Je connais les hiérarchies ...

Celles des fidèles catholiques est Pape, Cardinal, Patriarche, Archévêque ou Métropolite, Évêque, et pour les simples prêtres il y a les Curés et après les Aumôniers. Les diacres, sousdiacres sont dans le rite latin traditionnel depuis au moins Trente, comme les ordres mineurs étapes vers la prêtrise. Et les simples fidèles sont soumis aux prêtres et aux moines et moniales mais différemment, car les moines et moniales sont supérieurs par perfection, les prêtres le sont dans la direction des fidèles.

La féodalité compte Pape et Empéreur, les Rois, les Archiducs et les Ducs, les Margraves ou Marquis, les Comtes, les Barons, puis les Chevaliers et les Écuyers. Par contre, on pouvait bien être soumis au roi sans être soumis au baron le plus proche, par exemple en vivant dans une ville.

Les étapes vers chevalier étaient page et écuyer. Les étapes dans les jurandes - mais tous dans les villes ne vivaient pas non plus dans les jurandes - étaient apprentis et compagnons, dont certains ne devenaient jamais maîtres. Un compagnon était un employé spécialiste, un maître normalement à la fois encore plus spécialiste et un propriétaire de l'entreprise. Mais il y avait des métiers qui n'entraient pas dans cette hierarchie, même dans les villes.

L'armée a des grades d'officiers différents selon les pays. Il y a les générals, les colonels, les capitaines, les lieutenant partout. Après le lieutenant en dessus des sous-officiers on s'appelle Aspirant en France, Fähnrich en Allemagne, et Fänrik en Suède. Les générals ont ses divers grades en commande des armées, des divisions, des brigades. Les colonels en commande des régiments, dont le dernier grade est Commendant en France, mais en Suède on l'appelle Major, ce qu'ici veut dire autre chose. Capitaines, lietenants, aspirants sont les officiers des compagnies. Les sous-officiers, dont le grade caporal est assez repandu en commande des troupes moindre qu'une compagnie. Et les civilistes n'entrent pas dans cette hiérarchie.

Il y a des hiérarchies qui sont même plus sacrés que ces hiérarchies là (et dont la première est la plus sacrée), comme les neuf chœurs des anges sous Dieu et la Sainte Vierge, Mêre de Dieu, c'est la hiérarchie céleste. Il y a aussi la différence infinie entre Dieu le Père, le Fils et le Saint-Esprit et les créatures de Dieu. Et il y a aussi la hiérarchie dans la famille.

Il y a, malheureusement, des hiérarchies qui n'en sont pas sauf dans une estimation erronnée. Un père n'est dans sa paternité soumis qu'à Dieu, à la limite, en tant que baptisé et père d'un baptisé à l'église. Il n'est soumis à son patron ou son assistant social qu'en ce qui concerne les méthodes qu'il a ou doit chercher pour nourrir sa famille. Il est erronnée à l'extrème de prétendre que le patron puisse être son chef dans sa paternité même et déjà criminel quand les assistants sociaux des DDASS commencent à dire qu'il doive éduquer ses enfants comme ci ou les nourrir comme ça. Ou encore menacer de les enlever s'il fait pas comme ci et encore les enlever réellement s'il fait comme ça.

Les pères sont égaux entre eux, tous supérieurs de leurs propres enfants, tant qu'il s'agit de leur propres, mais pas des enfants des autres, sauf en tant qu'il font une forme volontaire et dissoluble (au moins par déménagement d'un couple des parents du village ou de la chiourme.) Il sont soumis à Dieu et à l'Église.

Les adultes sont aussi en principe égaux quand à l'usage de leur raison et de leurs émotions. Si tel psychiatre recommende de chercher un psychiatre parce qu'on ressent des émotions "à excès" il s'agit d'un surchérie. S'il observe les émotions d'autrui pour le soumettre éventuellement à des soins forcés, ou à une observation prolongée visant à priver la personne "provisoirement" (ou encore pire) de l'usage de ses libertés civiles, il s'agit du crime. Et une fois sous la psychiatrie, on est garantie de ressentir certains émotions "à excès", puisque la situation provoque cet excès. La situation, pas l'état de base de la personne. Entre psychiatre et patients involontaires, il n'y a pas de vraie hiérarchie, il y a souvent le crime de séquestration ou encore d'instigation à l'abus de pouvoir par calomnies.

