Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Christ is King of the Jews


Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews

Is Saying "Christ is King" Antisemitic?
The Counsel of Trent | 27 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vErF9WttOU


2:23 The pre-Islamic Christians in Arabia would have been Ethiopian Church Yemenites.

Are you sure ancient Yemenite used the word "Allah"?

I am aware that after the spread of Islam and Islamically promoted Arabic, the word has come to use in that sense among Christians who use that or derived versions of it as their daily language.

For instance, Maltese is originally a dialect of Arabic, and "Mother of God" is "Omm Alla" (Latin alphabet).

2:58 Indeed Palestinians say this now, but the fact is, prior to the Countercrusade, they spoke Aramaic rather than Arabic, among themselves.

Muslim Palestinians adopted Arabic a bit quicker, I think by 800~900 they had switched from Aramaic to Arabic.

2:58 Speaking of Archbishop Sebastia Theodosios, this shows a further truth that Ben Shapiro might not like:

Christ is King of the Jews.

Palestinians are Jews, Samarians and Galilaeans from 2000 years ago who, unlike Mitsrahi Jews and other Jews did not side with the Sanhedrin both against Jesus and against Mohammed.

3:35 How do you define "the sin of Antisemitism"?

Shapiro will probably consider it "Antisemitic" of Candace Owen to have reminded him that he is in rebellion against his King.

3:52 Yes, I definitely do not hate either Lenin or Freud because of their genetics, but rather because of their evil deeds.

Some will however count this as Antisemitism on my behalf.

4:22 Today there is also a dehumanisation of Fascists, whether Antisemitic or not, and of Antisemites, real or supposed.

That's a reason to not inflate charges of Antisemitism, right?

Now, I think you are using "Antisemite" as Jew-hater. Some people also or rather use it as Critical of the Jewish community.

In Swedish and German for instance, "Jew-hater" is a very current word, or rather cognates of it, so "Antisemit" tends to be more ideological, less emotional.

I once told my sister (of Jewish Liberal persuasion) I had become "ein Antisemit" ... I simply meant I had become so critical of the Jewish community that I endorsed positions I, like she, had been taught to regard as "Antisemitic" ... like it was unfair of Jews to be harsh loan sharks and taking interest is in and of itself evil. Or like it is probable that Jews were behind some of the killings of children. St. William of Norwich has in iconography a long nose and curly hair. It's not just the Gothic way of drawing heads, it's clearly a question of personal traits ... sometimes associated with Jewish genes. My bet is, 1) St. William of Norwich was executed for being Christian, while of Jewish ancestry, 2) Theobald blamed a far off cabale in Narbonne in order to stop investigations against Jews closer to home (Theobald converted after the death of William).

I had been taught that every allegation that a child had been killed by people of Jewish origin of any type (Chesterton thought it was Jewish Satanists, and I thought so too back then), was the same as maligning the usual ritual of the Seder. Which I would certainly not do. That it was only done by the most vile people with the most irrational hatred for Jews, probably sparked by their envy. A view of the Christian Middle Ages I could no longer have and cannot recover.

It's as stupid as claiming "spices were popular because meat was rotten" or "every sickness flourished because Medievals had no hygiene" (I've been in a debate with a man who claimed there was cholera in the European Middle Ages, when the first time it spread to Christian countries as far West as Russia was in 1817, an epidemic starting in Bombay).

It's equally stupid to claim they had no justice.

6:05 I do not hold Gaudium et Spes to be a real council text, and I do not consider every kind of discrimination as contrary to God's intent.

More than one Church Father, it would seem, has mentioned that "ho katekhon" in II Thessalonians is the Roman Emperor.

Albert II of the HRE / Albert V of Austria fulfilled this in a somewhat harsh, possibly unfair way against Jews of Vienna, when he suspected them of financing the terror of the Hussites.

But if he had not been allowed to use any discrimination against Jews at all, he would not have fulfilled his duty as "ho katekhon" it's just possible he overdid it this time.

This is by the way one reason why the Catholic Church cannot take over after 1918 as "ho katekhon" ...

9:23 This is where I think this breaks down.

Catholic teaching has a real sense of fairness, which is lacking to the Talmud.

