentary shows, independent actually exists:

Pope Michael A Domcumentary
https://popemichaelfilm.com/

Neither Hollywood Big, nor Sundance. Was never near Sundance Festival, as far as I could see.

Btw, recalling Robert Redford may have sth to do with Brokeback (which I didn't see), perhaps best so.

No, sorry, actually Robert Redford wasn't Brokeback, I checked his filmography, it was The Horse Whisperer. That one I also didn't see.

The festival arguably takes its name from a role of his: Sundance Kid.

VII

I checked Hail Satan.

It's a doc about Satanic Temple. I've opposed them more than once, and I opposed a very probable cause of theirs here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abortion Debate
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/02/on-abortion-debate.html

That said, a documentary can be given room in a film festival without arrangers loving everything the object of the documentary stands for.

Responses on David Wolf's links between : Enlightenment, French Revolution, Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide And The French Revolution
David Wolf | 5.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpkzUF-hp14

I

Would you agree (with the considerations prompting Leo XIII to promote le ralliement, though these were as inadequate for III Republic as telling Cristeros to capitulate was for Mexico) that Liberty, Equality and Fraternity do have legitimate good meanings to a Catholic and that Middle Ages provided lots more of it than French Revolution?

The tyrannous rebel
they call the Devil
is Father of that Revolution
so please do not join it
or ye will bemoan it
on the Day of the Great Retribution.

How about some real action for real liberty, equality and fraternity, like defunding PP?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abortion Debate
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/02/on-abortion-debate.html

II

The right to rule comes from God, via law, usually, and not from qualities.

Sometimes it comes from providential circumstances.

Robert of Paris (or whoever it was who first was ancestral to Capets and king of France) did not become king because the law made him so, but because of circumstances like Carolingians not being around any more. And like France needing a king due to Viking invasion (yeah, I know, Danish relatives back then were not God's most pious children, but I think St Theresa of Lisieux has made up for it since, as well as St John Eudes).

One Pepin had been elevated to major domo before the king - last Merovingian - seemed to have a clear preference for monastery over actual ruling.

Clovis was a good fighter (when one against Visigothic Arians was needed), so once he had stopped attacking and started to show himself "in the right team" he was clearly a man of providence. As had been St Remigius, as had been Syagrius, as had been probably contemoorary to Syagrius, one Artorius over in Britain where legions had left. As had been Julius Caesar against a corrupt Senatorial élite.

None of them was smarter or better than everyone else, they were the right man for the right job, which is something different.



Cara al Sol Himno de la Falange (con letra)
20spanish | 2.XI.2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwjdeGx6rg

This guy (portrait on video) was considered a Dopey or Dunce by his masonic father. He did finish pennalistic or initiatic bullying ("bizutage" in French translation) when promoted to head of General Military Academy of Zaragoza, and he also did finish attempts at Red Terror, some of which prefigured Nazi Camps and East Front massacres (Cárcel Modelo, one soon replaced Anarchist director of it was unusually nice, and after war was definitely treated well among the war criminals, just a few months, but the most time others ran it, a bit like the worst SS in Auschwitz, then Paracuellos for massacres).

Hombre de la providencia? Claro que sí. Más talentado que todos los otros? Ningún lo pretende hasta él mismo.

That said, post-War, I am more for Carlists than Francoists ... which he considered OK.

Two worst things he did post-war, more than one occasion each:

• 1) forget that the war was over, and hunt Commies as if they could re-do Paracuellos anytime;
• 2) be too loyal to Alfons XIII and his English born Queen's projects of modernising Spain, like the Embalse de Jaca was originally planned by them, but carried out under Franco, with confiscation of peasant property - same thing in some other cases, like a high way passing through a village.

B U T he had a Spain were abortion was a criminal offense and where masonic lodges were dissolved.

God rest his soul if he still needs prayers (both Palmarians and the group of Alexander IX, if I recall it, have canonised him).

Btw, even when it comes from law, it comes from providential circumstance, since having most votes or being first male child of a king or of a king's first male child dying before him, is also a providential circumstance.

III

7:08 "Voltaire and his ilk"

Hear, hear!

In Sweden Conservatives and Romantics have a tradition of preferring Rousseau to Voltaire.

There is a hero in the Finnish War. It was a common soldier, and a real dopey or dunce (at least according to the poem in his memory). Whenever obeying orders, he always got them wrong and did the reverse.

