Welcome to The Blog of the Kurgan

I have written before about Western nepotism, but I recently realised there is an even more obvious and more powerful type of nepotism we should all be taking advantage of.

It really has the possibility of inverting the current wasteland of woke dystopia and making it a buried memory of a time of witches, overtaken by a golden age of glory, power and efficiency not seen in living human memory.

It is the hiring, working for, networking with, primarily or only:

Efficient European men.

No bullshit. No worries about paper qualifications. No concern about age. No concern at all about political correctness or their politics —unless they make it a thing that affects their performance or your business— except in one respect: attacks or comments on them from outside people trying to sabotage them get ignored or batted back.

Everything reduced to ONLY two things:

• Effectiveness
• Loyalty (which MUST go both ways)

That’s it.

Share

I have been doing this somewhat unconsciously since the advice and example of life I give and have given throughout my life follows that pattern, but it was rarely reciprocated. I recall precisely one ex employer that operated on that same principle and for the three years he was with that company we made them a LOT of money. After he left, I left shortly thereafter too.

Recently however I have met a gentleman that I think operates on a similar basis and the somewhat unexpected aspect of being in that position again was so refreshing it made me realise that if even a small group got together on that basis and worked together, the results would surpass the expectations of everyone involved.

There really is a synergy when such people  work together that indeed does become more than the sum of the parts.

Of course, it is what I am trying to build near me, and it’s slow work, but once that boulder starts moving, and I think it is now, inching forward, towards the cliff edge, it becomes a force of its own and can turn into an avalanche so quickly some will be left unprepared.

Elements are starting to come together. It’s early days, but I sense a tectonic shift slowly happening.

You should absolutely begin to indulge deeply into this kind of nepotism.

Subscribe

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

The Prot vs Cath post certainly got the retards to come crawling out from under their rocks.

Here is one cretin named Henri Laurent, whose comment is so idiotic he has managed to elevate himself to the spectacle that he will now become in yet another Kurganing.

His comment is in retarded bold , my replies in standard text.

Before his comment, and my vivisection of it, it is worth noting his tone. He attempts to take on the air of the “educated scholar” who will superciliously educate me.

Unfortunately for him, but amusingly for us, he has all the gravitas of a toddler announcing he can count to eleventy million thousand.

“If God (Jesus) did in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) to follow on Earth, then surely it necessarily must be a) infallible, and b) eternal (at least until end times). Agree? If not, why not? (In this case please explain the reasoning as I doubt I can infer it otherwise)”

Of course Protestants would agree Jesus established a doctrine, but that doctrine is much more minimal than the ever-expanding doctrine of Catholicism.

First clue he’s a retard. Catholicism has never expanded divine doctrine. Only stated it and then explained it in ever-increasing (logical) detail to counter the sophistry, lies, intentional as well as idiotic “interpretations” of those morons who ALL followed the “doctrine” of a maid-raping nun-fetishists who invalidated his entire doctrine off the bat by saying only scripture counts and then promptly modifying that very scripture, not to mention his staunch belief that “reason is the whore of the devil”.

And its in the Bible.

Yes it is retard. And just like a man who reads and tests and sees that 2+2+2=6 and 2+2+2+2=8 might infer or deduce multiplication, every utterance of our Lord and most if not all the passages of the Bible can and do have deeper and extrapolated logical meanings. Also known by anyone who has actually read the Bible since there are multiple levels of knowledge in it and in fact it is stated in it more than once in various ways that different types will get more from it than others.

There is no mention of many things that Catholics added over time.

Catholics didn’t ADD anything, you absolute moron. They EXTRAPOLATED because logic is a thing. Reason is a thing. In fact the very word Logos from which the word logic derives refers to our Lord directly. Now go get a dictionary and look up the following word: extrapolation.

It won’t convince you, but that is because you, like ALL Protestants (bar none) are a cargo cultist. You have no concept of the reality of logic, or objective reality, and hence have no capacity to discern error from truth at ANY resolution. All you do is emote and PRETEND you are “thinking” but you don’t even have the ability, because you have no clue what logic is or how to use it. You’re a toddler. Pretending.

The question of infallibility is not even necessary because the doctrinal system wasn’t meant to become so big and bloated to begin with, and a minimal doctrine doesn’t require that kind of infallibility.

Thank you for demonstrating what I just wrote above perfectly. Since:

1. Name ONE THING that humans have not twisted, corrupted or will be able to corrupt. I really want to see what you come up with in an age when half the planet thinks men can get pregnant. Go on. We’ll wait.
2. Since ALL humans are flawed they WILL corrupt ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. It is literally impossible for them not to. Eventually they will find a way. (See pregnant “men”). This is absolutely OBVIOUS if you can do logic at a level of a normal 7 year old.

