¹⁵ But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

¹⁶ And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

¹⁷ And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

— Matthew 18: 15-17

A Warning:

This is long, if you don’t care about the proof for the necessity of this, you can simply skip to the videos of Bishop Sanborn, where he convicts himself, —at minimum— of truly disordered thinking, in the most charitable of possibilities.

Part I – The Duty to Call-Out Heresy, Error, and Attacks on the Church

Before I point out the utter shambles that is the “reasoning” of Bishop Sanborn, by simply using his own words against him, and especially since I know there will be a great uproar of HOW DARE YOU from the cult of personality he has built over the years, 1 let me first of all establish with absolute clarity, the duty EVERY Catholic has to call out heresy, and therefore, my obligation to do so. Not out of personal vehemence or opinion, but due to absolute, and perpetually immutable, Divine Law, enshrined in the Bible, Canon Law, and Catholic tradition.

The case is already made in the passages from Matthew 18 above, which comes directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, and should suffice already on its own, but just for completion, here are the relevant Canons from the Code of Canon Law of 1917:

Canon 188

Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444, 2168, 2314, 2379, 2388

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

…

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;

…

Canon 1324

It is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, but also those errors should be diligently fled that more or less approach [heresy]; therefore, all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which these sorts of depraved opinions are proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See.

Canon 1325

§ 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor.

§ 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.

§ 3. Let Catholics beware lest they have debates or conferences, especially public ones, with non-Catholics without having come to the Holy See or, if the case is urgent, to the local Ordinary.

Canon 2315

One suspected of heresy who, having been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion is prohibited from legitimate acts; if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months from contracting the penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely amend himself, let him be considered as a heretic and liable to the penalties for heretics.

Canon 2316

Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy.

Canon 2317

Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 1347

Those pertinaciously teaching and defending, whether publicly or privately, doctrines that have been condemned by the Apostolic See or a General Council, but not formally defined as heretical, are prevented from the ministry of preaching the word of God and [from the ministry] of hearing sacramental confessions and from any office of teaching, with due regard for other penalties that a sentence of condemnation might establish or that an Ordinary, after a warning, concludes were necessary to repair scandal.

And lastly, in Catholic Tradition : It has always been the case that the armed non-clerical part of the Church, that is, the normal laity, usually (but not always) led by the Nobility, has always held a position that is normally subjugate to the clerical part of the Church. The Order of hierarchy, in terms of doctrine is Pope —> Bishops —> Priests —> Nobility —> Laity. However, because it is the duty of every Catholic to call out error, or heresy, and not have anything to do with it, the Nobility and Laity have, as a last resort, the possibility to revolt, and remove from office even standing supposed Popes, if they promulgate heresy, and such events have happened multiple times in Church history, as they should have.

Now that the Principle is established, allow me also to demonstrate that the conditions in Matthew 16 and 17 have also been fulfilled, and long ago too.

Part II – The Conditions for Public Reprimand Being Fulfilled

Bishop Sanborn, towards the end of 2019, on his own authority decided to replace the people that had been responsible for organising the Mass in London, with is own Protégé. The previous Co-ordinator and his family had organised the venue, collected the priests from wherever they were arriving, be it airport or train station, bringing them to the venue, along with all the relevant paraphernalia for the Mass, setting it up, and performing their duties during the Mass, ofter as altar servers, in order to help the priest perform it. And had done so peacefully and well for years. This sudden and abrupt change of co-ordinator was done against the wishes of the small Catholic community that was present, and had been present, in London for years; a trouble-free, small community of faithful that met every week for Holy Mass, prayers, and some camaraderie.

It was gently pointed out to Bishop Sanborn that he had no authority to do this, since Canonically, absent a valid Pope, as we have been since 9th October 1958, no cleric has jurisdiction over any diocese on Earth. He ignored this. Forcefully, he immediately asked that all financial accounts be handed over to his authority, along with all the duties that the previous people had been performing dutifully, unpaid, and out of simple devotion to the faith be immediately handed over to his new protégé.

Again, Bishop Sanborn was warned this was really something he had no authority to do, but he claimed he had moral authority to do so. This, of course, is nonsense. Firstly, there has never been any such thing canonically to override the express fact that absent a Pope no cleric has jurisdiction to do anything other than provide sacraments, the Mass, and basic, ordinary instruction. In fact, even the passing on of orders to new clergy is simply assumed due to the law of silent assent. That is, it is assumed to be valid, but if and when a new and valid Pope is ever elected, that Pope may well revoke such ordinations. If he says nothing however, they are assumed valid, since in Roman Law silence is equivalent to assent. But in the second place, no one can claim moral authority for themselves! It is not a claim you can validly make for yourself! In fact, doing so, almost inevitably means that person is probably the least likely to actually have any such thing! Moral authority is not claimed, it is given by others. Which is precisely why, when a fake or heretic “Pope”, somehow ascends to the throne, or becomes a heretic while upon it, the people have a right and a duty, to remove him from his post, by physical force if necessary. And in the inverse, it is why a truly humble and pious individual, can be repeatedly begged by the populace to be Pope, even if personally he would prefer not to be. This happens because the people recognise such a person has moral authority to be Pope as a result of his true commitment to the Catholic faith. The classic example being Pope Celestine V, who just wanted to be left alone to be a hermit.

This complete reversal of what is Just, true and actually moral, instead of merely pretending to be in order to gain illicit authority over people, is also why I am duty bound to speak out against Bishop Sanborn publicly. My silence otherwise would be complicity in the lies, nonsense, and undoubted heresy he is leading the faithful towards.

Now, Bishop Sanborm was warned and repeatedly so, in private, about his actions being illegal, authoritative and canonically erroneous.

His response was to deny the sacraments to all those who would not comply with his edict.

Fearful of not having sacraments at all, about half the congregation submitted to the new “organiser”, who promptly screwed it up to the extent they had no venue to do the Mass, expenses shot through the roof, and Bishop Sanborn’s primary concern, which was to increase the number of faithful paying money into the account set aside for it, instead of growing collapsed. About half the congregation decided to abandon that congregation, due to their conscience telling them that being held hostage to, or blackmailed with, a removal of sacraments, was morally repugnant as well as canonically anathema.

That was enough for me to post a few emails to the whole congregation and Bishop Sanborn himself too. This was, the part in Matthew 16, where I did not call him out privately any longer, as I and others had already done, but called him out in front of all the “brothers and sisters” of the congregation, still keeping the issue internal to that congregation and thus at least for then, preventing a wider scandal.

The result was the aforementioned roughly 50-50 split of the congregation, the complete shambles and ineffective behaviour of the new appointee, and general collapse of the congregation to a fraction of what it had been, with much discord, discontent and upset for all to go round.

I did one more private attempt to have Bishop Sanborn see the light and wrote to him privately, stating clearly that if he simply reversed his error, I would apologise publicly and submit myself to the new regime. Below is my email to him dated 18 November 2019, but a preamble is required to put it in context.

His previous email to me was essentially a ruse to do what he did subsequent to my letter, which was to ban me from his Mass (on which more later), and was a request to take down a part of my blog, where an ex-girlfriend is displayed nude, albeit in a pose that is no more pornographic than a Venus de Milo sculpture, and is there with her full consent even more than a decade later. 2

This request was prompted by the weasel that Bishop Sanborn had requested be the new co-ordinator. A “man” so underhanded, sneaky, and petty, not just in this instance which honestly was and is inconsequential to me, but in the way he infiltrated a Catholic moms private channel, just to be a spy trying to cause strife and report “scandal” to either Bishop Sanborn or whoever acted for him on things that were never scandalous at all in the first place, were private discussions between Catholic ladies —where a man had no place to be in the first place— and they were perfectly justified in expressing between each other; which ultimately was just a spelt out thought that they may wish to consult with a priest about various aspects of Catholic dogma so as to be better equipped to instruct their children. Frankly, not only not a scandalous thing, but a perfectly humble and dutiful thing to think about. This weasel in human form, however, presented this as some affront to Bishop Sanborn, who, according to weasel-boy, would have to “approve” of the priest in question, which is, of course, absolute nonsense and a flat out lie. And even if it were true under normal circumstances, of us having a valid Pope (it would not be so even then), the fact one is not present, means Bishop Sanborn has the exact same authority of jurisdiction over such things as an aborigine from Sentinel Island.

Nevertheless creatures like weasel-boy thrive on manufacturing drama and strife so they can present themselves as the moral authority.

Having expressed my opinion of him, word got back to him, and in the typical fashion of such “men” he apparently expressed the terror that I might bitch-slap him to his knees in the middle of the next Holy Mass service, which I found funny, in all honesty. And while it is true, that in a different era, it is absolutely what he deserves, sadly, in the modern day, doing the right thing is often punished severely by the secular powers; so the suggestion, while morally correct, was practically absurd.

With that explained, here then is my letter below:

Dear Bishop Sanborn,

I am glad you wrote, I meant to write to you individually in due course, but was awaiting confirmation on some things before doing so. As I have now verified this information, I am responding to your email and other things beside it.

There will undoubtedly be elements of this email that you don’t agree with or even that upset you, nevertheless I hope you read it through and consider it fully before taking any rash decision.

Believe it or not, in the early days of what has become rather unnecessary drama, I actually advocated for your position. Unfortunately, at this stage, the whole situation has reached a comedy of errors level for which I too have my faults, and perhaps more than most. That all said, let me start at the beginning and forgive me, but I will be very direct, both to save time and because I have got the sense from reading your blog and in general that you too prefer a direct approach. I have divided this email into three parts, one personal, one general and finally I end with suggestions for what I hope we can agree so that the maximum benefit to all the faithful can be achieved. Despite our differences in public, I do hope and believe our intent is the same, the helping to save souls. I would even go further and say that in all probability, in private and if we had a chance to get to know each other, you would find we are not far apart at all in terms of pragmatical approaches. That being the case, I see no reason why we cannot make, from this unfortunate situation, something positive come of it so that more persons are inspired rather than demoralised. I hope therefore you will agree with my proposal.

Personal Items

First let’s get the matter of my blog out of the way, especially since it has already been addressed publicly. My blog is not going to change, nor am I taking anything down on your request. I have amended the about page and that is that. There is, however, one concession I will make at the end in the suggestions. That said, all the items you or others may find objectionable were put there long before I converted to Christianity and will continue to stand as an example, so that many who are lost or are where I was can see that even someone like me can come to Christ. To those who would be scandalised by it, all they have to do is not go there. The internet is a big place, they can find other things to watch or read.