At the fight on one bridge, the order was retreat. As usual he got it wrong, and when he was dead, the Swedish / Finnish regiment or whatever type of subdivision of the army, had won. He was turned around for knowing how he had fallen, and the bullet had taken the heart.

The officer praised the taste of that mortal bullet, since Sven Dufva was in fact more heart than head.

Another poem, later on, by another poet, considered Voltaire was the reverse of Sven Dufva : intellectual talent and bad will.

Here we have last eight lines of first poem, for those knowing Swedish (alas, Dufva has been respelled Duva ...)

"Den kulan visste hur den tog, det måste erkänt bli",
Så talte generalen blott, "den visste mer än vi;
Det lät hans panna bli i fred, ty den var klen och arm,
Och höll sig till vad bättre var, hans ädla, tappra barm."

Och dessa ord de spriddes sen i hären vitt och brett,
Och alla tyckte överallt, att Sandels talat rätt.
"Ty visst var tanken", mente man, "hos Duva knapp till mått;
Ett dåligt huvud hade han, men hjärtat, det var gott.

From: Fänrik Ståls sägner / Sven Duva
http://runeberg.org/fstal/1g.html

And the second one, I can't find it, could be Snoilsky (actually more Gladstone type liberal), but the lines at the end go:

... förbytt Sven Dufvas lott:
Ett uselt hjerta hade han, men hufvet det var godt.

Meaning, enbalming Voltaire's heart didn't make much sense, since he was not such a good man.

We never had that type of bitterness about Rousseau (unfortunately, he is undeservedly popular for things like The Creed of a Savoyard Priest, to which basically the more Christian Lutherans, except a diehard dogmatic clear minority have apostasised).

(The less Christian Lutherans are of course those going whole hog atheist and staying in Swedish Church bc they like rituals for Christmas, Easter, wedding and funeral and don't object too much against baptism).

IV

8:31 You brought up Armenian Genocide.

Well, it actualy had one precedent other than French Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide

"The Circassian genocide was the Russian Empire's ethnic cleansing, killing, forced migration,[3] and expulsion of the majority of the Circassians from their historical homeland Circassia, which roughly encompassed the major part of the North Caucasus and the northeast shore of the Black Sea. This occurred in the aftermath of the Caucasian War in the last quarter of the 19th century.[4] The displaced people moved primarily to the Ottoman Empire."

"Circassians, the indigenous peoples of this region, were ethnically cleansed[5] from their homeland at the end of the Russo-Circassian War by Russia. The expulsion was launched before the end of the war in 1864 and it was mostly completed by 1867. The peoples planned for removal were mainly the Circassians (or Adyghe), Ubykhs, and Abaza, but Ingush, Arshtins, Chechens, Ossetians and Abkhaz were also heavily affected. Antero Leitzinger asserts that these events constituted the largest genocide in the 19th century."

I don't know how much of it was actual killing and how much was removal under death threat or by muscle force. I do know, Imperial Russian Army was involved.

This means, Russia had been part of the bad set-up behind Armenian Genocide.

"The Caucasian War ended with the signing of loyalty oaths by Circassian leaders on 2 June [O.S. 21 May] 1864. Afterwards, the Ottoman Empire offered to harbour the Circassians who did not wish to accept the rule of a Christian monarch, and many emigrated to Anatolia, the heart of the Ottoman territory[5][6] and ended up in modern Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Iraq and Kosovo. Different smaller numbers ended up in neighbouring Persia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Circassian_War

V

10:55 By Diderot having proto-Evolutionist ideas, do you mean his endorsement of Holbach's The System of Nature, which cites Jesuit Fr Needham's experiments with "generatio aequivoca" as proof no God is needed?

Bc I am not sure how that is relevant for Revolution, since it is totally different part of Evolutionist scheme than "survival of the fittest". It is more relevant he was materialist and therefore thought freewill was an illusion.

NB, how a machine that's not a real soul but more of a computer can have more illusions than it can have freewill is not clear. I mean, illusions involve misunderstanding, understanding things as other than they are, and this in turn involves a habit of understanding. Either way, being Holbachian is probably very helpful for war criminals and revolution criminals to develop an absence of remorse in face of cruelties.

However, Voltaire on the other hand was not Holbachian, but Deist.

VI

13:15 Speaking of conspiracies with a long time span ...