Please note, the Supreme court of Roe v Wade, of unhappy memory, the operative source of evil would have been Protestantism:

Presbyterian, Catholic (?), Episcopalian, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Presbyterian (omitting the two who dissented).

However, check the dissent in Everson v. Board of Education, Felix Frankfurter did actually want to discriminate against school transports to Catholic schools, and he was Jewish.

In the US, people like he are marginal. In France, less so.

9:57 I am very careful to note I really appreciate Jewish musicians and linguists.

But some of them don't seem eager to requit it, if I have any reservations against Jewish shrinks or bankers.

10:38 There are at least two exilations of Jews that we, as Catholics, do have to defend.

That of St. Lewis IX. That of St. Pius V.

It may be noted that St. Lewis only expelled money-lenders, which he also did to Lombardian ones.

It may be noted that St. Pius V allowed the ghettos of Rome and Ancona to stay.

It may be noted that if St. Pius V was not a pathological liar or totally deluded about what was happening, and therefore an incompetent ruler, Jews had really behaved very badly in the Papal states.

I have been stamped as Antisemite, and therefore more or less "self hating Jew" and so on, simply because I refused to condemn exilations of Jews, in principle, and to condemn these two.

10:54 The Church Fathers were not individually infallible, but where they agree, they do amount to infallibility.

Now, beyond attacks on St. John Chrysostom, some will ask us to forego the Gospel of St. John too.

When a canonised Saint has done something, it is not an appalling injustice. Unless he repented of it.

Btw, as I had written to Ratzinger back before leaving Sweden, I do consider Wojtyla, "John Paul II" as very probably involved in injustices against me. He's also incanonisable for other reasons.

11:22 I think St. Thomas was on this account simply reflecting canon law.

Now, canon law, of the actual Catholic Church, cannot be unjust. There can be situations not foreseen by the law (how do you elect a Pope if all cardinals endorse an Antipope?), but the law itself, insofar as it is binding on all Catholics, cannot be unjust.

11:42 In 1916, Chesterton was yet an Anglican.

He may have made the remark in reaction to Pro-Prussian Jews, prior to the Balfour declaration, which suddenly rallied Jews to England.

He may have sincerely believed the guilt of Dreyfus at this point, even if later he would say that of the two trials, the first could very well occur in England, but the victim would not be a Jew, and the second (basically whoever was the victim) is what could not occur in England.

12:27 St. Simon of Trent was found with his throat slit like the slaughtering ritual of a Jewish butcher.

The Jews in town were very few and could have been very extreme.

He could, like St. William of Norwich, have been of Jewish descent.

12:36 Keeping people in unsanitary places is murder in and of itself.

There are reasons to highly doubt whether the gas chambers were used as murder weapons. In saying so, I am actually not accusing Jews of lying, I am accusing Hitler's men of being efficient bogey-men, as they certainly were to the 50, probably to all 650, involved directly or indirectly in Jo Wajsblat's visit to a gas chamber.

But the parents of Dita Kraus dying, one by typhoid in the camp and another by too much exhaustion, is still murder.

12:46 I abhor the Paedagogic terror against young Jews by Adolf Hitler.

14:50 If he thinks Hitler stood for Christian leadership, he is probably not so much Antisemitic as ill informed (so are some Anticatholics!) about Germany 1933 to 1945.

It's over the top to take a distance from Fuentes for that, even if he's mistaken.

I've been accused of Antisemitism because I simply defend German bishops during this time, or the War effort against the Red Army.

onvogmasaj
@onvogmasaj
actually he admits to not knowing all there is to know about him and shits on actual hiterfanbois all the time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@onvogmasaj good to know


16:13 I had my dose of Hitler's coolness during the most Pro-Semitic and indeed Pro-Zionist era of my life. Also before my Baptism.

It's a real social thing, but if we can admire cool guys, and are Catholics, how about admiring Franco instead?

He did defend the Church. He did not go after the Jews, even just for occasions that killed them in the typhoid.

17:46 I think that Deutsche Christen predated the Nazi régime, even if part of the leadership then endorsed it.

"Positive Christianity" is a bit like ... "you just need to be sure that you are saved" + the "muscular Christianity" of Matthew Arnold.

I'm not sure if they ever tried to attract Catholics, but it was a very Protestant thing.