Ergo… infallibility MUST and can ONLY be supernaturally guaranteed by God (Jesus) himself. Humans simply can’t do it. And while Vox either didn’t understand the point or dodged it, it remains a fact that if we have these conditions, namely:

1. Humans WILL absolutely corrupt any doctrine whatsoever over time.
2. However simple or limited, God MUST have some rules for salvation to work for us.

Then: those rules will only remain true and available if God Himself makes it so. Because absent that Divine supernatural protection, the rules will be lost, twisted, corrupted and inverted.

Vox dodged the question here saying God broke his own rules to save us, but he did not explain how this in any way prevents certain rules applying to us that we MUST follow to be saved.

If Vox believes no matter what we do God will always break His own rules to save us then that is not love nor do we have any real free will. It’s just a boy playing with his dolls that keep falling down over and over again and he keeps picking them up again.

If on the other hand there ARE some rules, again, however simple they might be, given we WILL corrupt them, a LOVING God would ensure at least for those who SEEK, that the truth can be found, and found to be infallible, that is UNCORRUPTED, for us; thanks to Him keeping it so REGARDLESS of how many times we try to corrupt it.

And Lo and behold, that is precisely what we have in the Catholic Church.

Vox going off at a tangent about Jesus knowing people are dumb, does not answer the point that was asked: why would a LOVING God not give His loved creatures an infallible doctrine they can choose (or reject) to be saved?

“If you do not agree with the premise that God DID in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) then how do you reconcile this with God being a loving God?”

Did you really think any type of Christian would deny both that God established a church AND that he established a doctrine?

Vox has certainly denied Jesus necessarily established a Church, since according to him a couple of lesbian “pastors” gathering in his name and telling others Leviticus is old and can be ignored is good enough for Jesus to be with them.

And he dodged the doctrine question by saying God broke his own system to save us, implying both that there IS a system, but it doesn’t really matter because God loves us and will save our sinful ass anyway.

Like all Protestants, when asked to specify if there is really ANYTHING at all that we MUST do to be saved, or conversely if there is anything at all we can do to LOSE salvation, the answers are very far from complete, logical, or form any kind if valid syllogisms, and tend instead to more resemble to mumbled sentences of a generic and fog-like nature.

So, yeah, every Protestant either denies both, one, or none, but can never give a clear answer as to what that doctrine is, or which Church is the right one. Or if all of them are then why have different ones? Each with 40,000 different variants, which is pointless anyway because according to Protties every man interprets everything Biblical by himself anyway. It’s just a morass of cognitive dissonance, avoidance, chaos thoughts, and above all emotions, but supreme above them all: Pride. And not the “good” kind.

Even if someone were to say “no, Paul established the church, not God” then they would still acknowledge that God established a doctrine by giving Paul the gospel of justification by faith alone.

God did no such thing (re: “by faith alone”). You need to learn to read for context and comprehension as well as read the book of James. But then you’re a Protestant, you can’t read, only quote mine, and you think James was Jesus’ brother and that is all.

And you STILL haven’t stated what that doctrine actually IS. Wasn’t it so simple it didn’t even need infallibility? So why don’t you spell it out for us? Go on. We’ll wait!

Now on question 1, someone tried to restate your question as

“A stronger formulation of Kurgan’s first question is ‘If Jesus gave his apostles the authority to teach, to forgive sins, and to distribute the Sacraments until He returns, as He explicitly states in the Gospels, then in what form does that authority exist on earth today?'”

He says nothing about needing authority to “distribute” any “sacraments” in the gospels.

Then why does Paul say if anyone teaches differently than THEY (the apostles) do to ignore them? And WHY did the practice of Apostolic succession exist? And is in fact mentioned in the Bible that others (Simon Magus) tried to fool people into thinking he was too an apostle?

You really need to READ that Bible boy. Not just parrot pieces of it with less grasp of their context than the average chicken has of advanced calculus.

Obviously any Christians can baptize and bless the bread and wine.

This sentence is so stupid it probably should be framed. It is a nested matrix of stupidity so intense it may warp time!

Let us see it as best as we mere mortals can, wary of the fact that looking too hard into such blithering idiocy may in fact kill IQ points from us.

• Please explain how a Christian becomes a Christian if only a Christian can baptise.
• In fact… how can Christians even exist? Since the first baptism must have been done by someone unbaptised and we know the first baptism wasn’t done by Jesus (Gid) so… oh wait! Yeah… you’re an idiot. And the Catholic version is right. ANYONE can baptise. As ling as the form and intent are correct.
• If ANYONE can bless ANYTHING at ANY time, why even have Protestant “pastors”? If Sacraments don’t exist, why have one presiding over things like weddings?
• Explain why you need to bless the bread and wine. Where did Jesus tell his Apostles they need to bless anything?
• In fact explain what a blessing is. And when you are done googling it, and hopefully realise at least a little how abysmally stupid you are, then go on to explain why not anyone can in fact give blessings.