"The Russo-Circassian War (1763–1864) involved a series of battles and wars in Circassia, the northwestern part of the Caucasus, in the course of the Russian Empire's conquest of the Caucasus. Fighting lasted approximately 101 years, starting in the reign of Empress Catherine the Great and finishing in 1864."

Guess who Catherine the Great admired? Voltaire ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Circassian_War

So, most direct conspiracy line from Enlightenment to Armenian Genocide, apart from Young Turks, is Russian Czars continuing Catherine the Great's modernisation programme ...

VII

14:23 Rousseau saw Islam as superior to Christianity?

Ouch ... where in his writings?

Martin Luther saw Islam and Catholicism (in his wording Papism) as equal evils of Antichrist.

Where did you get it from he saw Islam as superior to Christianity?

VIII

15:21 "before we start following ideologues like a bunch of zombies"

That comparison is easy to make of a popularity of sth you hate. And "ideologue", sure the word has a definite lexical meaning you are not involved in?

To some, "ideologue" is just opposite of pragmatism and of "reason of state" (which was Voltaire's deal).

There was a correspondence I had with Philippe Ploncard d'Assac in which he qualified me as ideologue or sth closely related (at least it had the connotation of not pragmatic). It can be noted that while his father's biography over Salazar is brilliant and made me admire Salazar, that father, Jacques Ploncard d'Assac, was not just a biographer, but also a security agent involved in directing PIDE, Salazar's secret police, which for some reason, is not too much mentioned in the biography.

It so happens, the bibliography of this father also involves a biography over Lenin as revolutionary.

How can I feel sure, Philippe Ploncard d'Assac hasn't been taking up PIDE manners in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, isolating me over being "ideologue", "Rousseauist", misinterpretating "Distributist" (as in Chesterbelloc) as "redistributist" (as in fiscal socialism, a bug bear to me as well as even more to other conservatives), outing Lewis Carroll as a pedophile and allowing people to imagine Chronicles of Narnia was written by that Lewis ... I can't. I have too little news of what was actually going on and is actually going on behind my back in that parish (I used to be parishioner there) to verify sufficient things to file a complaint. But if he files one for my saying this publically, I think I have sufficient to show I have some reason for concern.

I am a writer. I am also, in all probability, victim of gatekeeping.

Creation vs. Evolution : Perceived Needs
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/02/perceived-needs.html

I also have a memory somewhat better than mediocre, so I trust it with recalling certain hints.

Unfortunately, I think the correspondence I had, very short, with Philippe, was via the email provider voila.fr which I could have because it was for free, and now voila.fr no more exists, so, the emails would be lost.

The impression I gained was sth like this, he dislikes Pius XI ... I cited that later on here:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Quelques Mirages et Contrevérités de Cédric Grimoult, avec mes critiques
https://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/07/quelques-mirages-et-contreverites-de.html

Again, Jacques Ploncard:

Lénine ou la Technique du coup d'État, Paris, Éditions de Permanences (extrait, nos 44-46), 1968.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ploncard_d%27Assac
more precisely section:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ploncard_d%27Assac#Sign%C3%A9_Jacques_Ploncard_d%27Assac

On top of that, Philippe is:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3380551

Citing:

English : Philippe Ploncard d'Assac : French neurosurgeon and essayist

Could he have Holbachian views of certain people?

Correction

on Philippe Ploncard d'Assac, he had not called me "ideologue" but "homme de systèmes".

Not necessarily complete synonyms, though the concepts overlap or "men of systems" would include "ideologues".

Here is the material in which I incorporated our interchange back then:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : J'ai Bien Aimé Lire son Père, Jacques Ploncard d'Assac; Mais ...
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/05/jai-bien-aime-lire-son-pere-jacques.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : L'Importance et la dangérosité des informations reçues par des réseaux
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/05/limportance-et-la-dangerosite-des.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Philippe Ploncard d'Assac a voulu vouloir voire ...
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/05/philippe-ploncard-dassac-voulu-vouloir.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Philippe Ploncard d'Assac a répondu:
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/05/philippe-ploncard-dassac-repondu.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Essayons de comprendre
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/05/essayons-de-comprendre.html

I somehow knew I had seen that letter (second to last link) after the downing of voila.fr, and on brown background, as is the case with this quote on my blog.