SS members (I think prior to international volunteers) would be c. 50 % Protestant, 25 % Catholic, 25 % "Gottesgläubige" = Neo-Pagan. Theistic Evolutionists.

18:15 Did Heschel find any Catholics involved there?

Perhaps a few priests, but hardly bishops.

19:42 In John Jesus is using the word "Jews" in a different manner from the narrator.

The narrator is very aware that in the meantime, the predecessors and ancestors of for instance Sebastia Theodosios were no longer considered as "Jews" by the majority of the nation.

John 4:22 doesn't mean salvation is from unbelieving Jews.

Why Don't I Share Lutheran Admiration for Luther?


One could argue, even if Luther had been right, back in 1517, in fact he wasn't, there is still no use in trying to uphold his 95 theses, since NOBODY does.

The Catholics follow a Pope who condemned 41 theses (not all of them from the 1517 document, some from earlier works).

The Lutherans, at best, follow his later lines (though that would involve huge amounts of Antisemitism, once again underlining what Chesterton said about Luther being a precursor to Hitler), and at worst a totally made up pseudo-history of his life, which would be inspired by what non-Lutherans wrote much later. I cannot pinpoint Merle d'Aubigné in this case, which I know to be a fact about the founders of 7 Day Adventism, but I can say what this Lutheran pretends is total bogus:

Why Did The Catholic Martin Luther Leave The Church?
CTKLM | 2 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4rLV6kUofI


0:51 "the belief that a believer could buy an indulgence"

Can you document that as being a belief which was around for Luther to criticise?

Indulgences were given for good works, and then and there certain types of alms were among these, does not mean anyone said indulgences could be bought.

1:02 I just checked wikisource.

In the 95 thesis, there is no contestation against Purgatory existing, and there is no pretense that the Purgatory is not mentioned in Scripture.

One part of contestation was this passage, theses 16 through 20:

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.


As you can see, Luther presumes 1) there are souls in Purgatory, 2) as they can still continue sanctification, they should not want to get time off from it, 3) a contestation of what the Church can or cannot remit by an Indulgence.

1:17 What was Luther saying in 1517, on works?

41. Apostolic[70] pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.


1:50 In 1517, Luther was not the least pretending Purgatory, Good Works or even Indulgences were leading people to Hell.

2:33 to 2:37 ... Why did you leave out Ephesians 2:10?

So, not by works (already done before justification), but certainly into works (those that God has prepared for us).

I think a better translation would be "of" or "from", so I give the full quote from Ephesians 2 in Latin Vulgate and English Douay Rheims:

8 Gratia enim estis salvati per fidem, et hoc non ex vobis : Dei enim donum est : 9 non ex operibus, ut ne quis glorietur. 10 Ipsius enim sumus factura, creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis, quae praeparavit Deus ut in illis ambulemus.

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.


2:55 "the Church had put a bounty on his head, that if anyone killed him"

Can you document that?

Or are you informing yourself on Luther by Merle d'Aubigné, who should have been a novelist rather than a pastor?

Joe Heschmeyer Gives an Excellent Case for the Church Needing Infallibility (We are Both Papists, so Think the Infallibility Resides in some capacity in the Pope)


For Some Who Believe "Francis" is Pope · Joe Heschmeyer Gives an Excellent Case for the Church Needing Infallibility (We are Both Papists, so Think the Infallibility Resides in some capacity in the Pope)

Here is his case, then a comment I made, with the thread under it, then a transition to another and shorter thread:

The Biblical Case for Infallibility
Shameless Popery Podcast | 21 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2djx9lESGgA


Now give the Biblical case for whether Infallibility resides in "Francis" or in Michael II ...

Master Chief
@masterchief8179
Infallibility resides in the Church through the Successor of Peter and bishops gathered in Ecumenical Councils in communion with him, when issuing to teach the universal church and other specific circumstances.

Or you can buy a cheaper seat to watch Pastor Bob preach in a garage with his interpretation of the Bible that fell from the sky, saying you - and everybody - should stick with this guy’ interpretation:

“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught, or whoever condemns me therein, he condemns God and must remain a child of hell” (LUTHER, Martin. German answer of Martin Luther to the Book of King Henry of England, 1522 Deutsche Antwort Luthers auf König Heinrichs von England Buch). In: Dr. Martin Luther's Sämtliche Werke, Polemische Deutsche Schriften, Johann Konrad Irmischer, Erlangen, 1833, vol. 28, p. 347).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@masterchief8179 The question is not about Pastor Bob.