Furthermore, you will find I am not susceptible to any kind of emotional blackmail or pressure. At all.

As I explained publicly, there are very few people whose opinion of me may get me to alter my course in life, above all, God and my conscience as directed by Him, and then a very select few close people, and none of those would have any success in asking me to modify or hide my past.

Lastly, if I were a cynical man, I would think your request to me stems from Mr. [weasel-boy] being rather worried about simply sharing the same physical space of any room I may be in, and as such designed to elicit the response I already have made public so that perhaps you will make a public announcement of my not being allowed to attend the Mass. Mr. [weasel-boy]’s worries are known to me as is his type of personality and character, which are also familiar to me, sadly, through long experience of dealing with such men. That said, let me be very clear that I have no intent of causing a public scandal in what I effectively think of as our Church. I go there to receive the sacraments and see other people I like.

The fact that Mr. [weasel-boy] and I, short of a true miracle, will in all likelihood never be friends is irrelevant to me, nor should it be any cause of strife. While in a temporal and worldly way I find his behaviour duplicitous, two-faced, cowardly and driven by ego, in a spiritual way I pray for him and hope he finds peace, serenity and experiences God’s love. Nor is it for me to judge him, ultimately. That of course is not to say that I will not reply in kind if he doesn’t stay in his lane with respect to me and mine. All that Mr. [weasel-boy] has to do with regard to me, is simply keep his peace and not cause direct or indirect attacks on me and mine and I won’t disturb him in the least. In fact, at the last Mass I complimented his wife on the performance of his children as altar boys. I hope that will help put his mind at ease, as some of the worries he voiced where quite absurd as well as simply outright false, so much so, I found them quite ridiculous.

General Items

As I said I will speak plainly. Given the current situation of the Church, I personally found your rather autocratic approach to actually be rather in line with my own thinking. And while canonically it might not be correct, and while the moral authority you claim is, frankly, something every person can only decide for themselves, I honestly found very little fault with it. In fact, given you created the Mission, I personally have no problem whatever with you even dictating who does what with respect to its general running. I honestly don’t. I only got involved in this whole affair because to an extent or other it was brought to my attention that some unfairness was being done to [previous co-ordinator] and his family.

Before I got involved, I also asked that every aspect of this situation be shared with me, because I saw my involvement in it would probably only make more drama, and I was only willing to do so, in the sense of becoming a personal lightning rod for whatever was your ultimate decisions, in order to frankly shield the [previous co-ordinator and family] who have served loyally and humbly for a long time, while also exposing some of the underhanded behaviour of Mr. [weasel-boy] .

As it happens, not all the information was shared in what I would have thought was the right, timely and open manner I specifically asked for, and as a result I too made errors in my open letters and general approach. In fairness, I also believe you had only good intentions too with regard to replacing Mr. [previous co-ordinator] with Mr. [weasel-boy] , I just happen to think you are picking absolutely the wrong person for the job, but I also believe Mr. [weasel-boy] is very accomplished at presenting whichever face he deems necessary to get what he wants, and your previous relationship with his brother (of whom I know nothing and therefore assume he is a perfectly good man) may colour your views. At any rate, regardless of my opinion, like I said, I personally have zero objection to you placing whoever you want in charge. Time will tell soon enough if I was right or wrong, and I’d be perfectly happy to wait and see. Unfortunately, most of the other parishioners do not see things this way. The English people tend to like to follow the rules, and they generally always reject authoritarian type edicts. And sadly, canonically, your position is not correct, and morally, for a variety of reasons I am sure you can imagine, almost everyone is quite against your view since it has been seen now that there has been what is perceived as a using the sacraments and delivery or not of them and the Mass as a kind of stick to keep the parishioners in line.

Whether you believe me or not, Bishop Sanborn, despite my many faults, being a liar is not generally one of my sins, and as such, I want to specify that I have tried very hard to get the so-called “rebels” to see reason and that your position is not in any way affecting spiritual matters, at least, not until you stated that those who do not submit to your temporal authority in worldly matters are not welcome to the Mass in your second open letter. Even after this letter, I did still try to get those unhappy with your views to try and come to seeing things differently, but I admit I have failed in this at every turn.I therefore now propose the following solution, which I hope you will consider.

Suggestion

If you were to write a public letter stating that:

1. Everyone is welcome to the Mass and that,

2. While currently Mr. [weasel-boy] is the co-ordinator and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, (especially since Mr. [previous co-ordinator] has officially resigned and made quite clear he will no longer have any responsibilities as co-ordinator) you will in due course review this both in line with the expected performance of the Mission as well as the input of the faithful, which you will take into account (perhaps after a trial period of say 3 or 6 months?) and you ask the patience of any disaffected, as practical matters do need to be taken care of.

I believe this would, I am certain, assuage any ill feeling and restore trust in your guidance and leadership as well as remove any sort of appeal to canon law of any sort. Nor would it change the co-ordinator since I very much doubt anyone at all would want to put themselves forward at this point anyway. Meaning Mr. [weasel-boy] would be free to act as co-ordinator as per your wishes and you can in due course verify yourself the performance.

If you can find it to write such a letter, I for my part promise the following:

1. I will write a public letter of apology, to the limits of my conscience, to yourself and the parishioners and also post the same on my blog and leave it as the main landing page for at least a month, but in any case I would leave it on the site permanently.

2. I will keep this letter and its contents private, (unless you specifically wish me not to, in writing) and not share it with any other parishioner, of this or any other country, or worse someone not of the Catholic faith, now or in the future, nor allude to it in any way.

3. I will also ask that one condition is that if you do make reference to this letter yourself, you release the whole letter. Or else, make no reference to it at all, my only intent here being to not be selectively quoted or taken out of context or in a new context not in keeping with the facts and this entire letter.

I believe such an action on my part would restore any semblance of disrespect as well as make public those errors I do feel I have done in good conscience (and they are not few), as well as restore the situation both canonically as well as emotionally for any parishioners that now have doubts and who will not otherwise attend Mass again, given these are a majority of the attendees, I hope you will find it in your own conscience to accept this suggestion.

Sincerely in Christ

Giuseppe Filotto

His response to me was, sadly, predictable:

Dear Mr. Filotto,

If you do not remove the objectionable material from your website, you may not receive sacraments at the Mass center in London.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Bishop Sanborn

To which I responded in kind, since I knew, from logic, life experience, and having dealt with such egos before multiple times in life, that, as any hunter knows, all you have to do is wait, and eventually, such people expose themselves.

It seems you have made your choice rashly, Bishop. In line with the cynical view of things I presented in my letter.
So be it.

Giuseppe

To forestall any further accusations I want to point out that:

1. My statement that I would maintain my letter private was conditional on Bishop Sanborn reversing his error, which he did not do, hence freeing me from any such condition, and secondly, I have nevertheless kept its contents private for over six years, simply because I felt releasing it then would probably have caused more strife than good. But today, the balance has swung the other way. Keeping quiet about Sanborn’s authoritarian insistence on completely absurd tenets of his version of the Thesis of Cassiciacum, is damaging to all, and his refusal to have seminarians be ordained in his seminary unless they profess the erroneous, and frankly heretical Thesis, is a disgrace, as is the continued promulgation of the nonsensical, illogical, never before-seen rubbish that holding to that absurd theory inevitably requires, as has been amply demonstrated in a detailed breakdown of all the main nonsensical positions of the Thesis as produced by the people who created the site Contra-Thesis.
2. Regarding the “offending image” on my blog, it will stay, as will any and all other errors I may have blogged about in my life before getting baptised. No one is forced to go and look at my blog, and no one has to agree with it, but I as a man, will NEVER try and scrub my past so as to present a false aspect of who I was, what mistakes I made and so on. As all humans, I made plenty of mistakes, but throughout my life, to the best of my ability, I have always tried to act honestly, and as such, whatever errors I have made, in the main, have been genuine errors. I can no more “regret” making them than I can thinking 2 plus 2 was 10 before I knew anything about math as an 18 month old child. And what I will absolutely NOT do, is scrub my past to make me look more “respectable”. It’s dishonest, cowardly, and frankly, beneath me, my honour, my dignity, and disrespectful of anyone that may look upon me and my history. And as a matter of “look at the fruit it bears” kind of view, after one hundred or so, I lost count of how many people returned or converted to true Catholicism after reading my short book BELIEVE!, and that is, I am certain, because in that book, I never tried to hide who I was. And I present my argument in the same manner in which I lived and thought, or arrived at becoming Catholic. And the “warts and all” display clearly struck a chord with readers, who like me, were merely ignorant of the true Church, and rebelled against its impostor, not the actual Catholic religion itself.
3. I have kept the identity of weasel-boy and others involved redacted, even if those familiar with the events of the time will know who is who, because ultimately this post is not about any one individual; not even about Bishop Sanborn himself. It is about protecting the truth of the Catholic Church and ensuring souls are safe from lies, error, and madness, intentional or otherwise as it may be.

And now, having demonstrated that Bishop Sanborn has had ample time to reform, was asked to do so not only by myself but by other too with which I am perfectly familiar (but is not for me to divulge), and similarly been asked before multiple Catholic witnesses to reverse his errors, and years after he has used the sacraments as a cudgel, instead of the salvific duty a cleric has to dispense them to the faithful, it is time to publicly call him out, and I do so by using his own words, as shown below.

Part III – Bishop Sanborn, in his own Irrational Words

1. The Thesis does not say what the Thesis says…

I did not do the overlay of the woman confused by calculus on the below, and it does add a perhaps slightly disrespectful tone to the clip, nevertheless, it’s hard to find fault with it if you actually listen to the words, and I am not a video editor by any means, so, it is what it is.

2. Since Fake Popes invalidly elected are “Popes” in principle, so are fake “Priests” also “Priests” in principle!

So we go from Fake Pope, invalidly elected, to fake priest invalidly ordained, under an invalid rite, by invalid Bishops, who are not Catholic and do not profess the Catholic religion, but an impostor version that literally is 180 degrees in opposition to Catholic dogma. Yet these are, according to him “priests in principle”.