Here I just mentioned him in passing:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Rapprochons encore une fois Evelyn Waugh et Gilbert Keith Chesterton
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/07/rapprochons-encore-une-fois-evelyn.html

... Gun Rights vs Abortion

... on Abortion Debate · ... Gun Rights vs Abortion · ... on "Medical Reasons" for Late Term Abortions

Triggered Feminist Gets Destroyed By Kaitlin Bennett
Liberty Hangout | 11.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHpCCe9en2M

I

The gal seriously thinks a girl being raped should not shoot the rapist even in the thigh with a gun, but if she gets pregnant, she can kill an innocent person bc of its origins, namely bc engendered in rape ... (the gal in black on left of image from viewer at 2:24 that is).

II

4:10 sth "once it has a heartbeat it's murder"

Before.

I would like to take the occasion to add some info here:

Like these videos?

Support Kaitlin on Patreon so she can do interviews in your city next!

https://www.patreon.com/KaitlinBennett

That said, I hope she does realise it is murder even at the day after pill or at the pill when it comes after a fertilisation of an ovum./HGL

... on Abortion Debate

... on Abortion Debate · ... Gun Rights vs Abortion · ... on "Medical Reasons" for Late Term Abortions

Pro-Abortion Students Get Cozy With Satan
TFP Student Action | 6.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv6q5iYq8h0

Features a petition:

DEFUND Planned Parenthood Forever
May 05, 2017
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/petitions/defund-planned-parenthood-forever

Which I signed:



And I also commented under video:

I

2:12 "we have a thing called separation of Church and State"

Not from the founding fathers, at least.

One of them privately stated that as a motive, but separation of Church and State, literally so stated, or in synonymous terms, never became official policy of a state or federality anywhere before 1905 with Clémenceau, who on that line confiscated French churches from the Catholic Church and started looting sacred vessels. When Catholics stepped in to prevent this, they were shot by police.

He was of course your ally during World War I. Briefly, since you were not all that much involved in it.

Now, a series of Supreme Court laws actually do give you this "separation of Church and State" as pseudo-exegesis of one Amendment (II, I think*). That amendment doesn't adress separation or union of Church and State at any other level than that of Congress : Congress shall make no law concerning establishment of a religion, by which in context was meant one Christian confession.

Now, one of the court cases had sth called a "lemon test".

The Catholic view of sex and fertility actually would pass it.

• 1) Sexuality is meant for procreation, and limiting it to it (i e banning anti-procreative practises, eiaculatio extra vasum, pills, abortion) is useful so society continues to have a healthy balance of old and young.
• 2) We are people, not beasts. If two of us procreate, we need to speak about it first, and education of children on some level affects all of society, so, this requires making some kind of promise before all of society. That promise is called marriage. In marriage, man is the head, because there needs to be a "casting vote". Two people cannot have a majority vote about what to do. This means, by marriage, a woman is electing the head of her family, like a town's citizens elect their mayor or like US elector colleges elect a president. Obviously, her children normally can't make the election, since they normally aren't there.
• 3) Marriage makes a couple which is the nucleus of a family. Within the limits of letting sex be procreative and keeping the promise (not separating, but staying together while children are raised - in Catholic / sacramental marriage even for life -, not committing adultery, not raising children to apostasy or revolution) the family should be autonomous. Saves lots of tax money, reduces lots of unhealthy meddling élites, from CPS to shrinks on one hand or compulsory schools on the other, allows nature and nurture to go together for best results spontaneously possible from the marital promise.

None of this limits the morality to "one religion".

It is nothing like imposing a ban on strong drink or a surveillance of those using it to see if some risk becoming alcoholics, which is definitely a special pleading from Protestant sects like Mormons or 7DA or Methodists. Prohibition meant more drunkenness, not less. The surveillance system means less equality, not more sobriety.

In France, Muslims are pushing this also, at least some of them.

Back from comparison with "alcohol politics" to procreative morality. Yes, man being fallen it stands to reason that some will in fact not act according to the three principles just given. It would be draconic to apply this as if any deviation in any direction immediately merited the worst penalties.

But the worst of the deviations is trying to "repair" a deviation by murder of a child procreated in non-ideal circumstances. Therefore, abortion should be getting the worst penalty, both for participating medical personnel, and for mothers so chosing, or, with recent conditions in mind, I'd gladly add maternal grandparents or for that matter foster parents of a mother, who push her to abort.