It's about whether "Francis" or Michael II is successor of St. Peter.

Susan D
@susand3668
Dear @hglundahl , you are kidding, right? Pope Francis is accepted as pope not only by his followers, but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on.

Who is Michael II?

Master Chief
@hglundahl You can’t be serious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@masterchief8179 I am at least not going to be A-rious instead of C-rious. A-rious was a heretic!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@susand3668 "not only by his followers,"

Which is also the case with Pope Michael II. Even with Peter III, whom I don't count as Pope.

"but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on."

So? From their pov it means "head of the Vatican state" (usually) and that was founded in 1929, between Pius XI and Mussolini.

"Who is Michael II?"

Pope Michael II Passion Sunday 2024
vatican in exile | 19 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kso2_JY3QM


Shameless Popery Podcast
@shamelesspopery
I know more about Antipope Michael I (David Bawden, Rogelio Martinez's predecessor) because he's from here in Kansas. He was "elected" by his family and some friends in his family's thrift store in 1990 when he was 30. None of his alleged electors were Cardinals of the Catholic Church (obviously). In no way, shape, or form is such an "election" valid, regardless of what you think about the real pope. I mean "Michael I" wasn't even an ordained priest (by his own admission!) during the time he was claiming to be the real Bishop of Rome.

Let's say that you decide that the 2024 presidential election is stolen, and so you and your family and friends declare you the president of the United States. That absurdity would actually be MORE valid than Michael I or Michael II's claims to be popes, since (unlike in a papal election) your family and friends can presumably vote in a secular election.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@shamelesspopery Thank you for your input, Sir, let's break this down:

"None of his alleged electors were Cardinals of the Catholic Church (obviously)."

Cardinals electing is of human positive Church law, not divine law, since otherwise the Popes elected before the Cardinals would have been invalid.

One of the friends was Theresa S. Benns, who later left him.

She has so far NOT used the idea that his invitations to conservative (sede+) bishops and (perhaps) conservative cardinals were bogus.

In other words we have an important witness to misproceedings, if there were such, who hasn't spoken up about them.

In other words, until the opposite is proven, we do not have the wherewithals to present the election as finally held, with 6 laymen, as being what he had planned all along (among these laymen he was the star theologian, along with ineligible Theresa).

I think we should therefore presume he had hoped that clergy would come and he would not be elected.

"I mean "Michael I" wasn't even an ordained priest (by his own admission!) during the time he was claiming to be the real Bishop of Rome."

During the 21 first years of the time. He did get ordination and consecration on the Gaudete Weekend of 2011. I congratulated him on the occasion, without yet accepting him as Pope. I had known him online since the early 2000's.

A bishop can be elected before he is ordained, before he is consecrated. Otherwise, the election of the Catechumen St. Ambrose would have been invalid.

"Let's say that you decide that the 2024 presidential election is stolen, and so you and your family and friends declare you the president of the United States."

Usurpation without tyranny is not necessarily a cue for legitimate insurrection. Especially if the usurper would be deposed if not reelected four years from hence.

"since (unlike in a papal election) your family and friends can presumably vote in a secular election."

Again, you are judging the case of laymen voting from positive Church laws of the second millennium. The exclusion of laymen from episcopal elections, including that of Rome, was first of all never put into place in the East, and second, a kind of security measure against powerful laymen rigging elections for their friends.

Given the six laymen were presumably nobodies, the risk of them being so manipulated is negligible.

@shamelesspopery Think about my answer to your first objection:

Cardinals electing is of human positive Church law, not divine law, since otherwise the Popes elected before the Cardinals would have been invalid.

I was somewhat incomplete, I left out the idea that in a case of emergency, you can never set divine law aside, but positive human law (like disciplinary Church law) can be set aside.

But, as you wrote a book about the first 200 years of the Church, you would normally be aware of lay participation in episcopal elections including in Rome.


Where did I get this about his book from? Here, other thread under the youtube:

Skarlet
@Skarlet-ju8sr
You should write a book about the history of the early Church, first 400 years. The title would be this perfect catchphrase in common use back then:

"Rome Has Spoken."