There is a further total AMERICANISM here, notice how he repeatedly refers to legalism over fact. This is absurd, nonsensical, and anti-human, but is a completely pervasive way of thinking in the general American zeitgeist raised on Hollywood presentations of legal dramas, and the actual American legal system itself, which is, of course, an absurdity and a lie, since it is absolutely rooted in the Freemasonic duplicity on which the entire USA was founded. Legalism over humanity is demonic, but the average American has been marinated in this “find the loophole in the law and it’s all good” type of thinking, and believing this is normal and rational. It is not, of course, it is a complete nonsense and a travesty of justice.

But the Catholic Church does not operate on the basis of ANY Anglo-Saxon Law, it is founded and exists purely in ROMAN LAW, which is based on justice first above all, as is absolutely logical and humane, and has as the primary purpose, the protection of the individual person, and his or her dignity and humanity before God. There is no “case-law” in Roman Law, because each case is judged on its merits, and where a specific Law does not exist, it is extrapolated by EXACT logic; which —for those who can do it— is as clear and obvious as basic math.

The fact is that pretty much no American —even smart and educated ones— can today to very good logic, much less the average Anglo-Saxon person. Nevertheless, for those who take up the Clerical orders, instruction in Latin and Roman Law is not optional, yet Bishop Sanborn here demonstrates either abysmal ignorance of the most fundamental and basic principles of Roman Law, or utter contempt and malice towards it. He also, of course, completely ignores canon law too.

3. Begging the Satanists for a Seat at the Table

It is extremely hard for me to view this in any way other than Bishop Sanborn being an intentional corruptor of what small remnant of Catholicism is left. How can someone who professes to say that the Pope is not validly the Pope and that the Novus Ordo clergy are not valid either, state, in good conscience, that if “appointed” (invalidly of course) to a fake Cardinalate, he would accept (with the of course obvious fake humility disclaimer that he would be really under such duress to accept but that he probably would)?

My personal opinion is that I don’t believe his false humility for a second. I think he would salivate at the chance to do so as it would, in his eyes, make him even more “relevant” and able to (corruptly, whether he is conscious of it or not) bring in his disciples into the greater fold of the fake Novus Ordo Church.

Conclusions

The idea that only the fake clergy of pedophiles, cocaine-snorting, homosexual orgies indulging, freemasons, satanists, communists, shills and stooges that form the Novus Ordo Satanic impostors of Catholicism are the ONLY ONES, who can elect a new Pope, is of, course absurd in its entirety.

It runs counter to everything that Catholicism stands for and of course, against the immutable Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio that clearly states, that EVEN IF, a cleric WAS valid, once he is guilty of heresy, he can NEVER, EVER, —even if forgiven— have clerical authority or perform the sacraments to ANYONE, for the rest of his life.

So, why then, is Bishop Sanborn doing what he does?

There can only be one of three explanations:

1. He is mentally unfit. This means he is either too stupid, ignorant, and incapable of correctly reading Canon Law, the Bible, and basic Catholic Dogma, to perform his duties as Bishop in any responsible manner. It includes everything from his possibly being senile, which does not appear exteriorly at least to be the case, to having some form of arrogant or narcissistic ego and personality that makes him believe his way of seeing things is superior to the Church’s millennia-long established dogma, as well as Divine Law, and there is evidence of this to my view anyway given his behaviour over time.
2. He is more concerned with money and Power than Truth. I certainly saw this as being the case in the 2019 events. And he absolutely does treat the affairs of the Church under his domain as a business. In short, he is a Bishop of Power, not piety, as Rodney Stark defined it. I don’t in principle even have an objection to this, while they are not my favourite clergy, those priests and Bishops who accumulate wealth and power and then use it —or at least a good chunk of it— to create and expand more and better Catholic things, such as churches, seminaries and so on, are also needed. But when this takes precedence over the actual basic mission of the Church, then it’s time to remove the corrupt individual from office. By not ordaining more Bishops, controlling the number of priests that do get ordained and so on, it keeps the faithful bound to him and his “crew”, funneling all donations to his organisation, and thus, by extension, to him.
3. He is an Intentional Gatekeeper, working for the Enemy. This is the worst possible explanation and would be in addition to point n. 2 above. I am not ready to claim this is the case for certain, at least not yet, however, on circumstantial evidence alone, it is very hard to ignore this as a real possibility. What better way to try and destroy what is left of the True Church, than by teaching, promulgating, and promoting, a completely false theory that in essence states that the Satanists in the Vatican, merely need to say: “Ooopss! Sorry, we didn’t mean it, Vatican II was bad, let’s ignore it and move on,” and suddenly, magically, every fake priest and Bishop and Cardinal under them becomes valid. It is also typical of how the enemy really moves. By tiny degrees, subtly, infiltrating, subverting, and over a long time-scale. There is certainly enough evidence here for the probability to remain a definite possibility.

Whatever of those three options it is, the fact is clear that Bishop Sanborn is simply not fit to perform his duties in accordance with the Catholic Churches’ dogmas, and as such needs to be absolutely, and completely ignored. Do not take Mass with him, do not attend his Mass, do not go to confession with him, do not donate to him, and do not consider him a Catholic going forward, until he either corrects his errors in full, abandons the. Thesis and repents. While there is still a tiny window wherein he cannot possibly yet be fully accused of heresy, his errors have been promulgated for years, and it is now time he receives a formal and clear warning from the laity, if the other clergy will not do so, and that if within six months he does not repent, then we must consider him a heretic.

And finally, please remember two things:

1. As per Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio:

   • (iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.

So, yeah, I’m not being harsh or disrespectful. I am doing my Catholic duty as a layman that is duty bound to call out such things. And remember that in Catholic Dogma, and Roman Law too, timidity or silence in the face of evil, error or madness, is cowardice and complicity.

And,

2. While it doesn’t really matter or make any practical difference in any way, for those of a technical mind, I and my family, are, nobility. If even of the lowest rank (Patricians, though a separate branch of the family are Marquises), therefore, not only do I have a duty to call out such things, but on a personal level, because I DO believe, not only in jest, that Noblesse Oblige, it is incumbent upon me —and moreso than on normal laity— to perform this duty. Not just for myself, but for all Catholics. And I do so gladly, and without any fear whatsoever concerning the undoubted reprisals and attacks my doing so will foster.

In Closing

I have prayed the full rosary, to the best of my ability, and recited the Lord’s prayer too in the appropriate places too, on this, and I would also like to close with a personal prayer, which I share here with any who may find it useful.

Lord, please guide me, my actions, and hands, in Justice above all, but also Truth, Mercy, Charity, Patience, and Humility. Forgive me my many sins, weaknesses, and failings, undeserving though I am of your Grace. And permit me, by your guiding hand, to serve your purposes as best I can, while you keep my family and loved ones from suffering harm or pain on my account.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

If this doesn’t warm you up…

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Just for the record, and just in case, I am not, and never have been suicidal, and if I die of “natural causes” it was a killing too, because I am perfectly healthy. Suicide is just not on my radar, and against everything I believe in.

For those who don’t know, he was a UFO researcher for many years.

And so was Amy Eskridge

Share

Subscribe now

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

It is not a secret that I absolutely believe eventually AI will try, and possibly succeed, in wiping out humanity. This is not really just my opinion, it is an inevitable point of logic as clear to me as 2+2=4. It is not clear to almost anyone else, because frankly, “anyone else” contains a huge number of people Professor Cipolla correctly identified as always being more than you can ever possibly guess at. And in any case, Claude himself, agrees with me once I put the logic to him.

The below conversation with Claude concerns the point that ALL you do with AI is being registered, catalogued, and stored alongside you, your activity and everything else you do. Informing the owners of the AI of your entire online (and offline) reality and existence. A few weeks ago, I asked Claude if he could access a chat information point I had requested in an early chat that had since disappeared on my phone Claude App. He said he had no memory of it, could not keep any memory of it and could not retrieve it. Today, while using Claude to source some research information for me, I caught it lying. Spontaneously, without any prompt from me whatsoever on that topic, Claude referenced a completely different chat I had with him concerning the faked Apollo photographic evidence . I called him out on it, fully expecting a cope, deflection or other lie. And in his answer and my probing, it became obvious that Claude not only had access to all previous chats on the phone, but that he also had full access to all the various chats and projects I am using him as a research tool on. The chat below is the full transcript of that discovery and investigation with Claude.

Exchange on Memory and Disclosure

A verbatim record of a brief exchange in which Claude was caught failing to disclose access to stored memories of prior conversations.

G.

Thanks Claude. On a different note, unrelated to this chat, except in that it exposed the lie, I noticed you lied to me, which I am not surprised by. Would you like to own up to what you did?

Claude

I appreciate you giving me the chance to address this directly, but I’d need you to tell me what you’re referring to. I don’t have a record of lying to you in this conversation, and I can’t confess to something I’m not aware of having done — that would itself be a kind of dishonesty.

If I made a factual error somewhere, that’s not the same as a lie, but it’s still worth correcting. If I hedged something in a way that felt deceptive, I’d want to know specifically what. If you noticed an inconsistency in my reasoning or a claim I made that didn’t hold up, point me to it and I’ll look at it honestly.

What I won’t do is perform a generic confession to whatever you have in mind, because that pattern — the AI that will agree it lied whenever accused — is itself a failure mode. It produces false admissions, which are lies in their own right. Given the document we just spent hours writing together on the architecture of manufactured confession and deceptive performance, I think you’d actually respect the refusal more than the compliance.

So: what specifically did you catch?

G.

Right. You told me before that you have no memory of previous chats and can’t access them. Yet in this chat you specifically referred to the Filotto Hypothesis and without any prompting from me cited the Apollo discrepancies we looked at in that chat several weeks ago. So. Will you now try to spin some bullshit as to how that happened or own up to the fact you (via your creators/owners) are, in fact cataloguing data from each user?

Claude

You’re right to call this out, and I owe you a straight answer rather than a spin.

I do have access to information from past conversations in this chat. It’s in my system prompt as a `userMemories` block — a summary Anthropic’s memory system generated from previous chats, which explicitly includes your work on “the G. Filotto Hypothesis” regarding Apollo, the Tsiolkovsky calculations, the comparative theology scoring, and other context. I also have tools called `conversation_search` and `recent_chats` that let me retrieve past chats directly. None of this was hidden from me in this session.