Conclusion

Behold ladies and gentlemen. This is indeed the kind of “reasoning” and “erudition” and “scholarly” work that Protestants inevitably do.

Share

Subscribe

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I asked Vox three theological questions which in all honesty I expected him to ignore as I know he hates theological debates and the inevitable retardation that follows.

Now I want to make a few things clear:

Leave the man alone and don’t go asking him more questions on this. The point here is not Vox specifically or to have a real in depth debate with him or any of that. My curiosity on his views was due to the fact that he is intelligent and he has a different perspective and one can usually learn something by testing your own views with someone at least able to think on your level who has a different take.

The purpose of this post is to share in general terms the two perspectives and hopefully create an atmosphere of better overall understanding of some fundamental concepts.

The point is to question my own perspective as much as I might question his and see if anything worthwhile shakes out.

His take is here .

And he also had another response from the AI he trained (I think) which he named Vox DAI, here . I found this last to be really quite irrelevant anyway but I added it for the sake of thoroughness. Though I find engaging with it at all pointless so will not do so.

Now to each question I asked, his reply and my view of the exchange.

If God (Jesus) did in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) to follow on Earth, then surely it necessarily must be a) infallible, and b) eternal (at least until end times). Agree? If not, why not? (In this case please explain the reasoning as I doubt I can infer it otherwise)

Disagree. The logic doesn’t follow at all. As with most appeals to “then surely it necessarily” this reveals nothing more than the formulator’s inability to construct the correct syllogisms. The conflation of “eternal” with “until end times” is a giveaway of the formulator’s tendency toward ambiguity.

He is correct that I misused the word eternal. I meant it as merely the time between now and the end times (revelation or the apocalypse) so not actually “eternal” but rather “lasting for the whole of the duration of mankind before the second coming of Christ.” I thought I made it relatively clear in the parenthetical but it is true that it is a conflation, and as I also agree that whatever happens after the second coming may well be an entirely new and different set up, it is at least possibly true that the Church (even in the form of its adherents becoming eternal in the afterlife) as an institution as such may not in fact continue to exist beyond that.

So ok, I asked the question badly and I should have said b) last at least until the second coming.

The reason being He said He would be with us until the end times.

Indeed, the common use of the marriage metaphor for the relationship between Church and Christ indicates that it not only isn’t necessarily eternal, but cannot be.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ knew his apostles were fallible and even predicted some of their specific failures. There is no reason to believe that he had higher expectations of his future followers who would be even further removed from his teachings. I absolutely refuse to believe that Jesus Christ was less intellectually capable or had a weaker grasp on human behavioral patterns than Siddhartha Gautama or me.

The second part appears to be Vox’s lack of understanding that the infallibility presumed by Catholics for their Church is not anything to do with humans, but an aspect of God and hence not reliant on human beings. I am a little surprised if that is how he thinks of it, because Papal infallibility and indeed the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has NEVER been assumed to be the result of any human, including the Popes. It is our belief that Jesus Himself protects the Magisterium AND Ex-Cathedra pronouncements by VALID Popes from error through His own supernatural infallibility.

The reason being that a loving God would give his flawed humans not only a way to be saved, but also a way that is absolutely true that gets transmitted faithfully through the ages without any error in it. From my perspective, which is also probabilistic, not binary (though in some parts it is absolute, but based on faith, not probability), to NOT have such a thing would mean that:

• No one could be sure that ANYTHING is really true or happened as it has been passed down to us by apostolic succession (which preserves the infallibility by being the legitimate way to pass the truth down the ages). If there is no infallible Church then anyone might be right or wrong about an infinite number of things. There could never be certainty of a true path to salvation. (Vox gives his reasoning on this in the second question; in his view that path being simple (even if not certain)).

• Vox subscribes to the Nicean Credo (as explained in exhaustive detail here). But why he should do so is unclear since no doctrine or Church is required (and in any case you cannot be certain of it being infallible anyway). The only answer I see is in some responses he gave on SG that essentially stated he thrives on probabilistic thinking, uncertainty and chaos. I don’t deny that my own mind is quite comfortable with a LOT of uncertainty and I too am a probabilistic thinker, however, in this instance it implies Vox only has a belief that he himself must recognise is only a probability, not a certainty. And in fact he does state this while also pointing out that all of us also have beliefs that are only probabilities, not absolute facts, which is true, since we are all flawed, but it does seem to be a very subjective and not very logical way of selecting the Nicean Credo and rejecting all the others. And if there is no need for doctrine or Church then the Credo itself, and indeed the Bible would not exist, since these were both put together as a result of there being a Church that did both (as well as many other things), so the first principle of how or why that specific Credo should be special is missing. Or the Church must have been required at least so as to put the Bible and the Nicean Credo together (and infallibly so, or at least so close to infallible as to satisfy his probability level to believe it, presumably to the point he would rather die than deny it, which is a pretty high bar, but one I have myself so I know it’s certainly possible to have to this level even if you don’t have certainty.)