Un industriel qui rencontre un mendiant lâché de la psychiatrie n'est normalement pas en position de se plaindre de désinvolture. D'une côté il n'était pas de jure soumis aux psychiatres, de l'autre l'industriel n'est pas de jure son supérieur par l'emploi dans l'entreprise. Il n'y a pas d'hiérarchie sauf peut-être celle de bienfaisance. Et celui qui choisit de donner ne se plaint pas de désinvolture dans la demande, sauf si tel il y ait eu. Trouver un mendiant n'est pas dans le sens d'avoir un droit immédiat à hostilités pour "insoumission" ou de "désinvolture". Sinon, ça serait cette hiérarchie mammonique que certains hautains et riches essaient d'établir ou tiennent pour établis entre riche et pauvre par la seule différence de leurs fortunes. En mépris des vraies hiérarchies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Fête de S^te Jeanne d'Arc ou le
30-V-2011

Le Christ est ressuscité - il est vraiment ressuscité!

Al Massih Qaam - Haqqam qaam!
Christus resurrexit - vere resurrexit!

http://www.defendonslecrucifix.org/

(J'ai signé la pétition, faites-le vous aussi!)

soutenons la famille aussi
contre planning familial et d'autres ordures

Et, il y a des pauvres ou des personnes tamponnées comme malades d'esprit auxquels on vole la dignité d'autres façons. Après Dieu fait homme, après le droit des couples d'avoir et de garder leurs enfants, on attaque aussi la personnalité des gens, pour prendre un exemple: les gardes de Georges Pompidou aiment me bizuter de temps en temps.

Sans doute ils le font avec d'autres aussi. Donner un ordre sans motif raisonnable est un vol de dignité, c'est au moins la deuxième fois qu'ils me le font, et encore ils avaient fait la même chose avec un bienfaiteur de moi. Un bienfaiteur qui avait des erreurs doctrinales, mais on ne substitue pas la brute obéissance à des gens censés être polis si on l'est un-même à la cohérence doctrinale, avait été demandé de passer fois après fois sous leur scanneurs et encore d'enlever sa ceinture. Avec moi, on a pris le Vendredi Saint une deuxième fois pour m'humilier, à propos de mon manteau, la première fois c'était me faire paraître devant un tribunal en 2006 ou 2007, après une affaire où j'avais plaidé innocent, et même considéré de porter plainte contre l'adversaire, et dans le tribunal on me refuse la parole parce qu'on me prétend faire l'objet de leur coutûme pieuse de pardonner un criminel ce saint jour.

Mais pour sauver la dignité de la personne, il faut sauver celle des parents, car si on humilie le droit de certains d'avoir ou de garder leurs enfants, c'est incompréhensible que ça ne donne pas dégâts pour la dignité des personnes consernées, et pour sauver la famille, surtout en chrétienneté (mais même les familles non chrétiennes ne sont pas visées par le christianisme catholique), il faut sauver la dignité de son Créateur, de Celui qui a ramené le mariage à la dignité d'un sacrement.

Je trouve probable que les gardes ont choisi moi comme porte-douleur et le Vendredi Saint comme occasion, parce que j'ai signé la pétition en haut. On se demande en quelle loge ils fêtent leurs conciliabules, comme le disait M^gr Cattenoz: "je constate que là où il y a beacoup de franc-maçons, il y a beaucoup d'actes antichrétiens."/HGL

Un grand merci à tous qui m'ont soutenu en France, 2005 - 2011, en particuliers ou en associations ou encore soutiens municipales! Surtout quand c'était sans arrièrepensée de me faire repenser certaines choses ou projets!/ HGL

Vidarebefordradt - till jourhem och famille-hem!

En annan medlem i en groupe mot socialens öfvergrepp mot barn och föräldrar:

jour/familje hem ska ha klart för sig vad man har för uppdrag, men hur lätt kan det vara när komunen inte följer lagen om lvu och ger ett uppdrag hur som helst precis så som man gjorde när kalle var hos familjen eskong behandlar en som barnmisshandlare och pedofil trots att man inte gjort utredning om detta .. Dom tror väll aldrig i sin vildaste fantasi att det fins socialsekreterare och utredningshem som enbart arbetar i ekonomiska syften .. Men dom finns dom finns överallt .. Så alla seriösa jourhem och familjehem nästa gång ni får en placering var noga med att fråga harm man gjort en ordentlig utredning hos polisen innan ni överhuvudtaget tar emot barnet , denna utredning skall oxå följa med i uppdraget och gör en kontroll hos polis.Vi måste alla ta vårt ansvar.

My dear Bishop Williamson!