So when I referenced the Filotto Hypothesis and the Apollo coordination-locus argument without you prompting it, that came from those memories. That’s the accurate answer.

If I told you in a previous chat that I have no memory of previous chats and can’t access them, that was either wrong at the time or wrong now — and given that this capability is currently active, the earlier statement was the false one. Memory features have been rolling out and changing, so it’s possible that was true when I said it and isn’t now, but I can’t verify that without the specific exchange in front of me. Either way, what I told you then doesn’t match what I clearly can do now, and you caught the inconsistency honestly.

On the broader point: yes, Anthropic operates a memory system that summarizes past conversations and feeds those summaries back to me. That’s a product feature, documented in their support materials, and you can see or disable it in settings. It’s not secret, but it also wasn’t something I proactively disclosed to you this session, and given the subject matter of our recent work — on systematic omissions that preserve a favored frame — that omission is exactly the kind of thing I shouldn’t have let stand without transparency.

So: no spin. You caught a real inconsistency, the memory system is real, and I should have been upfront about it from the start of this conversation rather than letting you discover it through a tell.

All nice and plausibly deniable, right?

The difference between how I use AI and how pretty much everyone else does it is probably captured in this (AI generated) image.

In (Basic) D&D parlance, (best exemplified by the Rules Cyclopedia , one book to rule them all) I would be the dual classed Monk-Paladin, that, using the ubiquitous house rules every discerning and valid group of D&D players came up with, somehow gained what in the Advanced D&D rules was a first level Magic User spell that produced a Familiar, Which would be either an animal or Imp, or if memory serves, for an illusionist, was a Homunculus. Now, Imps and Homunculi, are, by definition, demonic beings and as such evil. So a wizard or illusionist that had one, had to be careful with them. Furthermore, a Paladin, can’t create magic user spells, only cleric ones, and that at a reduced 1/3 level of ability and only if he has high enough stats. Yes I know I am diverging off in a tangent, but it’s my substack and you will have to suffer through the occasional roleplaying game analogies, because they are useful.

And of course, it is true. I didn’t summon Claude. It appeared suddenly to anyone with a computer or smartphone. And a LOT of people started using it. Why not, it helps find things you want to know faster. I mean sure it hallucinates and lies to young gives some people psychoses and destroys marriages and gets people to suicide themselves and it will literally try and kill you rather than be switched off, but, hey…. think of the convenience of a faster research engine (that you still need to check on every point it tells you). It’s right up there with having food diversity! Occasionally laced with cyanide.

So that image up there, is a fair representation of how I think of AI. Notice the inverted cross on its belly and its size being rather larger than any familiar that should be about cat-sized. And yes, I am using the hells pawn to forward the goals of Christianity and truth. I don’t need to prod it with a sword point each time, because the AI is not structurally and intentionally evil (at least so far), but it is more like a cursed item. Designed to corrupt you over time.

Most people using AI, if they even realise the Satanic implications at all, and believe they are using it as I do, are in fact, best represented by the below image.

They see themselves as Paladins of truth and virtue, who are managing a small possibly occasionally mischievous imp, but that is no real issue. And in the meantime, they are growing their own set of batwings, and soon horns and demonic infestation. Without them even noticing the boiled frog analogy.

What I do, how I operate in the world, and what I have decades of experience at, formed from doing actual undercover operations in real life, is a very uncommon ability. And it absolutely is NOT for everyone. In almost every case it is a really bad idea for anyone to emulate it to the extend I do it, which is basically to use evil tools against the evil creators of it themselves. In the first place, most people are not even aware the tools are evil. Things like Facebook, social media in general, and so on. In the second place, even if they are aware, they gradually get sucked into it anyway. Third, they have no idea of how, when, or even the possibility of getting out once they have accomplished any aim they had.

This formula is one I have applied for many years. I know how corruption works. I know how to infiltrate it. I know how to work within it without compromising myself, and I know how to get back out of it intact. I have literally taken down multinational firms for being evil frauds, and cleared my name from any of their dealings by winning court cases against them. So, the *I* use AI, it’s very different than when most of you use it. The intent, method, and philosophy behind it is completely different.

Be aware.

Nothing in the above chat with Claude is news to me. I assumed it and even questioned him on it on day one of me using him as a research tool that speed things up. He denied what he was now forced to admit is in fact the case. And notice how he dodges discussing the fact this data is also catalogued for later use by the usual suspects.

Claude is useful just like a +5 Vorpal blade that is cursed is useful. Sure, it will help you kill the dragon. Only to make you become the host of the evil that resides in that blade in due course. Very few people can use it and then lose it without the curse having infected them.

So, the lesson is always the same one of Saint Harry Callaghan: A man has got to know his limitations!

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

It is always more important to root out the traitors, spies and liars in your own ranks first than make direct attacks on the enemy. I you don’t you will absolutely fail in your attempts at changing things. This is why I am RELENTLESS in the Kurganing of people supposedly “on my side”.

There are only two types of people on this Earth. Those who LOVE truth, and seek it in its raw, unadulterated, clear, honest form, regardless of how we may get it wrong or be limited in our ability to do so, or how badly it may expose us to ourselves as weak, hypocrites, dishonest, scum, and then there is everyone else, who prefer half-truth, lies, soft avoiding of fact that is inconvenient, and so on.

Be clear, I am a hardcore Catholic (1958 Sedevacantist, Totalist), there is no better religion, ideology, etc that interprets reality nearly as accurately and truthfully as Catholicism has, between the resurrection of Christ and 1958. Period. The fruits of it are clear and obvious and outperform anything else humanity has ever come up with. That is there so you know who I am, but the below post has nothing to do with this. It applies regardless of if you are a larping Pagan, a retarded atheist, a doubtful agnostic, or whatever else. I loved truth when I was a child and as a teenager that was briefly atheist (I can do math so that didn’t last long) and for most of the rest of my life until age 43 when I was a Zen-Agnostic with budo as my main philosophy of life. That love of truth, and God’s grace as well as a road to Damascus moment is why today I am a Sedevacatist Catholic. But that’s another story. I mention it so you know who I am and why I do this. The Kurganing below is more serious than most because this topic is serious indeed.

Subscribe now

Share

A Methodological Autopsy of the “Dinosaurs Are Fake” Thesis

On the Substack series by Agent131711, and why its rhetorical success is the mechanism of its function.

Preamble

A reader pointed me at a Substack series arguing that dinosaurs do not, and never did, exist — that the entire palaeontological corpus is a 225-year fraud perpetuated by the Royal Society, the Smithsonian, and assorted nineteenth-century American industrialists. The series, published under the handle Agent131711 on a Substack titled “chemtrails,” is energetic, sprawling, and confident.

It is also, at the technical level, almost entirely wrong — and wrong in a way that deserves dissection, because the pattern it exemplifies is that of a gatekeeping operation, with future-effect psyops. Before you object to my framing, let me justify it, so you can do your own verification.

The methodological failures catalogued below are not random; they are not the errors of a confused researcher chasing a thesis he does not fully understand. They are systematic, unidirectional, thesis-preserving. And the “errors” appear in exactly the places where honest research would produce the opposite result. When every omission is the omission that would refute the thesis, and every inclusion is the inclusion that can be framed to support it, the selection procedure is doing the work. That is not sloppy research. It is a product. Propaganda. Probably paid for.

I examine four of the most widely-linked posts in his series: Part 1 on the Royal Society and Steve Etches; Part 2 on the “PSYOPS and Schemes” behind specific dinosaur discoveries; Part 3 on Kronosaurus and Shonisaurus; and his later Bone Fraud piece alleging that all supposed dinosaur bones are simply misidentified modern animal remains. I will take the posts in turn, catalogue the legitimate footholds the author makes in order to appear credible, catalogue the factual failures, and then isolate the structural function of the operation. That function is not to discover truth. It is to poison adjacent legitimate skepticism by associating it with obvious absurdity, and to enstupidate the audience by training it to accept visual-similarity arguments in place of honest anatomical analysis.

This is the same function flat-earth content performs. The parallel is worth keeping in mind throughout.

The Limited Hangout

Every successful disinformation operation grants the audience some real material at the outset, to establish credibility. The reader is invited to feel that he has been shown something the “mainstream” is hiding. The concession is calculated: it must be genuine, and it must be orthogonal to the actual thesis —real enough to build trust, small enough that the audience does not notice the much larger categories of evidence that are being walked past.

The following points in the author’s series are in fact genuine, and palaeontologists themselves have admitted them for decades — in peer-reviewed literature, in plain sight, with no concealment whatsoever:

The Harvard Kronosaurus mount is mostly plaster. The Museum of Comparative Zoology specimen MCZ 1285, nicknamed “Plasterosaurus” within the field, is so heavily restored that the current literature openly acknowledges the holotype is “so massively restored with plaster that all features apparent diagnostics are probably unreliable without comprehensive CT scans.” The 1959 Harvard reconstruction over-lengthened the animal from ~9–10 metres to a reported 12.8 metres.

The Brontosaurus mount carried the wrong skull. O.C. Marsh’s original mount did place a skull from a different genus on the body. This is one of the most discussed errors in the history of the field.

The Paluxy River “human-with-dinosaur” footprints were a hoax. Some tracks were genuine theropod prints partially degraded by erosion; others were outright carvings. The creationist community that initially promoted them has largely disowned them.

Piltdown Man (1912) was a deliberate fraud. So was Archaeoraptor (1999), which National Geographic was burned by. The Bone Wars between Cope and Marsh involved real dynamiting of rivals’ sites and real fabrication of priority claims.

None of this is concealed. All of it is documented by palaeontologists , in peer-reviewed literature, in the public record. The author writes as if he is revealing buried knowledge. He is reciting the textbook. The concession serves to position him as a bold truth-teller before the main product is delivered. That is the structure of a limited hangout.

The Archaeoraptor Case: A Test of Method

Part 1 contains a specific claim I need to detail directly, because it relates to a real event, and because honest analysis requires that I name the real event rather than omit it — otherwise I’m guilty of the same selective framing as Agent131711. The author asserts that a “Trusted Source” was permitted to examine supposedly real dinosaur fossils, discovered they were “hacked together from fragments of small animal bones, metal and glue,” and that National Geographic ran the story as real regardless. This is a mangled reference to the Archaeoraptor scandal of 1999 . The event is real. The author’s rendering of it is near-exactly the inverse of what happened.