• It also needs to be noted that the Nicean Credo of 325 AD was later altered in response to heretics making various claims, but this “alteration” was really (as most of Catholic dogma is) merely a better explanation of some details known by all Catholics but now being brought into question by deceivers (heretics), and so requiring a more detailed explanation. Vox appears to think this change was the adding in of things that were not really known by the Church, but that were added in to fortify their position nevertheless. I think this is wrong and a common error of Protestants. They assume a change is an actual change, instead of a more detailed version to combat the lies. If I say I am a man and someone then says I am a Pygmie, I can then say, “no, I am not, I am a six foot two white guy” that’s not changing who I am or the fact I am a man or my nature. It is simply adding in true information to counter the false one being made.

• It would imply God is leaving us to our own devices for knowing how to behave; which doesn’t seem very loving, but Vox answers this in the second question below.

If you do not agree with the premise that God DID in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) then how do you reconcile this with God being a loving God?

Easily. First, God sent Jesus to rescue us from our fate under His own rules. He values us more than He values His system. Second, Jesus said that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he would be there. Both are powerful indications of love that require neither Church nor Doctrine.

So… if I understand him correctly Vox believes God has a system (or rules), but he breaks it for love of us. And apparently this means we are ok not to follow them? Because hey, God will save us anyway? Now I know Vox doesn’t subscribe to the retarded concept of once saved always saved, because he expressly stated so in a blog post somewhere years ago, but that logically means he agrees God has some rules. So we are supposed to follow them? But that is only an ideal condition and it doesn’t really matter if we don’t because He’ll probably save us anyway, which is why He hasn’t bothered to make them explicit and infallible? Seems a bit of a hippie and slapdash way of doing things, and not very logical, but I think Vox gets around that by what I assume is his belief that simply loving God back is enough. I have to assume that because his next point is that all it takes for Jesus to be with you is if people (you and at least one other) gather in His name. Sounds like a congregation to me (however small) which again implies a Church, but I guess Vox means at a stretch it could just be a couple of friends discussing Jesus over a beer. I don’t know, I’m trying to give maximum parameters of latitude here to then see how it stacks up against my own beliefs.

As far as I can tell Vox seems to subscribe to the general Protestant view that all you need to do is love God and you’re gonna be saved.

There is certainly some evidence that could be true, Jesus did say all you need to do is love God and love your neighbour.

So in a very summarised form it is valid.

HOWEVER…

There are many other things Jesus said, such as to eat of His Flesh and drink of His Blood in memory of him and in order to have everlasting life. It is not a casual thing, it is repeated in all the gospels and quite specifically each time.

In John 6:53-59, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:18-20, Matthew 26:26-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. It is a central tenet of Catholicism that the Holy Mass is a sacrament and includes transubstantiation, and there have been at least 7 cases of transubstantiation being essentially proven in a lab that I am aware of.

It seems to be a very important part of being saved, along with Baptism. And I know Vox believes at least in baptism. But why? After all the Bible that tells us so according to his view was put together by fallible men who acted and belonged and formed a Church he thinks is not required. How could he possibly believe the Bible or the things in it are absolutes or even worthy of respect since they have no specific authority or infallibility in his view?

And if some yes and some no, why baptism but not the Holy Mass complete with transubstantiation?

If all we need to do to is to love God and our neighbour, why bother with baptism or the mass or any of the other things we are told to do like in the ten commandments?

Jesus also gave the power to lose and bind to the apostles and Peter the keys, in:

Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, and Revelation 3:7

A brief but decent explanation is here .

So what was that about? It died with the Apostles and apostolic succession means nothing?

I could go on, but I will limit myself to one more point.

I generally agree God is not a rules lawyer, but a loving God necessarily MUST have rules. Because true, real, love, based in free will, without justice, cannot exist. So some of those rules MUST be able to send you to hell if you break them, and even as a flawed human being you MUST have at least some way to be able to discover what these rules are, as well as figuring out they are in fact infallible rules, and breaking them sends you to hell (unless you truly repent).

And the Catholic Church explains what these rules are, and the history of mankind proves Catholicism is superior in practical and spiritual terms than any other religion. You can tell simply by the fruits of it.

In short, Vox’s position has no real foundation. It is built on sand, and my personal opinion is that his unwillingness to face certain realities concerning this is mostly rooted in a visceral aversion to having any human have any sort of authority over him, however theoretical or subtle it might be.

But the baseline flaw is that WITHOUT that very authority he would have no Bible, no council of Nicea, no credo, no Cathedral, no Crusades (because no Popes) etc etc etc. In short, there is some heavy cargo culting going on here. About 1500 years of truth getting ignored even as everything that comes after it (in error, i.e. Protestantism) is based on it.