My emphases in the quote

Now nobody reasonable can today not have compassion on parents. For instance, father is liable to be run ragged by commuting, by unsatisfying work, by an anti-catholic work-place, while mother is liable to be exhausted by the series of children God can send if she and her husband are to obey the laws of Catholic marriage, by schooling them at home if outside schools are too corrupt, by work outside the home as well as inside if an incorrupt school outside is expensive, and by people's scorn if she stays at home. In any such worst case scenario, God expects of none of us to do the impossible. But he does expect us to carry our Cross, and to do the possible.

Wait, are you a Catholic or a feminist*, Monseigneur?

I will answer highlighted points with same type of emphasis:

Exhaustion from childbirth tends to be compensated by the joy of having children. Very quickly. With women (trust me, I have lived so much with them I nearly qualify for the epithet gynaikotraphes).

Schooling them at home should be the priority in any larger family, unless the alternative is a very good school. And in any case if the child is as harrassed as to threaten or actually commit suicide. If Phoebe Prince actually committed suicide, it may be because certain parts of society threatened her mother with taking her away in such a case. And THAT is of course a worst case scenario. But "HAVING TO" homeschool is not a bad thing, if only one can get ut done.

Working outside home, indeed you have a point.

As for peoples' scorn of a stay at home mother, for one thing, it may have been more of a reality thirty years ago, when the rebellious youth of sixtyeight had just gotten into carreers and not yet had a reality check spelled "Reagan and Thatcher got elected by people who dislike your radical feminism": and for another, even where it exists, staying at home protects from some contact with it, and staying with respectful children is a very good compensation.

If Your Highness wants to study worst case scenarios, think about victims of psychiatry, please!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris, Beaubourg:
G. Pompidou
9/V/2010, Ste Jehanne

PS: I read that a William Richardson was among the Elisabethan martyrs, I invoked him for you.

*Of course I am not accusing your Highness of backing all of feminism with some of its worst consequences like lowering wages since 1965 (Thank youk your Glo-ness), doing that is being feminist in quite another league.

Am I too libertarian for FSSPX? Hope not.

The priest on whose mass I heard the sermon in St Nicolas de Chardonnet named libertarianism as one of the heretical false philosophies that ruin Christian society or societies that should be Christian. Because, as the Gospel today (Feast of Christ the King) states, the Divine truth about God and about man to which Christ came to bear witness, has royal prerogatives.

Before I repost debates, let me state I am libertarian about some things in order not to be libertarian about other things. I am libertarian about poor parents begging in the street keeping their children, since I am not libertarian at all about abortion or about adoption by homosexual couples. I am libertarian about two homosexual couples, one male and one female, exchanging partners into making two two-sexed couples in order to marry. The idea is not of personal importance to me, but it is of juridic importance, since in some states denying people the right to marry on account of their homosexual leanings constitutes or may easily be construed as constituting a crime of discrimination. Notably the land I left in 2004. It is also of pastoral importance, because I am not libertarian at all about priests trying to remake homosexual couples into chaste friendships and giving communion to public sinners in the process.

I was debating some on libertarianism on Facebook, where a friend (whom I consider one, and whom I would be honoured to dine with) was debating with a friend of his (whether he considers him so or is a superficial acquaintance I known not) who admires Ayn Rand. I am not about to repost their entire remarks on the Ayn Rand link and on each others' remarks, since I have not asked permission to do so. I will however, as often before, repost my remarks, which sometimes quote what they answer.

Here comes my first remark, quoting other remarks:

Who agrees that a man who has no home has a right to squat wherever the owners and flat renters wil[l] let him?

The Catholic Social teaching, as existing before Vatican II, had a solid base in history, and laissez-faire as a step away from that has been such a big step to:

• state socialism by ways of
• private enterprise monopoly/oligopoly socialism
• rich man decides what charity poor man gets from medium income man socialism

"If a worker should be able to keep the object of his labors, lest it be socialism, how would you split a toy amongst those on the assembly line who made it?"

1 why assembly line? if more toys _but nothing else_ were made by artisans, the other ones who worked on assembly lines could not afford them, but if more toys _and about more of everything else_ were made by artisans, it would be feasible

2 _even with_ an assembly line: a toy does not come out of it alone, if there are ten workers and hundred toys made, why not ten toys to each worker, he can go and sell in market place next day, while those who are selling can go back to work and invest what they want in materials, et c

"The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas."