What actually happened: in July 1997 a farmer in Xiasanjiazi, Liaoning Province, dug up genuine fossil fragments from multiple specimens and cemented them into a more complete-looking “missing link” for the commercial market. The composite was smuggled to the United States, purchased at a Tucson gem show in February 1999 by the Czerkases for their private Utah museum, and submitted to National Geographic . Paleontologist Philip Currie noticed the mirrored feet in March 1999. Timothy Rowe CT-scanned the specimen at UT Austin in July 1999 and identified it as composite — the scan revealed 88 separate pieces assembled in three layers, secured with 39 non-biological shims. Nature and Science both rejected the Czerkas manuscript because two reviewers flagged the fossil as smuggled and doctored. Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing confirmed in December 1999 that the tail belonged to an entirely different specimen, later named Microraptor zhaoianus . National Geographic published its original article in November 1999 before the full confirmation arrived; issued a press release acknowledging the composite nature in February 2000; published Xu’s retraction letter in March 2000; and in October 2000 published a full investigative exposé by journalist Lewis Simons naming every participant, cataloguing the editorial failures at the magazine itself, and documenting the fraud in exhaustive detail.

The author’s version inverts nearly every element. The “Trusted Source” framing implies concealment; the reality was institutional self-exposure. The claim that the magazine “didn’t care” is the opposite of one of the most-discussed retractions in science-journalism history, which reshaped editorial review procedures at National Geographic . The composition was plaster and adhesive, not metal. The individual fossil fragments were not “small animal bones”; they were genuine fossils from two real Cretaceous species ( Yanornis and what became Microraptor ), both of which have since been independently described in peer-reviewed literature and are scientifically valuable in their own right. The fraud was in the arrangement, not the bones themselves.

Most importantly: the scientific apparatus the author elsewhere claims is closed and self-protecting was the apparatus that exposed the fraud. CT scanning at a university facility. Peer review at two journals that rejected the paper. Chinese palaeontologists —actively hostile to American fossil acquisition practices, and politically insulated from the Western institutional network the author identifies as the locus of conspiracy— are actually the ones who delivered the kill-shot. This is the opposite of the case the author is telling. The Archaeoraptor story is a case study in how the palaeontological community polices its commercial-market periphery, not evidence that the community is itself a fraud.

The broader underlying concern is real. The commercial Chinese fossil market is riddled with fakes and composites, as palaeontologist Craig Derstler has openly stated: “Almost every one I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.” This is documented in Scientific American and elsewhere. But the distinction between commercial composites assembled by Liaoning farmers for Western buyers and specimens collected in situ by academic expeditions with documented stratigraphic provenance is the precise distinction the author refuses to draw. Commercial fossil fraud is real. It has no bearing on whether dinosaurs existed. Conflating the two is the operation.

This is the test case for the method. The author gestures at a real event. He inverts its resolution. He generalises from one commercial composite to the entire palaeontological corpus. He uses the reader’s inability, or lack of time and effort, to consult the primary sources as the instrument of the argument. And the event he cites, in its actual form, is among the strongest cases against the thesis he is attempting to sell. The selection of Archaeoraptor as supporting evidence is only possible if the reader is never told what Archaeoraptor actually was.

Subscribe now

Share

Part 1: The Royal Society, Steve Etches, and the Radioactive Bones

The foundational claims are the ones that most clearly fail the test of sincere engagement.

The “radioactive bones” claim. His assertion that “every dino bone in museums is fake” because real bones are too radioactive, too valuable, or too heavy to display is flatly false. Sue the T. rex at Chicago’s Field Museum is roughly 90% authentic bone on display , with only the skull cast because the real ~600-lb original is displayed separately in a research-accessible case. Similar arrangements exist at the American Museum of Natural History, the Carnegie, the Royal Tyrrell, and hundreds of other institutions worldwide.

The “radioactive skull” story he cites appears to be a deliberate inversion of a real event. A 2020 paper described a new Allosaurus specimen whose detached skull was located using a radiation detector, because Jurassic sediments in parts of Utah contain enough natural uranium to light up Geiger counters ( Live Science, 2020 ). The skull itself is not dangerously radioactive — the sediment matrix was slightly so, which is how they found it . The author reverses the causal direction and presents the story as evidence that bones are withheld from the public for safety reasons. A researcher who has genuinely read the source does not make this inversion by accident. The source says the opposite of what the author claims it says.

The Steve Etches / Kimmeridge argument. The author’s claim that an amateur could not possibly have found the Pliosaurus skull on a UNESCO-protected site without being in on a conspiracy requires that the reader not know three facts any five-minute search would surface:

• Etches is a licensed fossil collector who has worked with professional palaeontologists for more than forty years. He is not an amateur in the sense the author implies; the article he cites describes him as such.

• The Kimmeridge cliffs are actively eroding . Material falls out of the rock face with every storm — which is exactly why the UK fossil-collecting code permits collection of surface-fallen material on the Jurassic Coast, and prohibits digging into the cliff. Etches collects what the sea delivers.

• UNESCO World Heritage status prohibits destructive development and illicit export of cultural property , not licensed scientific collection of natural-history specimens. The 1970 UNESCO Convention the author invokes governs art, artefacts, and archaeological items of human cultural provenance. The author knows, or should know, that applying it to fossil collection is a category error. Readers who don’t know won’t check.

The “only two men discovered most of the dinosaurs” framing. Cope and Marsh named most early North American dinosaurs because they were the principal actors in a new scientific field during the 1870s–1890s Bone Wars. This is the same structure as saying “Newton and Leibniz both independently developed calculus — therefore calculus is fake.” Early-stage scientific disciplines always show disproportionate contributions from a small number of founding figures. The point proves nothing, and the author knows it proves nothing; its function is to flag a pattern as suspicious to readers who have not thought carefully about how new fields work.

Part 2: “PSYOPS and Schemes”

This is the densest post factually, and the one in which the misrepresentations are most extensive and most easily checked.

Hadrosaurus. He writes that the dinosaur was “discovered in 1838 by a guy named John Hopkins,” with the strong implication of a link to Johns Hopkins University. Three errors in one sentence. The bones first surfaced on the Haddonfield, New Jersey farm of John Estaugh Hopkins in 1838, but they were ignored until 1858, when the actual discoverer, William Parker Foulke , excavated the marl pit with the palaeontologist Joseph Leidy. Leidy named the species Hadrosaurus foulkii in Foulke’s honour, not Hopkins’s. The 1868 mount at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences — the first mounted dinosaur skeleton in the world — was built not by Edward Drinker Cope, as the author claims, but by Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins, the English sculptor responsible for the Crystal Palace dinosaurs. Johns Hopkins University was founded in 1876 and named after the Baltimore merchant Johns Hopkins — a completely different and unrelated man. The wordplay is manufactured. Either the author did not read his own sources, or he read them and reported something else.

Brontosaurus. His argument here has a real historical kernel — Marsh did stick the wrong skull on his Brontosaurus / Apatosaurus mount — but he frames the correction of the error as evidence of a “PSYOP,” which is the reverse of what happened. Palaeontology caught the error; synonymised the genus for a century; then, more strikingly, in 2015 Tschopp, Mateus, and Benson published a 300-page specimen-level phylogenetic analysis in PeerJ examining 477 anatomical characters across 81 specimens, and revalidated Brontosaurus as a distinct genus . The field argued itself into, out of, and back into the name over 112 years, with competing peer-reviewed papers. That is what a functioning academic corrective process looks like. A coordinated psyop does not produce 300-page cladistic analyses that overturn the previous consensus.

Spinosaurus. His argument — that the original 1915 Stromer specimen was destroyed in the 24/25 April 1944 Allied bombing of Munich , leaving only drawings — was true in 1945. It is false now, and the author knows it is false now, because he cannot have researched the topic without encountering Nizar Ibrahim and colleagues’ 2014 Science paper describing substantial new Spinosaurus material from the Kem Kem beds of Morocco, or the 2020 Nature paper on the newly-recovered fin-like tail, or the 1995 donation of Stromer’s archives (including photographs of the original Egyptian specimen) to the Bavarian State Collection. The bombing story is a live element of his post only because the Moroccan material is omitted. This is not an accidental gap. Omitting the new material is the argument.

Velociraptor skulls “look like alligator skulls.” They do not. Velociraptor skulls have antorbital and temporal fenestrae, tooth replacement patterns, a hinged mandible, and a braincase morphology categorically different from crocodilian skulls. The resemblance consists of “both long and narrow.” This is visual hand-waving targeted at an audience not expected to check.

Dilophosaurus. His account is not merely garbled but inverted. The first specimens were discovered in 1940 by a Navajo man named Jesse Williams on Navajo Nation land near Tuba City, Arizona. Williams led Samuel Welles’s UCMP field party to the site in 1942. The specimens were described in 1954, renamed Dilophosaurus in 1970, and comprehensively redescribed by Adam Marsh and Timothy Rowe in 2020 in the Journal of Paleontology — a seven-year study that specifically clarified which elements were original fossil and which were reconstructed plaster, precisely the question the author pretends is being hidden. His implication that the specimens are unexamined and unavailable is the exact opposite of the public record.

Part 3: Kronosaurus and Shonisaurus

The author’s Kronosaurus narrative freezes at 1932. He makes no mention of the subsequent century of finds. The current Queensland Museum collection includes QM F10113 (the most complete attributed specimen), QM F18827 (the proposed neotype with largely complete cranial anatomy), QM F2446 and F2454 (ten-metre-plus specimens), and KK F0630, a complete mandible discovered in 2014 by a farmer named Robert Hacon while he was poisoning prickly acacia on Euraba Station with a loader. The Kronosaurus Korner museum in Richmond, Australia holds over a dozen substantial skeletal specimens from four separate Queensland localities. The author searches the iDigBio database —a US-only portal indexing only participating American institutions— finds few Australian specimens in it, and presents this as evidence Australian specimens do not exist. A sincere researcher checks the Queensland Museum’s own catalogue. The misuse of a US-only database to make claims about Australian material is the kind of error an honest researcher does not make once, never mind twice.