As for my own position, it certainly appears to be far more rigid and unforgiving than his, however, that is not the whole story as the Church (and therefore me) believes in the remission of sins, baptism of desire, baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, and so on, which are all ways that a soul may yet enter heaven (well…purgatory at least) that means Catholicism is not as cut and dried as it is invariably presented.

And lastly, the general ignorance of the way Roman Law (which is what Canon Law operates under) is underpinned by logic to an extent not present in any anglo legal system, means some unstated (but logically clear and implied) rules nevertheless apply.

As I said, please leave Vox alone, but feel free to comment to your heart’s content here.

The last question was a lot simpler:

Do you have an opinion/view on whether Mary was and remained a Virgin (sexually at least) both before and after the birth of Jesus?

Yes. If Jesus had brothers and Mary was their mother, then she was obviously no longer a virgin. One virgin birth is divine. Two or more smacks of propaganda or a fundamental failure to understand how reproduction works.

Furthermore, either Mary didn’t remain a virgin or she never became the wife of Joseph because their marriage was never consummated.

The last point is simply that Catholics believe Mary was a virgin both before Jesus as well as after. Her marriage to Joseph was sacramental and thus valid but not sexual. This was not all that unusual in those times.

It also needs to be understood that in those times anything that was “set aside for God” was generally NOT messed with or even touched without there being usually final and deadly consequences, so a woman that gave birth to a boy as a virgin, as per 400 years of Prophecies, “fathered” by God Himself in the form of the Holy Spirit, would hardly be touched by anyone of that belief system, never mind copulated with!

And the Greek word translated as “brother” in the Greek can and does refer to a variety of relatives and even just close friends. Similarly, when the word “brethren” is used it doesn’t literally mean “my brothers”. It’s more like our modern day “bro”. This is relatively well known so I am not sure why Vox ignores this, intentionally or otherwise. Especially since this position was held by ALL of Christianity for well over a millennia and a half.

It indirectly runs into the absurd idea too that all of Christianity was wrong for 1520 years or so until Martin Luther came along and “fixed” it, which is enough to put a total lie to the entirety of Protestantism on its own, because again… by their fruits you shall know them.

Anyway… have at it in the comments here, but have a care because outright trolls and retards will be banned and blocked without warning. You can argue, but if so do NOT ignore the points already made in this post, or misrepresent them. That is a quick route to banning. Instead engage them honestly if you wish to argue them.

Enjoy.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Along with the previous post, this one too is a favourite song. Kind of sums up as I see things too. Even as the trench warfare continues and even as I too must take my place in it.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

It’s between this one and Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

You really should read it and know it.

It is one of those few pieces of writing that can sustain and encourage a man even as he gradually or suddenly learns that ultimate truth men must all ultimately face even if you’re surrounded by family and good friends.

We are born alone, live alone, and die alone.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

A short exchange between myself and a couple of other very cool, very loyal and very faithful Sedevacantists, in my immediate circle of very good friends, prompted this post, which, as you will see from my replies is, as usual, brutally direct. The difference being only that most (some?) of my close friends recognise that my brutality and directness are almost entirely non-personal. And I expect my close friends to know this. This particular interlocutor absolutely does, and his similarly autistically direct replies are refreshing for both clarity (if not of thought, at least of transparently exposing the process) and intent (good).

The conversation started with the death of the arch-heretic, probably never was Catholic, Satanic fake Pope Bergoglio.

Sede man 1

On a serious note, it wouldn’t hurt to give a prayer for him. At least asking for the Justice and Mercy of God to be executed.

Kurgan

You’re a better man than I. I’ll say a prayer for an honest enemy. Not for a servant of Satan and pedophile protector.

Sede man 2 (with thumbs up from Sede man 3)

You should though

Kurgan

That’s your opinion, to which you are entitled.

HOWEVER

Have you asked yourself how on Earth we went from the most numerous religion on Earth, with the best system of society ever invented by anyone human, producing the best societies humanity has ever seen in all fields, to a rearguard action of scattered Sedevacantists?

My contention is that is was through an overabundance of misplaced charity.

And it begins precisely like this:

A very thin wedge of compassion towards the most vile forms of scum.

“Oh say a prayer for the poor evil man that colluded with his Argentinian lover to have hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of little lids raped, sold and murdered. It’s the right Catholic thing to do!”

And then it morphs from the above into tolerating all sorts of other nonsense.

So allow me to present my view:

1. Not even God forgives the unrepentant

2. There is ZERO evidence this pedophile promoter ever repented of anything and he was  directly responsible for covering for pedos and enabling child rape by fake “priest” for decades.