NB, this last thing only has become an issue since it became senselessly difficult for teens to marry, work and raise children instead of continuing school, celibacy and non-parenthood. Therefore, marital minima ages should be lowered, some works at least (other than just pop singer) should be open to teens.

In all of this, while this is truly obedient to God per se, all is also truly comprehensible for non-believers with, on that issue, good will. None of it strictly depends on believing in God (except sacramental marriage being lifelong).

Going back to a little earlier:

0:46 "poor or unable to take care of that and decides not to get an abortion, obviously she's not even able to take care of it, it's gonna have a worse life, right?"

• 1) That is sectarian and does not pass the lemon test! Growing up with a poor, illiterate Catholic mother is not worse than growing up with a rich, college educated and unbelieving one, except on the sectarian views of such unbelievers (ranging from sects like Puritan Protestant to sects like "Western Atheism" which is a radically de-Christianised version of Protestantism).
• 2) The prediction involves a religious sense of curse (over the poor) and predestination to what is ill, which, while not Christian is sectarian Calvinist (in case said by an Atheist, remember, Western Atheism is a de-Christianised version of Protestantism).
• 3) Even granting someone has a life worse than someone else born under other circumstances (which as said cannot be known in advance), this does not make it worse than being killed by an abortionist.
• 4) She is part of the problem, since she is part of a society making it hard for poor, young, uneducated parents to stay effectively parents and effectively in charge of their children.
• 5) This is why I not only signed the petition, but also promote family liberties for homeschoolers, for poor, young, and uneducated parents and also combination of both.

* (footnote)

Glad I wasn't too sure, II Amendment was the gun thing. I was thinking (looked it up) I Amendment. As you may guess, I am no US citizen.

II

2:42 "and they actually take care of their people"

Meaning Satanism cannot survive without imitating some virtues of the Catholic Church.

How much is apostasy being pushed, while Catholics are not doing what they should?

I'm not sure it is all it means, it may also mean Satanists control their people in ways reminiscent of ... Spurgeon sects. Or what I get as a gut feeling about some Evangelicals. There is a mainly black Evangelical congregation in Paris (and surroundings) which markets itself around repairing destroyed lives.

Apart from some of these repairs being adulteries, how much control are the new members required to hand over before getting their lives repaired? I don't know. Being Catholic, I haven't tried them. They have been nice on occasions, though, while knowing (I hope) I am not one of them.

"and they actually take care of their people"

Unfortunately, I have a feeling, it also involves Satanists, like PP, passing off "helping" a girl to abort as taking care.

See also:

Dr. Levatino Destroys Abortion in 2 Minutes
TFP Student Action | 23.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXQBhTszpU

(c. 1200 abortions / c. 1461 days - credible.)

Debate on Christianity and Evidence

Jeff Boldgloom

When I asked people how we knew there was a God, I was told "because it's in the bible"

When I asked people how we can believe the bible, I was told "because it's the word of God"

That's why I'm an athiest

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Were they the same people?

Were these two answers all you got from all you asked?

Start travelling around a bit ...

Michael Lambert

Boldgloom? I like it!

Da Absurd Bird

@Hans-Georg Lundahl c'mon man. Trying to recruit dudes to your cult in an atheist comment section?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Da Absurd Bird It so happens, I have heard this meme about Christian evidence, since I was a not yet Catholic teen of 15. I have not exactly been fully acquainted with a Christian who actually said so, and lots who didn't say exactly that.

Sure, recruiting here would be nice ...

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Uh.. yes? I've never seen a reason to believe in God that isn't based around faith or logical fallacy.

Faith isn't a good enough reason for me to believe something. You're going to have to show proof that isn't wrapped up in some form of assumption or fallacy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Going to God of the Bible (that of the Catholic Church):

• there is a Catholic Church which started 33 AD (Catholics and Orthodox disagree on who of them continue it);
• there was before that a Judaism with a Temple, Catholics and the Jews without a Temple disagree on who of them continue it;
• there was a Babylonic captivity before that Temple
• there was another Temple before the Babylonic captivity
• there was an Israelite religion which split into Judaism of first temple and Samaritan religion after the ten tribes rejected Rohoboam the son of Solomon

None of these historic and present communities are doubtful. No body doubts they existed and that now exist Samaritans, Jews, Catholics and Orthodox.

Now, here is the rub:

• Samaritans accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Jews accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Catholics accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Orthodox accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history.