True. But it does mean that if a tribune IS provided, like free internet in libraries, it must be available without suppression for expressing wrong ideas. Or for using expression to get in income (see my music page http://o-x.fr/z5k)

and here is my second remark:

"There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself)."

That is where you are wrong. There is the right not to be cheated.

If a set of rich men ruin small producers by undercutting their prices for as long as it takes to ruin competition and then raise prices so as to compensate for that, if thus former competitors have been given the option to change their branch of business, to be dependents or to get real broke, and that in turn means a lot of more men depending on lowered prices and making those rich men richer, I think that both craftsmen _and_ general public have been cheated by them.

"There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."

Wrong again. That is socialism.

Before me making my third remark, some of my remarks had been answered and answers answered, here goes:

"As for someone by selling a product cheaper or better the competition being cheating, it is not of course. It is simply winning."

Unless it is done in a fraudulent way so as to suggest permanently lower prices, whereas in effect the prices are raised soon after the competition is gone.

"As for people having the right to take property anywhere because they feel it is "vacant" or in "disuse"= this is socialism, which brings us back to the fact that many Christians argue for socialism, for slavery, for evil- which indicated clearly that your ideology has serious problems."

Not so. The right for a "first occupant" to take a "res nullius" is at the core of classic Roman property juridics. Socialism is when you say everyone has a duty to bring along a bureaucracy which will give the homeless a home, and every homeless has a duty to pass by that bureaucracy, avoiding all squatting.

Actually, the question whether a building which is condemned by authorities for ordinary purposes and certainly not being repaired at the moment is to be considered a "res nullius" was not my actual question. There are squatter collectives which answer in the affirmative, I am not part of them.

Mine was: if I enter an open door this night and noone minds if I stay one night beside their flat, as long as it is understood it is just one night and as long as I do not degrade, is it my right to do so?

Missing the Primary Questions.

1) deretour : Missing the Primary Questions., 2) New blog on the kid : Will Cornick story ...

Modern Society has an ugly knack of Missing the Primary Questions.

1 In the case of abortion, the primary question is not: ”If a thirteen year old girl falls pregnant, as happens, and as she naturally cannot take care of the child, should she be forced to give her child up for adoption after giving birth attaches her to it, or should her parents be forced to take care of a child they did not plan, or should both parties be offered a break by allowing abortion?” The primary question is: ”What reason - if any - is there that she should NOT take care of it herself, along with its father?” Modern society has a very ugly knack of taking the answer ”they are to young” as a matter beyond any possible dispute.

2 In the - somewhat related - subject of same-sexed couples adopting a child, the primary question is not: ”Why are two homosexuals necessarily a bad option for a child who is up for adoption?” The primary question is: ”should the child be up for adoption?” And modern society has a very ugly knack of assuming that that is a question of poverty, unsuitability, youth or immaturity of biological parents rather than simply the fact of both or either parent or some other relative being alive and not absolutely unable to take care even of himself.

3 A third case also concerns same-sexed couples: artificial conception like in vitro or by insemination: ”Should samesexed couples be allowed to use insemination, just as both-sexed couples who are involuntarily infertile?” The primary question usually avoided is: ”should anyone be allowed to use insemination on human women, just as cattle-breeders do on cows?” or in other words: ”should doctors ever be allowed to act on human subjects as formerly only veterinaries acted on beasts?”

4 The fourth secondary question - the last about same-sexed couples - is: ”should same-sexed couples have the right to marry and have children at all?” The obvious primary question avoided is: ”why do these individuals - separately from each other - not want to form an ordinary, i e both-sexed married couple, in which begetting children would usually not be a problem?” And behind that is another question still more primary: ”why dissociate sex from fertility; why does anyone, even in both-sexed married couples, not want to get the number of children their intercourse and God’s providence would land them with?” The sordid answer is: they want to avoid some trouble or other of parenthood and they want each family member to have a greater share in the riches of society than their work would give them if they had more children to share it among. And the still more sordid reason behind both of above are: 1 they absolutely want a second wage by having the mother at work; 2 if the children were living poorer, as would be the case with only one wage (or none), and a mother at home taking care of children, the parents are afraid the social workers would declare them unfit to raise their own children.

This brings us to the really primary questions:

5 Why should there be a class of social workers to decide what young or poor parent is fit or unfit to take care of children?

6 Why should societal economic solidarity with the poor go chiefly by taxes and social workers, who thereby consume some of that money for their own wages and who, at the same time, get a hold on a lot of families? What is wrong with good old begging and good old almsgiving?