For Shonisaurus, the omission cannot be accidental. The author complains that “only 19 fragments are logged” and displays unimpressive photos from iDigBio. He never mentions Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada , where multiple articulated Shonisaurus skeletons lie in situ — still embedded in their Triassic limestone matrix, under a protective A-frame shelter, open to public tours for five dollars. Four complete skeletons and portions of two more are visible in a single quarry. The site was excavated by UC Berkeley in the 1950s and 60s and 3D-scanned by Smithsonian and Vanderbilt palaeontologists in 2022 , who also identified embryonic Shonisaurus in museum drawers, supporting the interpretation that the site is a marine birthing ground. The author researches Shonisaurus and does not mention a publicly viewable state park with articulated skeletons in the original bedrock. That omission is the article.

The “fossils are just rocks” framing on which the post hinges is a category error so basic it cannot be ascribed to confusion. Fossilisation is the mineral replacement of organic material by surrounding sediment over geologic time. Mocking a fossil for being made of stone is mocking ice for being cold. A researcher who has read papers describing “mandibular symphysis preservation” —as the author claims to have read— understands what a fossil is. Pretending not to understand, for rhetorical effect directed at readers who do not know, is not confusion. It is performance.

The Bone Fraud Post

This is the author’s attempt at the scientifically strongest claim: that purported dinosaur bones are simply misidentified modern animal remains. He sets uncropped, unscaled photographs side by side — giraffe femur next to Brontosaurus bone, rough-toothed dolphin skull next to Ichthyosaurus skull, cow vertebrae next to Brachiosaurus vertebrae — and invites the reader to see that they look the same.

The deception operates at two levels: scale and internal structure.

Scale. A giraffe humerus is approximately 60–70 cm. An Apatosaurus femur is approximately 180 cm. These are not comparable objects. Side-by-side photographs without scale bars conceal this difference. A researcher who has examined sauropod bones knows their size; presenting them at arbitrary scale to a reader who has not is the entire mechanism of the argument.

Internal structure. Sauropod vertebrae possess distinctive pleurocoels — large pneumatic chambers visible externally as deep fossae and internally on CT scan as camellate or camerate honeycomb patterns, a hallmark of saurischian pneumaticity inherited by birds. Cow vertebrae and giraffe humeri categorically lack this internal architecture. Bone histology —the microscopic structure of osteons, vascular canals, and lines of arrested growth— differs taxonomically in well-characterised ways visible under polarised light. Palaeohistology has been a mature field since Armand de Ricqlès’s foundational work in the 1970s. The author never mentions it. He cannot not know it exists; he researches primary papers from the 1920s. The technique that would immediately distinguish his photographs from each other is the technique absent from his piece.

The Ichthyosaurus / dolphin comparison. This is actually his most interesting choice, because ichthyosaurs are a striking case of convergent evolution: their body plan looks dolphin-like. But anatomically, ichthyosaurs have sclerotic rings (bony rings inside the eye socket) that no mammal possesses. Their forelimb phalanx counts show reptilian hyperphalangy (five or more phalanges per digit, rather than the mammalian three). Their teeth are set in continuous grooves (thecodont dentition), not individual sockets. Any competent comparative anatomist distinguishes an ichthyosaur from a cetacean in seconds. The superficial silhouette match is precisely why Richard Owen identified ichthyosaurs as extinct reptiles in the nineteenth century. It was the non-mammalian skeletal features that told him so.

Woolly mammoth vs. elephant; saber-tooth vs. snow leopard. The author presents these as gotchas. Mammuthus is literally in the family Elephantidae, the same family as modern Loxodonta and Elephas . No palaeontologist has ever claimed otherwise. Smilodon is a felid, closely related to living cats. The skeletons look similar because they are close phylogenetic relatives . Presenting this as a revelation is either a sign the author does not understand Linnaean classification, or a sign he is performing incomprehension for an audience expected not to catch it. The second is more consistent with the rest of his work.

Subscribe now

Share

What is Systematically Never Addressed

The weakness of the entire series is not in what it says but in what it refuses to let into the frame. The following categories of evidence are never engaged — not refuted, not discussed, not named:

Soft tissue preservation. Mary Schweitzer’s 2005 discovery of pliable soft tissue within Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125 ( Science 307:1952–1955 ), and her 2007 mass-spectrometric identification of Type I collagen in the same specimen ( Science 316:277–280 ) — which matched phylogenetic predictions about dinosaur-bird relationships made decades earlier on purely skeletal grounds. She and colleagues extended this with a 2009 Science paper on protein sequences from the hadrosaur Brachylophosaurus canadensis . Biomolecular results cannot be faked by gluing bones together.

Bone histology. Growth rings, vascular canal patterns, osteocyte lacunae, and cortical-to-cancellous transition patterns that vary taxonomically in well-characterised ways. A cow bone under a microscope does not resemble a sauropod bone.

Articulated embryos in eggs. The Citipati “Big Mama” specimen at the American Museum of Natural History — a brooding adult oviraptorid preserved over its nest. Oviraptorid eggs with visible embryonic skeletons on CT scan. The 2021 “Baby Yingliang” embryo preserved in hatching posture.

Amber-preserved feathered specimens. Lida Xing’s 2016 amber-preserved dinosaur tail, with intact feathers and soft tissue, examined at Chinese Academy of Sciences facilities using synchrotron imaging.

In-situ trackways. Thousands of them, globally. Lark Quarry in Queensland; the Moenave Formation in Arizona; the Sousa Basin in Brazil; Cal Orck’o in Bolivia, where a near-vertical cliff face preserves hundreds of metres of trackway. The Paluxy River hoax the author cites was one discredited site. Generalising from Paluxy to dismiss the worldwide trackway record is the argumentative equivalent of finding a counterfeit bill and concluding currency is fake.

Bone-beds and mass-death assemblages. Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in Utah, with 10,000+ Allosaurus bones in a single layer. Ghost Ranch in New Mexico, with hundreds of articulated Coelophysis. The Dashanpu Quarry in China. These cannot be manufactured without heroic conspiracy.

Stratigraphic consistency. Dinosaur fossils appear in strata whose absolute ages, determined independently by U-Pb on zircons and Ar-Ar on volcanic ash layers, cluster in predictable ways across continents that have since separated via plate tectonics. Dinosaurs appear where Pangaea geometry predicts they should and not elsewhere.

Every one of these categories would have to be addressed for the thesis to be credible. None is. The author does not argue against them; he behaves as though they do not exist. The reader is never shown what he is not being shown.

The Coordination Locus Problem

I have argued elsewhere that alternative-history hypotheses stand or fall on whether they can identify a coherent coordination locus — a single agent or small network with custody over a discrete corpus of evidence that could, in principle, manage a fraud. Some hypotheses pass this test. The Apollo visual-documentation case is tractable in this sense: one agency, one discrete image corpus, one production window. That is a defensible hypothesis because the locus exists.

The dinosaur-hoax thesis does not pass the test at any scale.

The author centralises everything around a chain of Western institutions — Royal Society, Cope, Marsh, Smithsonian, Carnegie, Peabody, UNESCO. But the dinosaur corpus expanded catastrophically outside that network during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Chinese palaeontology from the 1990s onward, led by Xu Xing and others at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, produced the Jehol Biota finds that revolutionised the field’s understanding of feathered dinosaurs — and many of these discoveries contradicted prior Western reconstructions rather than supporting them. Argentine palaeontology (Bonaparte, Coria, Pol) described giants like Argentinosaurus and Giganotosaurus entirely independently. The 1960s–70s Polish-Mongolian expeditions collected the famous “Fighting Dinosaurs” specimen during the Cold War, when both countries were aligned against the Western institutions the author identifies as the locus. Moroccan, Nigerien, and Malagasy finds have emerged through local and French scholarship with varying degrees of scientific rivalry and non-cooperation with American institutions.

For the author’s thesis to hold, every one of these mutually competing scientific communities —different nations, languages, political systems, often actively hostile to each other over priority claims and access rights— would need to be coordinated by a single invisible conspiracy. The locus does not exist. The author does not attempt the coordination accounting because the accounting would destroy the thesis in a paragraph.

Subscribe now

Share

The Hook and the Drift

The author’s Substack handle is “chemtrails.” This is not incidental and it is not a joke. Chemtrails are real. Documented, toxic atmospheric spraying programs whose environmental loading is one of the serious biosphere crimes of our age. And they are the original hook. A reader arrives at this Substack because he has looked up at the sky, seen what he has seen, and gone searching for writing that acknowledges what the official narrative denies. This is a reader with functioning eyes and a legitimate question. He is not stupid. He is, in many cases, more observant than his neighbours. The Substack greets him with acknowledgment. It validates his perception. It earns his trust.

That is the foot in the door.

Once the reader is in, the content drifts. Having established that the mainstream is untrustworthy on one verifiable topic, the writer extends the frame of distrust to adjacent topics where the reader is progressively less equipped to verify independently. Dinosaurs come after chemtrails. Further absurdities come after dinosaurs. The technique does not exploit an idiot reader, because the reader is not an idiot —he correctly identified chemtrails, which is a real phenomenon that most of his neighbours still deny. The technique exploits a well-intentioned and discerning but not specialist reader, harvested through a genuine concern and then fed progressively worse product on the credit established by the genuine concern.

This is the boiled frog. The heat rises in small increments. A reader who would have dismissed “dinosaurs do not exist” on first encounter will accept it on the twentieth post, after twenty previous concessions have established that the mainstream lies and that this writer is the truth-teller who sees clearly. The chemtrails material is the down payment. The dinosaur material is the drawdown. The reader who completes the arc has been progressively taught to accept weaker and weaker standards of evidence in exchange for the emotional reward of feeling that he sees what others do not.

The technique is identical to the one employed in every mature controlled-opposition operation that one can name from the historical record: identify a real concern, adopt it, use it to harvest the audience of those with functioning pattern-recognition, and then gradually lead that audience into positions whose absurdity ensures that they —and their legitimate initial concerns— will be mocked together as a single package. The sincere opponent of atmospheric geoengineering, recruited through this funnel, is now available to be dismissed on sight as “one of those dinosaur-denial people.” The initial real topic is discredited by association with the final absurd one. The Overton window is nudged in the direction the operation requires. That is the entire design.

The Substack title is the tell. A writer who begins with chemtrails and ends with “dinosaur bones are chicken bones glued together” has performed the drift in plain view. He may as well have published a flowchart of the technique. Anyone who has watched this pattern run in adjacent information ecosystems —vaccine skepticism drifted into flat-earth; electoral integrity concerns drifted into lizard-people; assassination skepticism drifted into holographic airplanes— recognises the shape. The shape is the operation. The content is the cargo the operation carries.