True, in each of the latter three communities at least, there is a modern faction throwing doubts on it, but it is recent compared to those earlier centuries when as far back as we trace, no one threw doubt on historicity of the books mentioned.

Now, if they are historical, there are sufficient miracles in each to warrant divine intervention in history.

If they are garbled, and garbled history happens, there are too many specifics of the miracles that defy explanation as garbled history.

By contrast, the pagan history contemporary to them do not show sufficient specifics on miracles to warrant an acceptance of their gods as true gods (example of insufficient specifics : divinity and pre-human creation events and perhaps mission of possible prophet revealed to that person through a vision or an apparition, with no miracles external to the experience of prophet to back these up).

This means, the God of the Old Testament exists.

Now, there are four religions claiming to come from the Joshua event, directly or with more after, namely, as said, Samaritans, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox. Three splits basically 1000 years apart. The middle one is most important.

Now whether the Church founded in AD 33 was Catholics or Orthodox, or something in between, and whichever side continued it after 1054, it claims, since both Catholics and Orthodox claim and this is also backed up by earlier splits like Copts, Armenians, Nestorians, and even dead ends like Arians and Thondrakians, that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are history.

Same story. If you suppose they are garbled history, you must explain how the garbling came to include miracles which hadn't happened.

And if you accept the miracles, you have to accept the Christian side of the split around AD 33. Since the Jews clearly do not claim any miracles of a major divine kind contrary to the Christian miracles.

Now, once you accept miracles are proven by even possibly garbled history (like some kind of Trojan War is proven by definitely garbled Iliad), you will have to accept God worked them, and once you do that, you will have to accept He founded Christianity and therefore gave either a Church or a Bible or both to faithfully preserve His revelation, and this leads to accepting inerrant history as well. Which was not needed to prove God, but we as Christians need to believe it to avoid certain errors.

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not a historian so I have no way of knowing if anything you're explaining to me is completely true, so I'm going to check this against both religious and secular historical sources. Thanks!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Do so!

And try to first of all learn a difference dear to historians, even if I am just an amateur in the subject:

• a history book is a history book, it's a modern analysis of sources
• a historical source is from or as close to from the time of events that we get.

Best wishes!

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hm. That seems to me like preemptive damage control. I have some questions for you.

Where did you find this information?

Where did you fact check this information?

Would scholars that do not have a religious bias agree that this information must prove the existence of God?

caleb robinson

That sounds like an extremely brainwashed answer, I don't believe that is an answer God would want one to give, being a Christian myself, hearing this quite upsets me, we are told in the scripture to be able to give an account for the hope that lies within us and I feel like these answers were extremely void of any substance, I'm sorry about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "That sounds like an extremely brainwashed answer, I don't believe that is an answer God would want one to give,"

What is "extremely brainwashed" about it?

NOT being brainwashed in modern prejudices of history?

NOT being brainwashed in Protestantism being original Christianity with absolutely no proof to back it up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Glad I was not talking over the head of you while you were factchecking and should be given the time to do so.

"I have some questions for you."

Fine.

"Where did you find this information?"

Many sources, and I am not sure I can give you each I originally came across.

I gave a reasoning, my synthesis, on more than one historic fact question.

"Where did you fact check this information?"

On which of the topics? I'd be glad to give a good fact check on each you would like to ask.

"Would scholars that do not have a religious bias agree that this information must prove the existence of God?"

These informations in this reasoning.

As they these days usually either are in an anti-religious bias (like Richard Carrier) or working in an academic context where the religious implications are methodologically left out (like my Catholic or Neo-Catholic Historian friend in Lund, Professor Yvonne Maria Werner), no, they would not.

Richard Carrier would try the dodge to say when a source includes the supernatural it is unreliable, more or less (he wouldn't do that wholesale on Tacitus, but he would be sure Tacitus had had unreliable sources for, for instance, the omens in Rome when Nero was probably murdering his mother, this is in book VI of Annals, btw).

Yvonne Maria Werner would definitely not as a historian on behalf of the institution do so, I suspect she might do so as a private person.

As I have no academic position to defend, I also don't have to comply with that methodology.

Now, go to Annals of Tacitus, and some more ancient Historians, go to Anglo-Saxon chronicle, and then get back and tell me reliable historic information is not even to be gleaned from sources including miracles.