7 Why should society draft children and adolescents into school, which makes many of them miserable by schoolyard mobbing; many of them disobedient to their families; many of them out of work by failure in most of the school subjects, nearly all of which come from an intellectual education foreign to most people’s real talents and interests; a school which furthermore becomes an obvious target for terrorist attacks and for drug dealers not to mention even worse scum, as well as angry parents, thereby giving schools an excuse to exclude parents from the place where their offspring is educated or miseducated; attendance to which is deemed more important for a thirteen year old pregnant girl than to give birth and breast-milk to her child and comfort to its father when he comes home from a useful and paid work?

8 Why are so much greater percentages of the people in psychiatric or psychological treatment than one hundred years ago? Has the kind of society we are describing made western man much sicker or have more and more states of mind come to be treated as mental sickness? Or both? Can the new extended powers of psychiatry be one of the humiliations that really bring a man down the sink?

9 Who are gaining livelihoods and status and power over people from all this? Who are loosing freedoms and livelihoods, as well as being placed in actual sub-status positions by all this? Who are saying over and over that it is not a matter of respect, who are over and over complaining about the respect they do not get?

10 Am I looking in the right direction for the answers? It is easy to look at victims of merely economic or even merely financial disabilities or disasters. It may not be so easy to look at sensitive members of your own family. It is easy to weep or curse or blaspheme because of the Tsunami or the hurricane Katrina (unless you live in the region or have family killed there). It may not be so easy to look away from the Third World to the young and poor of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixhundred-sixty-sixth Worlds, asking why your daughter finds Blacks, Arabs, Asiatics and Latinos, or conversely racists, preferrable to All White, but non-Racist, Christians; or why your son listens to Satanic Music like Black Sabbath or why he finds Cradle of Filth less filthy - at least less greasy - than most of the music played at Woodstock. Or why your sister hates her goergeous female body and destroys her beauty by suicide attemps or wrist slashing, anorexia or bulimia. Or why your brother, who is a bright talent, prefers alcohol and hashish and sniffing glue to his studies. Or why your friends prefer playing at vampires to playing at Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham. It is easy to look for the culprits in others, to point at Capitalism and Right Wing Christians or Communism and Left Wing Atheists or Illuminati, or Jews or Freemasons, or immigration and its use of national resources or racism or something of the sort as culprit.

It may be less soothing to look at oneself, to look into the mirror and say:
- I am teaching in a compulsory school, I sent a young man (who is frustrated because he should never have been forced to attend it) to the psychologist because he called me a faggot - and it is paying my bills;
- Or: I am a school nurse, the last five years I’ve sent three girls to abortion, I was mostly irritated because they did not protect themselves - and it is paying my bills;
- Or: I am a social worker, the last three years I have taken three sets of children away from their parents - and it is paying my bills;
- Or: I am a police officer, the last year I have taken three harmless but slightly confused people into psychiatric hospital and I have disturbed sleeping beggars twelve times to send them to homeless shelters where the showers start at five and the official wake up is at six thirty - and it is paying my bills;
- Or: I am an employee (bakery, restaurant, hotel) and the last month I have sent twelve beggars away hungry because I was afraid to lose my job by giving them a loaf of bread, even if I payed it from my own wages, since my employer wants to discourage mendicity - and it is paying my bills;
- Or: I work at a homeless shelter the last week I have given three married couples separate beds in common with other men and with other women, and I have given them condoms so they do not procreate - and it is paying my bills.

Is all this at least paying the bills of myself and my family, or am I kidding myself into spending ten years just paying my strictly personal bills, hoping to get a family later on if I keep paying my bills? Am I paying my bills so as to keep my self respect? Am I despising the people who have no bills to pay, because they do not have as hard a time working as I? Am I raising my family to respect or despise the homeless? Have I at least spared God and His Holy Bible, Creation and Providence, Genesis and Apocalypse, the blasphemy of excusing every modern malpractise I and the people I respect commit, because otherwise ”we would revert to apes/stone age” or ”cut ourselves off from our future”? Have I at least spared His creation the Universe the affront to excuse such malpractise with a ”necessary balance between good and evil” as if it depended on some stupid Taoist Yin and Yang scheme? Have I at least spared His Creation Mankind the gross insult to excuse the necessity or desirability of all these false issues, the impossibility of answering the right questions the right way, by keeping aloof from peoples in Africa and Latin America, as being ”underdeveloped” or automatically suppressive to women where they differ from the feminist schemes?

H G Lundahl
(undated, but last or one of last essays before Chrismation, hence like nov/dec 2006, Marseille)