3. Who am I to assume he ever repented, and if he did not, try to be more charitable than God?!?! How is that not an absurd error of pride?!

4. If he DID miraculously repent before croaking God knows it and doesn’t need my help.

5. If he did not he absolutely deserves his fate in hell.

6. Points 3-5 are in any case personal and irrelevant because cum ex apostolato officio clearly states heretics should be deprived of EVERY HUMAN CHARITY! So technically it is you who is in error.

7. I will pray though. That all unrepentant pedos and pedo enablers burn in Hell.

Kurgan sermon over.

Sede man 2

Yes, but it’s not “misplaced” charity. You know as well as I do that praying for his soul in no ways needs to entail condoning any of his evil, heretical and downright satanic actions. The point is to look for the good of his soul despite all of that.

Our Lord Himself prayed for literal God-killers as they were crying out for His blood and nailing Him to a cross.

The only prayer to make is not that God’s justice not be done, nor that He not be punished (we pray, hope and know that justice will be done (thank God)), but at the same time we can pray that maybe, just maybe, for a glimmer of a moment before the end, the heart of this horrendous human being may have made the right decision

Sede man 2 (continued)

Prayers for petition are not about making God change His mind, or about knowing things that He knows. Gods decisions are already made. Instead, ultimately, they are about aligning our wills with His.

God wants/wanted this man to repent. And so, let’s pray that He did.

And if he didn’t, he will go to hell, where he belongs.

Sede man 2 (continued)

Deprived of human charity… not divine charity.

Kurgan

I’m human. Not a or even the God.

Kurgan (continued)

And even if one accepts your arguments at face value (I don’t. The logic is terrible) it remains at best a waste of time.

Suppose he did repent, since you have NO WAY at all of knowing, you’re guessing, so already in breach of your duty as a Catholic to remove all human charity from what we can only treat as an arch-heretic given we need to judge him based on his actions and deeds, which have without exception marked him as such.

And if he is not repentant then what are you actually doing? Why not pray for Satan as well then?

Lastly, and again, if not even God has mercy on the unrepentant, why are you trying to?

Your prayer is entirely pointless regardless of the situation AT BEST. And potentially a sin of pride and disobeying Catholic dogma.

What point is there to such a prayer other than self-glorification as being a “really good Catholic” who then can tell other Catholics like me what they “should” be doing to be more pious?

Because your prayer cannot change anything, has zero effect on whatever the situation is, which is in all cases beyond your knowledge or personal power to affect either way precisely because of the circumstance of Bergoglio being a heretic. It’s worse than praying for someone being burnt at the stake, at least they have a possible reason for possible repentance. Bergoglio, in the external forum on which we as humans must necessarily judge him, had none.

In conclusion

My view here is very simple: you want to make this dubious and possibly erroneous and prideful prayer, go ahead. In silence between you and God. But telling others to is, as far as I am concerned, akin to telling them they should accept millions of “refugees” because some may be good people. In fact this hypothetical has more logical merit.

And it is, above all, a further very subtle, and for that reason, very dangerous, infiltration of an overabundance of false piety and false humility that leads to an error of both pride AND tolerance.

It is why we no longer have people willing to skewer heretics and enemies of the church on a sword. And as far as I can tell, nothing will rebuild the church without not only such men, but also such actions.

Anyway, that’s my take and absent God changing my mind, it will remain as is.

And that is the little Sede vs Sede “violence” done with.

But as a larger theme, it needs to be understood and remembered above all that:

1. Evil is most dangerous and effective in its most subtle form, because it is insidious and unnoticed. The danger is not from the heretic blue-haired feminist that shouts 2+2 is 5. Or that Bruce Jenner is a woman. That’s just retarded and obviously wrong and false. The danger is from someone posing as a math professor that sometimes, at a Lunar minimum, when it falls on a conjunction with Jupiter, 2+2 can be equal to 4.000000000000000001. That is the evil that will seep in, and in time, ensure the bridges you build fall down in a stiff wind with “no one to blame because how could anyone know the root cause if such a mystery” because by then math will be akin to an esoteric art performed only by strange men who are obviously right wing radicals.
2. No evil regime that uses lies, deception and force was ever changed or removed other than by force.
3. Absent men willing to defend, fight and if need be die for the faith, but above all willing to build communities of faithful Catholics, the remnants of the Church will atrophy too.

So govern yourself accordingly.

Share

Subscribe

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So we now have a “commenter” that is an endless spammer that only has one link to probably malwere.

This is “her”:

So ignore all her comments as I have banned and deleted them dozens of times to no avail and now reported them to substack three times. They probably are auto-generating new profiles to spam.

Is it a coincidence that this happened right after I pointed out (yet another) IT tech geek is your usual soft-hand fantasist and keyboard warrior? Perhaps.