I had Annals book VI at university (my Latin was so good back then I could somehow manage Tacitus), and read about omens in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle somewhere in the context of Vikings, so it should be like from before the attack on Lindisfarne. I take this as typical, if you don't, well do a better fact check.

THEN go to modern syntheses about Rome after Augustus but before Tacitus set to work, or about England from Roman legions leaving in 411 AD to 1154, especially the latter part, close to King Alfred's time, when the original manuscript (which was later updated) seems to have been made. See how much they after all do rely on Tacitus or Anglo-Saxon chronicle for non-miraculous and non-ominous events.

AND, as a third step, if you still disbelieve the miraculous, ask yourself why you take one source as reliable when it is non-miraculous and as non-reliable when it is miraculous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson again, here:

"we are told in the scripture to be able to give an account for the hope that lies within us"

Exactly what I am trying to do.

"and I feel like these answers were extremely void of any substance, I'm sorry about that."

Perhaps because history, while key to a real substantial answer, is not your best subject?

If I am wrong, name one person who belonged to YOUR type of Christian Church and who lived in 750 AD.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It sounds brainwashed because that person if they are giving answers like that dont know why they believe what they believe, yes it is something God has told us is true through his scripture, but it doesnt offer any substance to the one asking a question, and i feel thats where the answer fails, I too believe that the scripture is the truth, but i feel that one should be able to give an account of their belief in an analytical, logical, and rational manner. Having faith because the evidence shows it to be so, and i do believe that there is enough evidence to suggest God is real and Jesus was who he said he was.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You realise i am not replying to your comments dont you? I am replying to the Original comment made, in which this thread is continuing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "yes it is something God has told us is true through his scripture, but it doesnt offer any substance to the one asking a question, and i feel thats where the answer fails, I too believe that the scripture is the truth, but i feel that one should be able to give an account of their belief in an analytical, logical, and rational manner."

Well, didn't I?

"Having faith because the evidence shows it to be so, and i do believe that there is enough evidence to suggest God is real and Jesus was who he said he was."

So do I. I consider the chief difficulty is believing Gospel is evidence and I adress that through nature of historic evidence as such and through specifics about this case.

What's sounding brainwashed about that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "You realise i am not replying to your comments dont you? I am replying to the Original comment made, in which this thread is continuing."

Oh, I actually didn't until I was just now beginning to suspect it.

But to me it sounded not brainwashed, but fictional.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Again if you read my comment, it was not aimed toward you.

I am from the church of christ, and all the apostles were from this church Peter, Paul, John, all of them. The church i attend is structured and runs the same as the first churches did. I do not know who Lived in 750 AD.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yeah it happens sometimes thats why i should tag the people im talking to in the future. aha sorry about the confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "The church i attend is structured and runs the same as the first churches did. I do not know who Lived in 750 AD."

I have a fairly good idea what major known groups of people did, and none of them had as far as I know both your Church Structure and your doctrine.

In fact, since part of your doctrine is a doctrine about Church structure, but also for other reasons, this means none had your doctrine back then.

This means, you can't have the same Church Structure and Doctrine as Apostles, see Mt 28:20 "all days"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson I should have guessed even without a tag, but was tired.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl well studying through the scripture you begin to see the apostles were giving the doctrine as it was being revealed to them, and they wrote it down, which is what makes up the bible. we hold steadfast to the apostles doctrine that they wrote down for us, and also gave to the christians living at that time.

But i do not remember speaking about doctrine, we just do what the bible says and structure it accordingly. Thats all.

The Truth

So much delusion in this thread

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "studying through the scripture you begin to see the apostles were giving the doctrine as it was being revealed to them,"

Partly, but mostly, they were given the doctrine by Christ and giving it as occasions demanded.

"and they wrote it down, which is what makes up the bible."

NT has 8 authors. Sts Matthew, Jude and Peter were of the 12. St John may have been of the Twelve or may have been just a namesake of the son of Zebedee, not same person. In that case, the beloved disciple was the Gospeller, not the fisherman.

St James was the Brother of God, not the son of Zebedee.

Sts Mark and Luke were definitely not of the 12.

Suggests to me, the 12 had some other function than writing NT, besides, NT is not all of the Bible. Any reference in NT to "Scripture" usually primarily refers to the OT.

So, what else were the 12 doing, and what else are you steadfastly holding to, except the doctrine written down in NT, as you interpret it?

