Wednesday, November 23, 2011

C. S. Lewis died, one hour later John F Kennedy was shot, Aldous died even later

Media coverage of his death was minimal, as he died on 22 November 1963 – the same day that U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and the same day another famous author, Aldous Huxley, died. ... On 22 November 1963 Lewis collapsed in his bedroom at 5:30 pm and died a few minutes later, one week before his 65th birthday.

5:30 pm Greenwich timezone=Central Time 11:30 am*

12:30 pm Central Time=Greewich Timezone

On his deathbed, unable to speak, Huxley made a written request to his wife Laura for "LSD, 100 µg, intramuscular". According to her account of his death in This Timeless Moment, she obliged with an injection at 11:45 am and another a couple of hours later. He died, aged 69, at 5:20 pm on 22 November 1963, several hours after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

After? What timezone was that? LA, yes, that figures.

Shooting Kennedy cannot have been done to distract media coverage from Huxleys death, he died after Kennedy. But shooting Kennedy can have been done to distract media coverage from C. S. Lewis' death. Why would anyone do that? C S L's murderer? But, to all and any probability he was not murdered. Kennedy was. The effect - or one of them - of Kennedy's murder was to make media not cover C. S. L's death. Can it have been the intended one?

An Illuminati drop out or self claimed such claimed C. S. L. was bought by them, he had been making paychecks himself. So, what if they gave him gifts - he did toast to American benefactors - in order to make anyone inolved with them or knowing them well enough to do so despair about C. S. L. and by extention his positions, dangerous enough for them? Or what if they failed to do so and revenge themselves by either faking a drop out or blackmailing him to spread a lie?

For one thing, C. S. L. claimed that not burning witches is only a progress if one does not believe in witchcraft. I e, if there is real witchcraft, they deserve execution. For another thing, he believed, possibly that witchcraft was at least thinkable. For a third, he energically encouraged a retour** to Christianity as understood by Centuries that would have nothing to do with Luciferanism and similar ideologies. And if he did not himself encourage Inquisition - see Reply to Professor Haldane - some of the earlier Christian men he looked back to did.

Now, the maybe best known*** case against both Inquisition and Catholicism, by extension Traditional Christianity as such, was the Galileo case. What if heliocentrism, what he was put in house arrest for, with gentle treatment, simply is not true? C. S. L. thought it true, as can be seen from Out of a Silent Planet (though that is fiction). But he also thought a principle true which if applied to the opposite, geocentrism, is not very good for heliocentrism. I cite Peter Kreeft, who has written a whole novel about the fact that C. S. L. died a little earlier than J. F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley.

The term "chronological snobbery" comes from C.S. Lewis (to my mind the clearest and most useful Christian writer since Thomas Aquinas) in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, where he gives his friend Owen Barfield credit for inventing it.

Lewis defines and refutes it at once as

the uncritical assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find out why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood.

.... (Surprised by Joy, pp. 207-208).

Someone who wants us to believe Galileo was right and witches good physicians and Inquisitors super bastards would not be quite happy to see this applied to Geocentrism. Any more than he would like the presuppositions - anti-supranaturalist - that exclude witchcraft from being a fake accusation to be put into doubt.

So, yes, I think they counted C. S. Lewis as dangerous, that "paying him" - he was from his p o v not being paid but receivig gifts, with gratitude, a Christian thing / or it was simply a lie - was part of their strategy, that killing off media coverage was part of their strategy too, and that killing Kennedy was part of that part of their strategy. Paranoid enough to write detective novels? Maybe so, I was just thinking about that story of Chesterton, The Broken Sword. "To make a forest to hide a leaf is a heinous sin" ... I will not name (I have in fact forgotten his name which was probably fictional anyway) the officer in that story who deliberately gets slowly defeated so the corpses around him hide the corpse he made. But in some cases there can be other motives than making a certain corpse to hide it behind other corpses, if not a forest at least a President and a Colleague. C. S. L. had been so cultified already, if I may coin a word which is ugly but expresses their Screwtapish p o v to perfection. Their=that of Illuminati.

Now, as with a murder just before Midsummer, I am not at all equipped to lead an investigation on whether it was really Illuminati (in that case a kind of sacrifice***) or not. I can just "blow the whistle" by writing this. Hoping someone in some police department in France was honest last summer and someone else was honest ad observant in the JFK investigation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris, Bibliothèque Delbo
23 XI 2011

*London (United Kingdom - England) mardi 22 novembre 2011, 17 h 30 m 00 GMT UTC Dallas (U.S.A. - Texas) mardi 22 novembre 2011, 11 h 30 m 00 UTC-6 hours (1963 was not available, but time zone relations have not changed: a time difference that was one hour yesterday was one hour 48 years earlier. **Fr for return, slipped through. ***="est kown" and "kid of sacrifice" until I corrected it, this computer has bad n and b tangets (c what I mean? "tangents" of course)

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Snack in Swedish and English. And genealogies.

In English it means basically a minor meal. Tea is a snack taken at five usually with the hot drink tea.

In Swedish it means a chat.

Now, this is not a very big difference in pronunciation (Swedish short a just sounds like u in cup), but it is in meaning. Knowing how many words Swedish has taken over from English - jumper, juice, T-shirt, golf, green (as in golf), et c. are all English words that Swedish took over. So is Carnegie Porter (a brewery in Gothenburg). Surely it is reasonable, someone would say, that "snack" is also one of the words that went this way, however you explain the difference in meaning?

Actually, Swedish has a word that has a change of meaning going on in the direction suggested. Kafferep is a snack, i e a minor meal, and you serve it with coffee. Only, in slang, if a group is very chatty, it may be corrected - as is done in the military - by an officer telling them "this is the pure kafferep" (when we heard this in military training we knew we were supposed to shut up). Why not assume that "snack" went the same direction?

