From a Swede and Ucraniophile to Russia, with Some Love

Why We Stopped Having Babies In Russia
Framebykate | 31 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r94etEzcJFM

I'm a Swede. I have at least two Ukrainian connections.

I'm not pro-Russian. B U T ... paying pregnant teenagers is actually a GOOD idea.

Even better let them marry and the dads get jobs (even if teenagers themselves) but after that, not a bad idea.

---

Other nice solution. Ban speculation types that unduly raise housing prices.

---

Third nice solution. Ban interest rates altogether or at least those above 5 %.

---

I find that official* good, but it would be better if the abortions were banned too.

I'd not like more pregnancies to boost abortions again ....

* He stomped on a contraceptive techniques poster.

---

Does monastic propaganda count as "child free" propaganda in the letter of that law?

---

Abortion should be banned.*

* Not just made less accessible.

---

Indeed. The rapist is only guilty of rape. The aborting woman of murder.

---

My mother parallelled raising me and studying at Med school, part time alone.

---

The miniskirts idea was however bad ....

---

"before growing up oneselves"

Let me give you some stats, age for marriage, per sex, in the extended ancestry of two adversaries and their successive wives. William the Taciturn of Orange Nassau, first Staadthouder of the Netherlands and Philipp II of Spain:

Mann heiratete*
18 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 25 26 26 28 28 29 30
16 17 18 19 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 28 28 29 29
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

31 31 31 31 32 33 36 36 37 37 39 42 44 49
30 30 30 31 32 33 35 35 36 37 39 42 43 44
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Stellwehrte
Minimum 16 oder 18 Jahre, Niedrige Quartile 24 oder 25 Jahre,
Median 29 oder 30 Jahre,
Obere Quartile 35 oder 36 Jahre, Maximum 44 oder 49 Jahre.

Frau heiratete
09 11 12 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17
08 09 10 11 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 22 25 25 26 27 29
17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 21 19 24 25 25 27 27
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Stellwehrte
Minimum 8 oder 9 Jahre, Niedrige Quartile 15,5 Jahre,
Median 17 Jahre,
Obere Quartile 18 oder 19 Jahre, Maximum 27 oder 29 Jahre.

Mann heiratete**
14 14 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 20 21 23 25
13 14 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 20 21 22 25
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

25 26 27 28 30 31 32 36 37 42 43 46 46
25 26 27 28 28 31 32 36 37 42 43 45 46
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Stellwehrte
Minimum 13 oder 14 Jahre, Untere Quartile 17,5 Jahre, Median 23,5 oder 24 Jahre
Obere Quartile 29,5 oder 30,5 Jahre, Maximum 46 Jahre

Frau heiratete
12 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17
11 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 23 23 38
17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 38
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Stellwehrte
Minimum 11 oder 12 Jahre, Untere Quartile 15 Jahre, Median 16,5 oder 17 Jahre
Obere Quartile 19 Jahre, Maximum 38 Jahre

In both cases, more than half of the women married before 18, and in the latter case 7 / 28 men did so too. That's 1 / 4.

* "Wilhelmus van Nassouwe, ben ik van Duitsen bloed ..." Wie Deutsch?

** Und Philipp II. von Spanien?

---

"instead of ending the war"

As I love Ukraine (at some distance, but still), I can only agree on that one.

Ukraine is not Zelensky. Stopping the aggression on the country might lead to elections where he loses.

Responding to Rachel Darnall

What Do You Mean, "Fundamentalist?" | Season 1, Episode 1, "These Troubled Times" Podcast
These Troubled Times Podcast (with Rachel Darnall) | 1 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_AnvXRitXs

5:50 OK .... what were the precise words of St. Paul?

If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men
Romans 12:18

I didn't see "have peace with all men whatever it costs" but "if it be possible" and "as much as is in you" which I take to mean "insofar as it depends on you" ...

Now, given that the faith itself is a "once given" that part is offlimits as to sacrifices for having peace ...

Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Jude 1:3

Contend basically means "quarrel" ... but obviously not for a new revelation, or understanding. Which is where Philipp II and Cardinal Beaton come off as better than John Knox or William the Taciturn.