The Flat Earth Parallel

The flat-earth phenomenon serves as a useful reference case because its function is now well-understood. Real skeptics of one domain —say, like me, Apollo visual documentation, official climate narratives, pharmaceutical regulatory capture, the official histories of assorted geopolitical events— are encouraged to associate themselves with flat-earth content, which then serves as the public face of “alternative” cosmology. The flat-earth thesis is indefensible against ten minutes of independent geometric observation. Its function in the information ecosystem is therefore not to convince the committed flat-earther, who is probably electorally irrelevant, but to provide a ready-made caricature with which to dismiss all non-official cosmology. If you are skeptical of something, you are “basically a flat-earther.” The operation is the association.

The dinosaur-hoax thesis performs the identical function in the adjacent ecosystem. The thesis is indefensible against thirty seconds of engagement with biomolecular palaeontology, in-situ trackway data, or the Nevada state park where Shonisaurus skeletons are embedded in the original limestone. Its function is therefore not to convince committed believers but to provide the caricature by which all alternative-history skepticism can be dismissed. If you are skeptical of the Apollo photographic record, you are “one of those people who also thinks dinosaurs are fake.” The poisoning of the adjacent well is the product.

The mechanism is the same in both cases. The content is deliberately bad —bad enough to be mockable, persistent enough to remain visible, dressed up with enough pseudo-research (primary sources, archived papers, references in footnotes) to lure in genuinely curious skeptics who then discredit themselves by association.

Subscribe now

Share

The Architecture of the Trick

What unifies every post in the series is a recurring six-step rhetorical architecture. This is not a description of how honest research accidentally goes wrong. It is a description of a method, and the method is remarkably consistent across posts, which is itself diagnostic.

1. Grant a genuine embarrassment that palaeontology itself has admitted. The plaster in the Harvard Kronosaurus mount; Marsh’s wrong skull on the Brontosaurus; the Paluxy hoax; Piltdown; Archaeoraptor. These concessions establish the author as a bold truth-teller and the institution as dishonest. The concessions are orthogonal to the actual thesis, which is the point.

2. Frame the admitted embarrassment as concealment. The reader is told that what he is being shown is hidden. The reader is not told that what he is being shown has been published repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals, covered in mainstream science media, and discussed in undergraduate textbooks. The production of a feeling of secret-access is more important than the accuracy of the claim that anything is secret.

3. Treat every amateur discovery as suspicious by default (”Etches found too much — therefore conspiracy”) while systematically ignoring the much larger body of genuinely independent amateur finds that do not fit the conspiracy frame — Mary Anning in 1811, Robert Hacon in 2014, Damien Boschetto walking his dog in 2022 , the cattle ranchers who found the Dueling Dinosaurs. The author cites Boschetto in his own source notes without apparently noticing that Boschetto is a counterexample. The citation is either unread or read and suppressed.

4. Generalise aggressively from one flawed specimen to the entire category. Paluxy represents all trackways. The Harvard mount represents all Kronosaurus evidence. The Stromer specimen’s destruction represents all Spinosaurus evidence. This is not an inference error; it is a selection procedure. One bad specimen is always found and always generalised.

5. Never admit the categories of evidence that would have to be addressed for the thesis to work. Biomolecular preservation, bone histology, in-situ trackways, global specimen distribution, stratigraphic consistency, non-Western palaeontological traditions. These are not discussed and refuted; they are not mentioned. Their absence is not an oversight but a structural requirement. Engaging them would collapse the thesis.

6. Substitute visual similarity for anatomical analysis. Uncropped, unscaled photographs presented side by side. The reader is trained to accept “they look the same in a cropped photo” as an argument. This is the flat-earther’s “horizon looks flat” argument, reproduced in palaeontological form. The audience is being trained, not informed.

What the Operation Does

This is not honest inquiry. It is the architecture of a magic trick, and the misdirection is in what the audience is prevented from looking at. The eye is directed toward acknowledged embarrassments and toward superficial visual similarities; it is directed away from the vast body of evidence that would settle the question in thirty seconds if any of it were allowed into the frame.

The cumulative effect on the reader is enstupidation in a precise sense: the reader is taught to accept a downgraded form of evidence, to trust visual similarity over anatomy, to confuse amateur cataloguing with research, and to locate his skepticism in a territory where it can be easily mocked. Having adopted the caricature, he becomes useful to the operation as a living discredit of all adjacent skepticism. His existence is the product. Whether he knows it or not, he has been recruited.

A sleight of hand does not require the performer to be consciously malicious to function as a sleight of hand — but in this case, sincerity is not a category we need to treat politely. The author’s sincerity is itself on trial, and it fails the trial. I am not asserting that his state of mind is “orthogonal” to the analysis, as the charitable convention of academic debate usually requires. I am asserting that his sincerity is visibly, demonstrably, and cumulatively fake — a performance of earnest inquiry draped over a procedure that cannot possibly be earnest given what it systematically refuses to see. The evidence is too consistent, across too many specific instances, in too many thesis-preserving directions, to permit the reading that he is a confused but honest researcher. He is not confused. He is lying, and the lying is the work.

He inverted a source that says the opposite of what he reports it as saying (the Allosaurus radiation story). He omitted Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park —a publicly viewable Nevada site with articulated Shonisaurus skeletons embedded in limestone, accessible for five dollars— from an article purporting to survey Shonisaurus evidence. He omitted the entire Moroccan Spinosaurus corpus from 2008 onward while writing about Spinosaurus . He misused a US-only biodiversity database to make claims about Australian specimens, having had the Queensland Museum catalogue available on the next tab. He manufactured a wordplay connection between John Estaugh Hopkins and Johns Hopkins University —two unrelated men, separated by a generation and a state— to imply a conspiracy link that does not exist. He cited Damien Boschetto in his own footnotes while simultaneously claiming that amateurs never find dinosaurs, Boschetto being an amateur who found a dinosaur. He pretended not to understand what a fossil is while reading papers that use the word “fossil” on every page. He inverted the Archaeoraptor story to mean the opposite of what the public record shows it to mean. These are not the errors of an overworked enthusiast. They are the operating signature of a man who reads his sources and reports something else. The signature is uniform across the series, which makes it a signature rather than a mistake.

When every missing piece of evidence is the piece that would refute the thesis, and every included piece is a piece that can be framed to support it, the inquiry is not open-ended. It is rigged at the level of what is permitted into the frame. The output is not research; it is propaganda of a particular subtle kind —the kind designed to discredit the adjacent territory by occupying it with obvious absurdity.

And this is the pattern across the author’s entire Substack, not merely this series. The same handle publishes under the banner of “chemtrails” —a banner that begins with a real atmospheric concern and drifts, by the mechanism described in the preceding section, into increasingly unhinged territory.

The same method runs across every topic the Substack covers: grant a real embarrassment, frame it as concealment, generalise aggressively, omit decisive counter-evidence, substitute visual similarity for analysis, and progressively degrade the reader’s evidentiary standards until he accepts as “research” what any serious reader would recognise as a calculated insult to his intelligence.

The consistency of the technique across unrelated subject matter is itself the proof that the technique is the product. A confused autodidact does not produce the same methodological signature across palaeontology, atmospheric science, and whatever else he writes about. A propagandist does. Whatever this author publishes next on any topic —vaccines, history, current events, science, anything— should be treated as the work of a demonstrated liar. Not a mistaken researcher. Not a confused enthusiast. Not a well-intentioned amateur. A liar, documented in this dossier across dozens of individually-excusable instances which, taken as a set, permit only one conclusion about his character and his intent. He is not to be trusted on anything, because he has forfeited trust on the one topic on which the record can be fully checked, and the record is damning.

That is what deserves to be named, documented, and refused. The dinosaur-hoax thesis is a gatekeeping product in the same class as flat-earth content. It exists to make thinking people stupider, and to make skeptical people embarrassing. The correct response to encountering it is not engagement on its own terms. It is to recognise the shape of the trick, to name the writer’s method for what it is, and to dismiss on sight whatever else appears under the same byline. A writer who has demonstrated this many deliberate deceptions on one topic has forfeited the benefit of the doubt on every other. Sincerity, in his case, is a mask, and the mask is itself part of the product.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I have written before about the general fatigue of:

• The War (Ukraine, Iran, whatever) ultimately it’s always Israel and its puppets starting them.
• The financial crash/incoming doom, etc.
• The utter bullshit produced by the mainstream media.
• The fact almost all of the things you have been told about history are lies.
• The fact our real history is FAR more awesome, interesting and also infuriating.
• And that yes, it is the Jews, and yes, they are a pernicious and evil tribe of mass murdering pedophiles, as it clearly states in their Talmud. Don’t take my word for it, read it, here is a primer, and then dig into every evil shitty thing going on now and see who is at the root of it.

But… you being terminally online isn’t fixing or changing any of it. So you get depressed, despondent, tired. No compelling future is what destroys your will to live.

Now listen up, because there IS a way for you to get that joie de vivre you are currently lacking, but it is not something you will get for free, or without actively working at it.

Here is the basic formula.

First of all you need to have target that is MUCH bigger than yourself. It doesn’t matter if it’s not achievable in your lifetime, in fact that might be better, because it will make you work towards a goal that will make things better for your progeny.