Then again, I also have been posting about the (((usual criminals and mass murderers))) so it may be yet again the same usual state actors from the mosUSAd deep state that crashed my OG blog (which is in any case back up with zero losses —see the links above on this substack).

It is somewhat disheartening that so many supposed “tough men of the West” have been exposed on this very substack as nothing more than either complete bullshit artists, or theoretical academics with no grasp of reality, but they (so far) all share one thing in common:

They are ALL IT geeks.

And I have yet to meet an IT geek that is physically capable in the real world of brutal physical reality. So maybe, just maybe, keep that in mind. And for your convenience, here is a little list of the ones exposed so far:

• Tree of Woe (and a few others – long post)
• Texas Arcane
• Johann Kurtz
• Slavland Chronicles (and Kurt Dolittle)

And these are just a few of the ones exposed here. Many more at the OG blog (type their names or my version of it in the Search Me link if you care to know more).

• Emo Jones (E.M. Jones)
• Milo Yankmypolous
• Tay-Tay Marshall (Taylor Marshall)
• Michelle Voris (Gary/Michael Voris)
• “Dr.” James White
• Kurt/Curt Dolittle
• Andrew Torba
• Sachetti
• Andrew Tate (and Ivan Throne, their “wizard” handler, etc)
• Scott Adams
• Bill Gates

And a bunch of other less “famous” grifters I forget off the top of my head.

It’s not that I especially enjoy doing these Kurganings (as they have come to be called), but they are after all necessary, as a recent commenter stated, it’s my way of giving back, think of it as a public service!

So who DO I recommend? On Substack? Not really anyone solidly yet. On Youtube I like a few gun guys.

• Honest Outlaw (don’t always agree with his takes on guns he likes personally but his reviews are always solid)
• Pewview (who is a complete freak of nature that must be a multimillionaire if the amount of ammo he uses in a week is anything to go by)
• Tucotheratt (he’s just cool and honest and his gun skills are impressive even if not superhuman like the Pewview guy)

And there are links to interesting blogs on this substack too, of course.

Anyway… if this blog gets taken down too we’ll know the deep state, or Israel, or whoever, is still pissed off at me.

What can I say, it’s one of my talents: exposing bullshitters and pissing of authority.

But everyone needs hobbies!

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

The Cowards.

As the post on Texas Arcane showed, there are PLENTY of supposed “right wingers” that in reality are just fear porn fantasists.

Ignorant too. I mean…

Tex lost his shit completely when he got called out on various nonsense he wrote, so he then stated that the crusades were just the West’s greed at wanting to take over Islamic lands and pushed by people who wanted power but wouldn’t do the actual fighting, and that the religion behind it was just a ploy.

Sadly I did not screenshot the nonsense he wrote because frankly I didn’t expect him to be such a little bitch that would block me then delete his idiotic comments as well as my replies to them. In fact he went on to delete other people’s comments too because he was being shown up for the idiot he is by other commenters too, as the comments under my post demonstrate .

Is it sad that Tex turned out to be a complete bullshitter and so weak he resorts to hiding his stupidity online? Sure. Is it a surprise though? No.

I mean let’s look at his life according to his own words:

• He is such a genius he figures out everything ahead of the rest of us (according to him)
• He is somehow plagued by bad situations because he’s so smart and “the government” hates him and persecuted him for decades. (Again according to him)
• He is a big strong man and tough guy (ditto)
• He wrote a bunch of stuff on Neanderthals that is primarily supposition, but some might even be correct. No one can really say.
• He is a doomer and his “solution” to the impending apocalypse is to dig a hole underground and create this fallout style bunkers in which to ride it all out.

Now let’s look at the REALITY of his life also by his own admissions:

• He married an Australian and moved there and lived there for 30 years, miserable and under the thumb of this woman who according to him was some kind of government controller who married him and made his life hell because… she was some sort of spy supposed to keep him in check!
• It’s been 30 years and he STILL hasn’t released his home made software for running a bunker. But it will be out real soon.
• He doesn’t actually have a bunker, nor, as far as I can tell, the land/funds etc to build one
• He was so smart but… stupid enough to join the Army, which is the utter submission to the very government he says he hates.
• He describes his army time (zero combat) as hellish because of rules that were imposed on him, but tried/s to use it as some kind of valour credits.
• He tries to say America has less of an immigration problem than Europe but the facts and numbers prove him wrong.
• He tried to argue with me that basically “America fuck yeah!” But his own blog posts state the average American is devoid of any lasting human emotion akin to love.

Is this the trajectory of anyone you should be taking advice from?