Well, no. North German has "schnacken" - chat - and in Lithuanian "shneka" simply means talk. "Kur ... lietuvishkiai shneka," means "where (so and so) speaks Lithuanian". And take a snack has totally different words in those languages. So, it would seem, either English snack has nothing to do with Swedish snack, or the change of meaning went the other direction than "kafferep". Also, though "kafferep" actually is used as an ironic word for chat, it has never lost its meaning of "a meal with jam and bread" or rather more often with cookies.

Now, there are people who say that Babylon gave Israel its myths about the Flood and about a Snake tricking man out of immortality. Just as it was Babylon that gave Israelites, lately, the Lilith myth (as an added twist on the snake story). Or inspired it (we do not find the Lilith myth an Babylonian Paganism, but neither in Hebrew Bible). But what would these people use as arguments? Obviously, Babylon is greater, historically, geographically, et c, than Israel. So is England than Sweden (except for surface of land, but it is much less tightly peopled and further from French ports, and so on). That does not mean English can have got no word from the Baltic (North Germany is the Southern Shore, Lithuania the South-Eastern shore, Sweden and Denmark - where you also find "snakke"- with a gap between them, are the Western shore of the Baltic). After all the Hannovers came from Hannover, in Northern Germany. Take a look at snack in OED and see if it occurs any earlier than Händel or the Hannovers, will you! And then reflect: how much lost detail can hide the possibility that, if Babylon did not exactly get the flood myth from Israel, again it may have found it in the same general area as Israel did, that being not the Baltic of course, not even minor tribes of the Middle East, but - the area of fact.

Logic is not a thing that works for only "all men are mortal-Sortes is a man-so Sortes is mortal" and banal stuff like that. It is however in banal stuff like that, stuff where noone except a perfect idiot would make a disagreement, that you test that the syllogism in question - Middle Age logicians would have classified second and third propositions as "particular" and therefore the syllogism as a whole as a Darii - works any time, any place, any kind of subject, as long as first two propositions are true the third must be so too. The trick is of course not to find one syllogism where all three propositions are true, and conclude that the form is correct, that would be reasoning by parallels, which is a known fallacy, but consistently failing to find any of the same logic form (that is important) where third step is false while first two are clearly true. But even in looser stuff, like forming hypotheses about where loans come from, it might be an idea to test the form of the hypothesis on very banal stuff. That is why I test the form of Babel-Bible hypothesis on much more banal stuff, like linguistics of eats, treats and chats. And the outcome, as we see, is: "cultural item shared with a difference by big and little culture do not always come only from the bigger to the smaller".

I did use a criterium in the example "snack" that if applied speaks against Israel having priority about flood. "snack (Sw)" fits in with "snacka"="schnacken"="shneka" against "snack (Engl)". So, Babylonian, Greek, Nordic, Peruvian, Chinese and so on Flood stories would suggest that Polytheism came first because the Monotheistic version is the odd one out. But the Biblical version is also the odd one out in a sense that adds credibility against the other versions: alone it has complete genealogies both before and after flood, from first man to "known persons" - known from a continuous history leading up to our history, like Jesus Christ or Abraham and David before him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Cecily's day
(and Memory of CSL's obiit),
22 November 2011,
Mouffetard Library of Paris.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

When Spam Has a Fun Side ...

fredag 18 november 2011 23:02
Till: okända-mottagare


Does the US Ambassador to Nigeria listen to the name Terence P. McCulley?

I do not know.

I do know US is not in the habit of chosing ambassadors who:

  • a) write all in CAPITAL LETTERS
  • b) spell "board meeting" like "bord meeting" (why not "bored meeting", a misspelling with a point?) or for that matter ...
  • c) send letters to undisclosed recipients stating they will be coming to a country outside where they are stationed. Especially if those people are not even diplomats of the same diplomatic corps./HGL

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Lucas n'est pas germanophone

"Lucas et la lumière fut

Même famille que le prénom Luc, lumière en latin. C'est un prénom assez répandu en Allemagne, Autriche et Pays-Bas. Il a une variante italienne, Luca. Il est assez rare de trouver un prénom germanophone dans les choix des parents français. Lucas ouvre-t-il une brèche ? À fêter le 18 octobre voire le 27 septembre."
(source: mais les liens sont de moi)

Commentaire: Lucas est effectivement repandu en Allemagne, Autriche, Pays-Bas, voir la Suède aussi quoique non en tant que nom germanophone, mais en tant que nom latin. C'est la forme latine du Grec Loukas, qui est un surnom de quelque nom composé avecc un début en Louk-. Tout comme Johannes n'est pas germanophone mais latin pour Jean, dans ces mêmes pays. Le germanophone pour Johannes - donc Jean - est triple: Hans (abrégé de Hannes, qui l'est du nom latin), Johan (abrégé du latin ou du vieux français), Jan (qui est la forme en Pays-Bas et Pologne, et une des formes en Suède - Hannes est pourtant assez retraint à l'Allemagne du Nord, à différence de son abrégé Hans). Pour Lucas/Lukas il n'y a pas de variante vraiment germanophone. En Suède St Matthieu est connu comme Mattheus (voir le latin: Matthæus) ou comme Mats, Mattis - cette dernière forme étant aussi courante comme variante germanophone au Danemark et - si je ne m'abuse pas - en Allemagne. Et St Marc est connu soit comme Marcus/Markus (forme latine), soit comme Mark/Marc (forme anglo-française).

Pour éviter des malentendus: abrégé ne veut ici pas dire diminutif ou surnom, comme Lu-Lu pour Ludovic, il s'agit simplement de l'érosion linguistique-phonétique, comme le français "serf" pour latin "servum" ou comme "araire" pour "aratrum".
Hans-Georg Lundahl