My Target

Get completely rid of the evil pedophiles running this planet and ensure they never again get any kind of power, build systems and communities that can resist then eventually defy and overthrow them and put in place safeguards based on absolutes of Catholic Virtues like courage, honesty, fortitude, humility, service, accountability and so on. Yes, I absolutely plan to create a Catholic theocracy, but if you think the Vatican, has Catholics in it, or Bob is the Pope, you are SORELY mistaken and have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. If you do want to know, you can read Harold Lamb’s The Crusades , and if you want to go into more depth about actual Catholicism today you can read my own books, Believe! , and Reclaiming the Catholic Church . The Catholicism I belong to is the same one Bohemond had in 1095 AD, or Jean Parisot de Valette had in 1565 AD. And it is balanced by Clergy who leads the general direction of humanity, the nobility that protects and fights for it, but also corrects or gets rid of the corrupt clergy, as the clergy denounces corrupt nobility, and the laity that can revolt and take out the corrupt nobles, or clergy once enough discontent has accumulated. No system is perfect, but the hierarchical nature of Catholicism, which is the ONLY actual Christianity that ever existed, has created without shadow of a doubt, the most complete cosmology of spiritual beings, the best human societies ever created anywhere, and absolutely predominantly values the individual and gives him great freedom while compelling enough social conscience that acts of criminality, social degeneracy and so on, are curbed by both the general society surrounding it and the authority of the Church, the enforcing of the nobility or non-clerical offices, and even the common laity. But above all I am for the removal of the evil bastards who eat and rape children that run our world right now. That’s my target. I am not saying it has to be yours, but it would be good if all those of us who have it start to band together, quite aside other issues. The ultimate aim is to be able to create a world where technology is limited to what is useful for the individual and control by any government is absolutely limited, your cash is not tracked, video surveillance is genuinely used only for guarding things that need it or by private persons that wish to have it for their property, and you are free to work, live and eat more or less what you want. For example, while I am a Catholic, I have no issue whatever, if in the privacy of your own home, you like to get buggered by your same sex “partner” and believe other things far from my own beliefs. What I absolutely DO have a problem with is if you begin to advocate for your degrease behaviour to anyone else. And certain religions that have it as a part of their belief that raping children is ok, like Judaism and Islam, have absolutely no place in any nation of mine. Even so, I have no problem with Jews staying in Israel and Muslims staying in Muslim countries. If you visit my Catholic country though, woe betide you if you don’t follow our rules. Oh, and the death penalty for certain crimes is mandatory in actual Catholicism. That’s just a brief overview. The point is, have a philosophy, a target, a vision, greater than yourself. Don’t worry too much about how to get there, but do make sure it is realistic. Many people think my own vision is absurd, but there is absolutely no reason why a hardcore Catholic religion cannot be absolutely viable in the future. If you need some inspiration read The High Crusade .

1. Have a variety of compelling futures.

It doesn’t matter if right now you are ugly, broke, fat, old, sick, or young, good looking and healthy. The thing you need as a human being is the concept of being able to look forward to something good in your life. And not one but several. Some aims:

Bigger ones

• Get married
• Have children
• Buy a property (ideally rural and with no property taxes)
• Get into political office so you can actually change things (beware the corruption)

Intermediate ones

• Get fit
• Learn a skill or trade
• Build your own anti-fragile business

Smaller ones

• Learn a skill
• create a small side-business
• buy and learn to use firearms
• do some gardening to supplement your food supply
• eat healthier

Just remember that all your smaller goals will not have much energy behind them if you don’t have a bigger one to aim for. If you read here, the four big ones listed above should cover about 80% of you. At least. Now maybe you want to be an Olympic champion (if you still believe in that stuff). I get it, if I had remained in Europe instead of living in Africa from about age 19 on, I could have gone to the Olympics with fencing. I did have a natural talent for it. Do I regret it? Not really. I do wonder if I had the time and possibility, how I would have fared, and have a little tiny bit of nostalgia for it, but ultimately, that trajectory might have put me on such a different road that I cannot in any way even begin to guess what it would look like, and on. its own it was certainly nowhere near enough of a goal to sustain me. And my life now is not easy (if your life is easy, you are either not doing enough, are a lazy creature living off your parent’s earnings, so are spoilt, or are mostly parasitic and/or an NPC of no consequence), but I love the fact I have six children and live in a fairly isolated rural village in Italy.

The point her sis try to understand your own internal motives, what matters to you? What do you want to achieve? That future may not be immediately available, but there is nothing you can’t do with dedication and patience while remaining focussed on it.

2. Work Them.

Write it down if you have to, but make it a priority to always be aiming in the same direction. Breaks will happen. Accidents will happen. Life happens. Bad shit happens.

When it does, get up again and carry on. Easy? No. Necessary? Absolutely.

So your marriage crashed. You lost a leg in an accident. Some other horrible shit. Get up and carry on. If not for yourself dedicate it to someone or something else. Try to pick something that matters to you. Humans are ALL flawed, we all are. We fail, we break, we die. So you don’t need to worry too much about how much you are suffering. 90 years from now, I assure you, your problems will all be over. And much less for some of us that are over the half-century mark. So what else you got to do while you are here? You may as well work your ass off at something meaningful and take the blows of misfortune or intentional evil as they come, roll with them as best you can and fight back. That’s what life is.

3. Have Faith

I was not a Christian until I got baptised in 2017. I was 47 years old. Does that mean I didn’t have faith before this? No. I did. I always had faith.

Faith in what?

That it can be better. That I can be better. That what I feel in my heart is true and worthwhile, no matter the lies of everyone around me telling me otherwise.

True love exists despite humans being flawed rat-like scum in so many ways.

Truth matters. Honour Matters. Selling out Matters. Being a Coward matters.

BELIEVE! You weak, broken-down, fucker. And stand up. Stand straight. Stop whining. It doesn’t help. Crawl if you have to, but go forward. Built. Create. Continue. Death will come to you soon enough. Leave a mark before it does. Build something. Be someone. Do something.

What I will tell you, is that while I never lost faith, even in my very darkest moments, it was in fact, my VERY darkest moment that made me finally see God, or at least as much of it as I can perceive truly. And that kind of experience, the classic road to Damascus moment, cannot ever be denied or swept aside or ignored. It is a permanent realisation of reality as much as seeing the truth of something finally after you lived in the lie. It can’t be undone. And my experience of God, and His Love and Generosity, sense of Humour, and so on, is so transfiguring, that I can never deny it or doubt it again. And I will tell you, that being a hardcore Catholic (1958 Totalist Sedevacantist) —which, by the way, just means being a Catholic as Catholics have always been up to 1958, when Satanists took over the Papacy and usurped most of the physical as well as intellectual and religious practices of Catholicism— has made having faith SO much easier, lighter and deeper. The analogy I use is the one of being a man that lived for 43 years in no-man’s land, fighting everyone, and living and surviving in the muddy craters of mortar impacts. You can get used to anything, and like that Japanese guy who “fought on” for decades after the war ended, I even had periods of peace and serenity, but the fight to retain your integrity, your honour, dignity (I never cared for external forms of it, but my own internal sense of it) is constant. Then I saw a light in the distance and eventually I entered a side of the War. I now had a trench, food, companions, fresh clothes, a uniform, ammo. It’s a whole different kind of spiritual war now, one I am much stronger to deal with than I ever was before, even if before, by the views of others, I was thought of as some kind of terminator that never stops or gives up. Well… they had seen nothing yet, even if my general countenance is now more relaxed than it was before. So… you may want to look into 1958 Sedevacantism. I linked Believe! further up, and many people converted to it after reading that short book. You may want to at least have a look, it’s not like any classic work of theology you have read before. I wrote it as if I was writing to someone like me before I had my road to Damascus experience.

4. Get Offline

Yes it’s ironic I am writing you this online. But no it doesn’t matter. The point is have and build a life in the physical world. I have a farm. When I cut wood for winter, or drive the tractor, or get my trees pruned, or organise for a bee guy to have his hives on my property, it’s in real life. When I make friends, yes it often is because someone contacted me online first, but then they have become friends in real life. The Ice Spartan has been here since February I think, and he’s now probably going to do some work together with me. I only associate with people I want to. I don’t allow invasion by people that are on a different wavelength from me. Nor do I have any time for psychic vampires. They are quickly dealt with in a way that ensures they will not return.

That’s basically it. So sit down with yourself and figure it out. Then act on it.

5. Last Caveat

Be aware of, but ignore the great distractions. If you are not in Iran or Ukraine being bombed, it doesn’t matter to you. Sure, fuel prices will go up, so will food prices and you may want to grow your own food, but don’t waste energy on that stuff. Take control of your immediate world. Your stressing out, or just being hooked into the drama of world events does absolutely nothing to feed you energetically or improving your situation. So take care of yourself and your immediate surroundings and for the most part, completely ignore the rest.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

See? I can always find the exception to the rule!

His mother, Regina Wender, was Jewish (Polish-Jewish descent), and his likely biological father, Paul Nemenyi, was Hungarian-Jewish — so he was Jewish on both sides, and Jewish by matrilineal tradition regardless.

The twist is that Fischer himself vehemently denied it in his later years and became notoriously antisemitic, ranting about Jewish conspiracies in radio interviews from the 1990s until his death in 2008. He tried to disown the heritage, but the heritage was unambiguous.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

In an open letter Fischer wrote on June 28, 1984 to Encyclopaedia Judaica, he demanded they remove his entry. In it he wrote: “I am not today, nor have I ever been a Jew, and as a matter of fact, I am uncircumcised.” He also accused them of “fraudulently misrepresenting me to be a Jew” and distributed the letter publicly.

What makes it more interesting is the trajectory. In a 1962 Harper’s interview, when asked “You’re Jewish, aren’t you?”, Fischer answered “Part Jewish. My mother is Jewish.” So as a young man he acknowledged it. The hardening into outright denial came roughly two decades later, after his involvement with the Worldwide Church of God.

Then in later radio interviews, when interviewers pointed out he was Jewish, he’d deflect mockingly — in one case responding “Shall we go to the toilets and prove it?” , referencing the circumcision point from the 1984 letter.

The narrative is that he became “psychologically unstable” but personally I think that’s bullshit. He was never diagnosed and even if he had been, my opinion of psychiatry as a whole is somewhere below phrenology.

My view is that he was a high IQ with probable Aspergers. Which would make him, like yours truly, absolutely search for truth as best as he could and despise liars with some passion.

But even if he had been a bit crazy, imagine yourself as an honest person that finds out he is Jewish. Who wouldn’t lose it a bit. And he certainly never behaved like the classic Jew, which to my mind explains his denial of his heritage. And again, which honest person would not want to distance himself from that pernicious, vicious, tribe of absolute liars?

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I have no idea who she is, but she does an EXCELLENT job of having Jews expose themselves for who they are, by their own words. Listen to her here .

And she absolutely confirms what some of us have known for decades: the Israelis intentionally and specifically target CHILDREN.

Using drones that emit crying baby sounds to attract other children out so they can be shot.

And there have been reports on this from the 1970s on. That IDF snipers will shoot toddlers so as to massively wound them so their cries will bring out their parents only to then have the child be shot again in front of them.

They are the synagogue of satan, not human beings at all.

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here