Patrick Steil
@PatrickSteil
I think he did. It’s called the Early Church is the Catholic Church. Great book and he shows this taking only the first 200 years before any Protestant claims of the corruption of the church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@PatrickSteil If that's the case he should be aware of laymen electing bishops, including of Rome, meaning his case against Pope Michael I is not just wrong but also less than perfectly candid, perhaps even dishonest

Patrick Steil
@hglundahl Can you elaborate, I am not following?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@PatrickSteil His view on the election in Kansas in 1990 involves it being invalid because all the participants were non-cardinals.

The fact is, "By decree of a synod of 769, only a cardinal was eligible to become Bishop of Rome." -- and papal elections being between cardinals only is even later, seems to be 1059 or sth, i e, the law he is referring to was not applied in the early Church, and can therefore be set aside in a case of dire necessity, as David Bawden, when calling the election, judged the situation in the Church.

As he has studied the early Church, he should be aware of this.


Other thing:

Tom Tyrone Beiron
@TyroneBeiron
It may be necessary in these times to consider the Orthodox Churches not in communion with the Catholic Church to be ‘Protestant’ as well, mainly because of the various new emerging narratives from their commentators, apologists, synods and canons which very much hold seriously anti-Catholic and anti-Papal statements which they have never removed or corrected in spite of the dialogues, joint-statements etc. In a similar way, these autocephalous churches vary in teaching and biblical interpretation, sometimes even holding commentary by their own saints to be held as magisterial authority. Catholics nowadays are hardly vehement towards these others - I am old enough to remember when priests and bishops did not mince their words towards schismatics and Protestants; not anymore today. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"sometimes even holding commentary by their own saints to be held as magisterial authority."

That's actually Catholic, except for post-schism ones being on the wrong side of 1054.

The principle is also there in Trent Session IV.

In fact, Trent Session IV sets a kind of safety rule, what you must take as magisterial is all of the CCFF agreeing, but even so.

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Palestinian Origins


Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews

Q
If the "Palestinians" supposed to be indigenous to the region, why they're still speaking an Arabic dialect/variant instead of reviving/revitalizing an extinct/a moribund Hebrew dialect/Canaanite language (e.g. Samaritan Hebrew)?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-Palestinians-supposed-to-be-indigenous-to-the-region-why-theyre-still-speaking-an-Arabic-dialect-variant-instead-of-reviving-revitalizing-an-extinct-a-moribund-Hebrew-dialect-Canaanite-language-e-g-Samaritan/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2


Hans-Georg Lundahl
amateur linguist
26.III.2024
2000 years ago, both Jews and Christians (or back in AD 24 more like future Christians, still Jews), spoke mainly Aramaic, though they knew Hebrew for the liturgic uses.

After 600 and before 700, Omar conquered the region and forced part of them to become Muslims.

The Muslims adopted Arabic from the Peninsula, language of a minority of conquerors, by 900 AD.

The Christians were still speaking Aramaic in the time of the Crusades, they were pushed to adopt Arabic in the time of the Countercrusade (Muslim rulers like Baybars). So, the reason is a bit why Irish, descending mainly from Gaels, mainly do not speak Irish Gaelic, but English.

Monday, March 25, 2024

Putin Lied to Tucker Carlson?


Douglas Macgregor: SURRENDERED This Morning!
World_Info | 24 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzYGiGlk4VU


0:56 Lviv region?

That's the second westernmost oblast (if the Ukrainians use the word) in all of Ukraine!

And Putin had claimed to Tucker Carlson that he was only interested in the Eastern part.

What a liar ...

Since the face of Douglas Macgregor could be a deepfake

Kyiv and Ukraine's Lviv region report 'massive' Russian attack • FRANCE 24 English
FRANCE 24 English | 24 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzQfQJBdWnI


It seems the news that Lviv was targetted is NOT fake./HGL

Does This Writer Read?


New blog on the kid: Traditional Publishing Does Not Mean Already Existing Publishing Houses · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Does This Writer Read?

Yes, this essayist reads essays.

I could add, I used to read lots more novels before I got this stress level. Some people think my being a Meldahón equals my being impotent, and if they could only stress me out a bit more, I'd be a Meldahón no more. They have stressed me out of being a regular novel reader and out of writing chapters on my fan fic novel. They have not stressed me out of reading essays and of writing essays.