9:30 Looking up:

The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth (generally referred to simply as The Fundamentals) is a set of ninety essays published between 1910 and 1915 by the Testimony Publishing Company of Chicago. It was initially published quarterly in twelve volumes, then republished in 1917 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles as a four-volume set. Baker Books reprinted all four volumes under two covers in 2003.

Ah, 1910. Protestants weren't first!

Anti-Modernists viewed these notions as contrary to the dogmas and traditions of the Catholic Church. In the decree entitled Lamentabili sane exitu[30] ("With Lamentable Results Indeed") of 3 July 1907, Pius X formally condemned 65 propositions, mainly drawn from the works of Alfred Loisy and concerning the nature of the Church, revelation, biblical exegesis, the sacraments, and the divinity of Christ. That was followed by the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (or "Feeding the Lord's Flock"), which characterized Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies."

Dear St. Pius X, pray for us!

Now, I corrected the English translation of the first words ...

Pascendi Dominici gregis (English: Feeding the Lord's Flock) is a papal encyclical letter, subtitled "On the Doctrines of the Modernists", promulgated by Pope Pius X on 8 September 1907

Now, our dear Antimodernist pope beat the Chicago Protestants by more than 2 full years ....

13:24 Not to mention equality of men or Genesis 1:28 ... it was modernist Evangelische (the term evokes more United Church of Canada than Evangelicals) who handed Hitler's doctors the power to sterilise and even abort children with Downs ...

"Rough edges" ... St. Caesarius of Arles interpreted 616 (which he had in his probably incorrect text) as "CHi Iota ST" = "CHi RHota Iota ST" lacking the letter R, the rough letter.

Hitler in ASCII in normal capitalisation gives 616* ...

17:58 As it so happens, Catholicism never (prior to Vatican II) went back on a God-given mission to transform society including about just wages.

18:13 And prohibition and socialism were two of the wrong solutions ...

19:29 Catholic Fundamentalists, by contrast, are not premillennial (usually, but Tolkien who was can hardly be described as a Fundamentalist) and also do not believe that the "Church age" will be replaced by any other dispensation prior to the Final Glory.

20:17 Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr .... related to one Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr who is notorious for, like Hitler, having introduced into the legal system (barring differences of method between legislation and SC precedent) the slavery of some to eugenical experts ... I suppose.

21:47 Is it Left Behind that features some guy named Nicolae Jetty Carpathia?

I think some guys on the Protestant side have been comparing me to him.

Now, Nicolae Jetty Carpathia, like L'Empéreur Napoléon, doesn't add up to 666 in any known gematria. That novel, like the one by Tolstoy, shuffles over the gematric issue ...

25:00 Catholicism is kind of Narnian.

You recall The Last Battle? An actually good "meditation on" (as opposed to direct fan fiction of) the End of the World parts of the Apocalypse.

Jewel and Jill have this conversation, and it gives so much place for both multigenerational faithfulness (the standard) and an imminence that "a" world is coming to an end.

Catholicism has both.

Without the cynicism of "I'll be raptured" and without the poison of "socialism, prohibition, eugenics, raised marital ages" ...

---

* Gematria, letters, upper case values, adding 32 for each lower case:

H	72
I	73	140	5	32
T	84	220	9	32
L	76	290	15	32
E	69	350	24	32
R	82	430	26	32

430 + 26 + 160 = 616

Was Fulton Sheen a Theistic Evolutionist? If So, He was in Error

Did Sheen Embrace Heresy? Plus, I'm Back With the Benedictines!
Christine Niles | 27 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC-vdy_5OYw

24:16 Let me break it down a bit.

1) Six literal days contiguous with the first moment of time or one single moment = fully traditional, unproblematic.

After this, Biblical chronology ensues, and Abraham, contemporary with some kind of Egyptian Pharao, is 2 to 3+ millennia after Adam. Depending on text. Fully traditional, unproblematic.