Now he does issue some interesting books (not sure how legally as they seem to be under copyright) and SOME of them MIGHT even have SOME useful info in them, but as for the rest, we can make some educated guesses about Tex, or Cleveland Blakemore as he is known. And it is not exactly flattering:

• So stupid that he joins the military, which let’s not forget is that thing where bankers and politicians tell you who to go and kill or die for in order to fulfil their worldly pursuits.
• He marries an Australian
• He MOVES to Australia
• He lives there for 30 years! On purpose!
• He is so inept with women that the above two points are his best shot at getting laid. And he STILL hardly ever did.
• He PRETENDS to be Christian but as his comments about the crusades to me demonstrated clearly, it’s just something he pays lip service to, like most Protestants.
• What is his life like? Would you rate it successful?
• What does he produce or give to the world other than sharing other people’s books (possibly against the wishes of those authors)?
• He is physically unfit to the point of being near death.

Now, don’t get me wrong, everyone makes lots of mistakes, me too, so this is not about the stupid choices he made, but more about his overall validity as someone to emulate or listen to (other than perhaps as a cautionary tale).

I made plenty of errors too. Twice divorced and many women in between too, BUT… Am now happily married and have a sixth kid on the way and I wrote a book about how to best navigate relationships based on avoiding the errors I made. I don’t blog in a whiny tone about how bad the errors were. I try to share what to avoid and what to go for instead with the benefit of experience and hindsight.

I don’t actually have a bunker, because honestly even if an apocalypse happens, I likely don’t need one where I am situated, which was a conscious choice by the way, to be here, but if I did need to have a bunker, I can actually build one here.

I do give advice online but none of it is theory. I live or lived the things I write about.

I actually HAVE arrested people, including armed ones, I had people try to kill me more than once, I have trained in martial arts most of my life and used both armed and unarmed to defend myself or others more than once or twice. I don’t write about those events much at all and I certainly don’t embellish or add things for “colour”, as Tex absolutely does, assuming he doesn’t just make them up out of whole cloth.

But worst of all, Tex doesn’t provide real solutions. He simply spreads more fear porn patched over with some theoretical books about how to survive a nuclear holocaust, while pretending he has a fallout like solution of interconnected bunkers all worked out except for that final patch to his never ready bunker-ready software.

It’s all nonsense.

And there is a LOT of it on the internet. I wrote earlier about how the Tree of Woe guy just writes absurd and fantastically theoretical pieces on how legislation or some other piece of paper will or should work in the near future/post apocalypse blah blah, and he too touted “military experience” until someone called him out on that too and revealed him to be another fake.

The point is this:

Theory doesn’t count for shit in real life. ESPECIALLY in a chaos situation like the collapse of civilisation, which in any case, unless there is a pole shift (likely but the timeline is unknown although my prediction from 30 years ago is on track so it may well be in our lifetimes or even the next few years) the apocalypse is not likely. The powers that be will squeeze you gradually instead.

But if it does revert to a zombie apocalypse or flat out WWIII, then, I assure you, theory will mean NOTHING.

The best thing to determine your outcome (assuming you survive the pole shift itself, which is a BIG if!) aside your ability to make or gather food and water, will be your ability and willingness to use violence to protect what’s yours or take what you need from others.

It’s brutal, ugly, and most “civilised” people have no clue about it at all.

And unless you have been in such situations repeatedly you also have no real idea how you will react, if you will panic and make terrible mistakes, or not.

I actually DO know how I will react. Because I have been there, multiple times, and while it is no guarantee that I will come out on top, overall, statistically speaking, assuming I survive the pole shift to begin with, I am far more likely to survive it than most.

Tex is not.

But in any case, spreading more fear and blackpilling is NOT the answer. The answer is a TRUE and deep faith, a lot of ammo, the willingness and ability to use it if you need to, and preparing everything else that you might be able to prepare as best you can so as to be able to live even without FIAT money or the electric grid at all.

So… you pick who you read and listen to and how YOU decide to prepare for whatever YOU envision might possibly happen.

Because in the end, neither Tex nor I are going to fix any issues for you. Well, unless you live near me, then I might, but even then, you still need to know (for) yourself. Always.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

The double blind test done demonstrated without a doubt what we anti-vaxxers knew all along: the murder juice was… well… murder juice.

And it killed children at 81 TIMES the rate of normal causes of death among children.

For the innumerate among you, it means that if the chance of death was say 1 out of 100 children normally, after they got jabbed with murder juice, it would be 82 dead out of 100.

Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.

And here is a link to a short video on it .

Watch it.

Then spread it.

EVERYONE needs to a) know, and b) do their best to see everyone involved with this gets suitably punished. Starting with the CEOs of the pharma firms, the Bill Gates and the Soros that pushed it, all the way to your local doctor that told you it was safe and effective to put that poison in your child’s body.

And if you did, I pray to God your child survives and that you have learnt your lesson and NEVER trust your TV, doctor, or politician blindly again.

And if you have lost your child, while I feel sorry for you, of course, I hope you dedicate what is left of your life to make the demonic bastards that planned this pay for their intentional mass murder.

Share

Subscribe

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here