You're Not Really a Writer Unless You Do THIS
Alyssa Matesic | 24 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybKKdyQy30


1:21 I think this is OK criticism, about novelist.

I don't read much novels, ergo, I am not a novelist.

It's not OK criticism about essayists.

I read lots of essays, reply to lots of them in mine and write others not in such replies.

The fact that I read the essays mainly online and that essay writing is a much shorter format than novel writing, doesn't basically change this. Though obviously it changes the perception of people who consider "being on the internet" is mutually exclusive with reading. People who wonder why I don't have thick books and they see me spend hours on them.

Look at This


Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews

The Truth About Vladimir Lenin: A Century After His Death - David Volodzko
Triggernometry | 15 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP1T5_zzOUc


5:42 On more than one item, I considered that Stalin repaired some of the evils of Lenin. NEP, though intermittent, was Stalin. Tolerance of Orthodoxy, was Stalin.

On more than one item, I considered Lenin worse than Hitler, but I thought Eugenics was an item the other way round.

I found one item more on both.

Lenin planned and Stalin stopped Eugenics. That evil of Hitler's was one where Lenin had gone before him, just not yet successfully ...

6:39 And this kind of psychiatrist who is into "stopping the next Hitler" by "treating the next guy" with those disorders has made Psychiatry a micro-version of the Communist Dictatorship.

Since Brock Chisholm.

7:30 The guys you cite, who are able to target groups with such diagnoses today, remind me of a Hitler who diagnosed Lenin as a Jew.

9:03 Their problem is biological?

Reminds me of a Hitler who considered this about Jews.

Take Hogwarts as a symbol of the Jewish community. Then take Hitler as an outsider who only saw Slytherin in all Hogwart.

THEN, add on top of that, you and Hitler, though targetting different groups, target biology, in fact God's handiwork, instead of the will, which God left to themselves.

If you target biology, you target much larger groups for each of the evil guys you go after.

AND you repeat Hitler's basic belief in sth not very far from DiaMat, though he violently denied to agree on all items.

11:06 Yeah, it may be that Holodomor was one of the items on which he again lost his struggle against Antisemitism.

Under Stalin, the guy responsible was a man called Genrikh Yagoda.

12:01 Wait, are you speaking about a famine under the Czars?

14:37 And because I consider telling the truth involves honouring some non-Hitlerist Fascisms (including the beginnings, but not the end, of the name giver), my pushing back is pushed back, by people who consider me the "personality type" of Lenin or Hitler or someone else, because of arranged tests, undergone while being exposed to pains and disappointments on a daily basis.

A few years ago, first or second summer after the first confinement, I contracted lice, but quickly got rid of them, scraping off lice bites in the showers, and the lice eggs with them.

This December, I contracted lice again, but this time my fight to get rid of them has been sabotaged each step of the way. Latest time Saturday. People had burrowed in my luggage, and I couldn't find the shampoo for the third dose of anti-lice shampooing.

I am obviously being compared to Hamas glorifiers, simply because I think Netanyahu has by now gone in very definite overkill mode. Like Hitler about people sharing the biology of Lenin, for instance. And to Hitler, because I honour Dollfuss. And to Lenin, because I find the NEP policies (but not all other levels of policy, far from) of Tito fairly good.

"Hitler got his Antisemitism from Dollfuss" ... would it have been better if Jews had participated in Hitler's persecution of Gipsies, like they showed no compassion for Hereros, when the German perpetrator was an Enlightened (and Pro-Jewish, Pro-Zionist) Despot?

Meanwhile, Heinrich Schenker died peacefully in a comfortable home under Dollfuss' successor Schuschnigg. His widow was transported to Theresienstadt.

Someone then (Saturday evening) left me Coeficientul Emoțional by Gilles d'Ambra. Some of the gipsies here speak Romanian.

AND are confusing* Gipsy persecutions in Switzerland and Sweden (discourtesy of Pro Juventute and of Social Democrat Régime) with anti-Gipsy prejudice not taking that kind of action in Austria.

* For those speaking French:

Correspondence de Hans Georg Lundahl : Autriche les années 20 et 30
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2021/05/autriche-les-annees-20-et-30.html