Bc, what you just said is NOT enough. St Matthew, one of the twelve, did write down a promise involving ALL DAYS, right?

To have the overall right interpretation of NT, you have to have a Church which has been in place since the 12 heard that promise (or 11, Judas not yet replaced by St Mathias). You don't.

"we just do what the bible says and structure it accordingly. Thats all."

In order actually to structure it accordingly to what the Bible says, you need to find a Church which was there in all days, therefore also in 750.

This guy was born that year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Ireland

So were these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_of_Salzburg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermudo_I_of_Asturias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_of_Fulda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegrim_of_Ch%C3%A2lons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodulf_of_Orl%C3%A9ans

These men died that year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_the_Confessor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agilulfus_of_Cologne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boruth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bressal_mac_%C3%81edo_R%C3%B3in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burchard_of_W%C3%BCrzburg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himelin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inreachtach_mac_Dluthach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzak

There is nearly one person of these who definitely was not a real Christian in my book - the husband of Tzitzak, Constantine Shitname (who survived her by 25 years).

Some of the Irish were perhaps schismatic, the rest were Christian. So, the promise in Matthew 28:20 is fulfilled as to 750 AD.

@The Truth Like what?

@caleb robinson I missed St Paul, an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

@caleb robinson And Tzitzak, like her husband, was probably clpable of iconoclastic doctrine.

... on Historicity of Genesis

The Origins and Evolution of Language | Michael Corballis | TEDxAuckland
TEDx Talks | 14.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cklw6d6Q

Alllii F/O

There are more than 2000 languages ...don't tell me that Adam and Eve ,earn there kids all these languages ...so how the he'll human learnt all these language ? If you smart enough answer me

Beni Venetta

Can you just repeat the video if you didn't hear him??

Aquilla Fleetwood

Alllii F/O...God gave man the first language! The word "semitic" came from "Shem" who was one of the sons of Noah!
Then those people disobeyed and refused to scatter over the earth! So, God confused their language!
Then they....scattered!
Get it???
Shalom...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There are more than 2000 languages ...don't tell me that Adam and Eve ,earn there kids all these languages"

Adam and Eve taught their children Hebrew.

After Babel, there were 72 new languages.

After that languages have changed, split, merged, merged and split again etc. So, c. 4000 years later we have 6000.

Linguists consider they are splits from 32 language families. Less than just after Babel.

[other schools have considerably more unrelated language families]

Bernie Basset

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Forgetting of course that Adam and Eve is just a story. It never happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bernie Basset Genesis was by its earliest traceable audience taken as history, not as fable.

Precisely as Lord of the Rings is by its earliest traceable audience taken as fable, not as history.

satid 56

@Bernie Basset its not a story its. Reality

Doctor Drywell

@Aquilla Fleetwood lol...you are nuts.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just because something was taken as history, it doesnt mean it is history. Nice fallacious argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Doctor Drywell I'll repeat what I said in extenso, and read all of it:
____________

Genesis was by its earliest traceable audience taken as history, not as fable.

Precisely as Lord of the Rings is by its earliest traceable audience taken as fable, not as history.
___________

What's fallacious about it?

If you had replaced the word "history" with "true" it would be fallacious, since some people think false things are true.

But simply history as in not a novel for entertainment, I think tracing the reception of an account to earliest traceable persons knowing it, whether it is meant to be factual or meant to be just plain fun, that is pretty much the best we can go on.

Now, history is not always the same thing as true and accurate history. Iliad is probably accurate in saying there was a Trojan war, but as probably inaccurately transferring events from battle of Kadesh and other Hittite wars to Trojan war and similarily inaccurately omitting Hittites.

I believe Genesis is history, true history, and divinely preserved in recording inerrant history. These are three different levels of "historicity" and the argument given suffices for the first level.

Doctor Drywell

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, since you believe Genesis is history, real history, you have a burden of proof to demonstrate and justify that perspective.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Doctor Drywell The fact it was from first taken as history is sufficient prima facie evidence it is history. If you want to pretend it was at first made as entertainment, the burden of proof is on you to show entertainment only was a first reception and it was later replaced by the reception as history.

This is the first step.

The accuracy is then - step 2 - proven by the fact that you do not have definite more accurate histories from neighbouring people in conflict with it.

And the divine claims are - we have step three here - proven by miracles which must be accepted if the history is accurate.

What is NOT proven?