2) Six literal days after a gap, after a vastly longer pre-"creation" time period, or six long periods. Both have been accepted by some scholars, and are not condemned per se.

After this, either Biblical chronology ensues, as per previous, or, Fulcran Vigouroux suggested the post-Flood genealogy could contain some more gaps than just the second Cainan. Again, not condemned per se, and not very problematic in the less traditional setting.

3) No literal Adam = a nono, and it has been voiced by an Assumptionist in Paris. He's probably campaigning to get me stamped as mentally ill for calling him out on my blog. Some things have been done which could be vile steps going that direction.

4) Adam existed, but was born to non-human progenitors. Pius XII was weak on this. He was clear that him being Adam meant they had to be non-human. But would God have put an as yet sinless Adam into the care of non-human beasts, albeit such that have lots in common with us anatomically?

I'd suggest, even if this wasn't condemned, it is fully condemnable.

5) "mankind has existed for 40 000 / 90 000 / 300 000 years" again, I'd suggest this is fully condemnable.

a) because the number of generations between Adam and Abraham, therefore Adam and Moses would have been too long. Genesis 3 could not have been transmitted as oral history with fidelity in this case.

Or, if you place Adam in or much nearer the Biblical timeline:

b) because of this involving Adam after all not being the actual first man.

Now, so far, this was theology. There is some science to it as well.

IF the world is 6000 years as Hugh Owen thinks or 7200 years old as I think (chronology of traditional Christmas martyrology, based on a variant of LXX in Genesis 5 and 11), then a carbon date for a human skeleton saying "40 000 years ago", including for a Neanderthal skeleton ("42 000 years ago") can be explained by a rapid rise of carbon 14 levels in the 2000 years after the Flood, we are wrongly comparing the sample's carbon 14 content with the now current atmospheric level.

IF however the world is billions of years old, so is the atmosphere. That means a carbon 14 date of "42 000 years ago" needs to be taken more literally.

This is not just about the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but the carbon date for Chalcolithic Engeddi sets a conundrum for it for Genesis 14. We know from Chronicles, Engeddi is Asason-Tamar. But Engeddi has no population between the Chalcolithic and the Iron age, the latter being obviously too late. So, either the Bible's c. 2000 BC is somehow carbon dated to 3500 BC (my position, it goes perfectly well with Young Earth Creationism) or Genesis 14 contains a historical error. This is however a big no no. Especially given the central place of this chapter in Catholic theology, in connection with the Psalm Dixit Dominus and the comment thereon in Hebrews.

So, if Fulton Sheen embraced Theistic evolution, he was in error. One which has increasingly grave consequences today.

24:43 "this would include man"

Sorry, this is unacceptable.

It involves either Adam having non-human progenitors or Adam not being the actual first man or not even existing individually.

The first of these is a blasphemy against God's goodness, probably behind some of the earliest cases of childabuse late 40's or early 50's. The other two are directly against Trent Session V.

25:33 No. He very much didn't directly affirm that Adam having non-human ancestry was acceptable for Catholics to hold.

He did, and I made a close reading of the encyclical's text at this point, allow for debate behind closed doors and defenders of the non-traditional view needing to withhold a kind of final assent to it.

Now, one could read, but this would make Pius XII a heretic in 1950, that he required also defenders of the traditional view to withhold a kind of final assent. They had never done so previously, and the wording applies within the context of this debate behind closed doors. In other words, they were just required not to alert the general community of the faithful that some people were discussing Adam could have had ape ancestry.

25:39 Would the first of these "multiple popes since then" be one Wojtyla in 1992, whom for this precise reason I count as a non-Pope?

26:40 Let's check the wording of Pius XII again.

and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

Under normal circumstances, one would take this as a future judgement of the Church. One can't. And one needn't. I'm submitting to Trent Session V, which clearly implies the impossibility of Theistic Evolution as applying to man.

29:51 Your prediction was fulfilled within 11 hours. Here I am, admit I'm punctual!

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

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Democracy is Neither Best Nor Per Se Best for Basic Freedom Or Equality · New blog on the kid: For Hobbit Week: Economy in Middle Earth

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