Welcome to The Blog of the Kurgan

Now, it does need to be stated clearly that Fr. Esposito is not the brightest bulb in the Sanborn stables, in fact, having tried to listen to one of his sermons once, years ago, I think it may have reduced my IQ by 50 points. And still left me 25 points ahead of him.

But regardless, the point is that this “priest” has been trained, no, sorry, brainwashed, in the Sanborn driven, nonsensical theology of Cassiciacum. And CLEARLY it espouses exactly what I have been saying for at least 7 years now, which is, a completely untenable and illogical nonsense, if you are feeling charitable. But, if like me, you are aware that excessive charity is exactly how we got here, because the Satanists appeal to it, you realise the underlying issue is really a Satanic, whether intentional or not.

There is materially zero difference between that position and sacrificing a baby on the altar while you carry on claiming you’re “Catholic”.

Which is precisely the analogy I used years ago and which makes all the sedeprivationists mumble and disappear.

It is absurd, nonsensical, bullshit. And it’s time Sanborn, and his continued practice of ignoring and breaking canon law was called out publicly and loudly, for this nonsense is now CLEARLY heretical.

While I know personally, and recognise some misguided priests that consider themselves under the sedeprivationist banner will NOT support Fr. Esposito’s absurd post and false theology, they nevertheless cling to sedeprivationism, probably out of misguided loyalty and excess charity.

But this has to end now. Sedeprivationism, and the Cassiciacum theory it stems from is nonsensical, illogical, not canonically supported at all in any way, shape or form, and as a result is ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY HERETICAL.

It doesn’t matter what the “intention” of Sanborn is. Catholicism does not concern itself with such unknowables. Canon law is absolutely clear: if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, will be treated like a duck, and the fact the duck imagines it is an eagle is irrelevant.

The fact Sanborn may just be simply too stupid to understand Canon Law is based on Roman Law, and that Roman Law has NOTHING to do with the Talmudic and Satanic American legal system of loopholes he seems convinced applies to Canon Law, is immaterial. I do think this is the most likely explanation (along with a lot of pride, ego, love of power, fame, money and status) but I certainly cannot exclude at all that he may be intentionally trying to weaken or destroy the Church even further. And that’s the point, the real, internal reasons don’t matter. You act as a heretic, you are a heretic.

Fr. Esposito is another case in point, if I had to guess, I would guess he is probably a decent enough guy (not what I think of Sanborn), but as far as I am concerned, and as far as his theology is concerned too, he may as well be functionally retarded, and retards can’t be valid priests, no matter how nice they may be.

And if you are wondering why I refer to Sanborn as Sanborn, without the “Bp.” before it, it’s because as far as I am concerned, anyone who teaches, promulgates and acts as a heretic, is one.

I do not consider him valid clergy, and in fact, not even Catholic anymore.

And no, I am not being “harsh”. I am following canon law (canon 188.4 to be precise) and the Papal Bull it was based on and still refers to:

Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

It is time for the Church to reject, eject and be rid of heretics and rebuild from the ground up.

On which note, you could do worse than reading and signing up here .

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Now, as I am sure you all know, I have been unjustly accused of all sorts of “hatred against women”, which is nonsense of course, but let me instead show you what a real hater of women looks like, and how such creatures would not exist at all in a healthy society. Primarily because the misgeneated walking mutagenic overloads of bad mutations that spawned him would not have existed in the first place, and secondly, because in a civilised society, such mental maladies do not develop, and a place is made available for even the mentally infirm who are born that way through no fault of their own.

Now, keep in mind this was only a TINY percentage of the absurd shit he tried to vomit on this blog, as he had no less than four avatars/profiles to spam with one after the other, and I have no doubt he is currently feverishly creating more to return here to spam more. This was the very first comment I saw and responded to, before I had read any of the rest.

Now a lot of you will think, “oh noes… too harsh…” No, dear sweet innocent reader, about 20+ years on the internet in various forms has given me instant predictive powers when it comes to commenters.

And it went downhill fast after that. We are talking minutes here.

Now, you might think I was just flinging random insults when I said he’s a faggot…

No, really, he is:

I did in fact see one last comment before I banned him, after which he obviously had a meltdown and posted about 30 comments in rapid succession, including threats to “find where I live” to “deport me” hahahahah. And at least one to rape my kids, which of course, is about par for the course. I didn’t read all of them, just banned him permanently and it’s now 5 different profiles, I expect there will be more.

But here is the final comment I did comment on.

Of course, it is an account of zero readers, zero posts, zero value, zero effect. And the primary reason I just ban him instantly is because I know for a fact, from way back in the alt dot forums of the early 1990s, that such creatures are more likely to swallow their tongue and run into oncoming traffic when you ignore, silence, and make them irrelevant. In physical real life, of course, they never dare open their mouth, if they do they immediately shit their pants when you go “boo!” although occasionally they may go on a shooting spree, so it’s a good idea to always exclude them in every way at all times, from all things.

The one positive is that short of rape (which they would be incapable of carrying out successfully in almost every single case, thank God) there is practically zero chance they can ever reproduce. Their personality, as well as general hygiene and looks makes them absolutely less likely to have sex than a rock.

So, dear reader, be warned, these kind of fags are all over the internet.

You may now appreciate why I ban some commenters without warning after a single comment. And it has nothing to do with valid or at least intellectually honest disagreements but here are some basics, which I broadly identified long ago, from the OG blog:

Subscribe now

Share

A Note to Commenters

Your comments have to be relevant to the post, intellectually honest and preferably (but not required at all) relatively polite, at least to the same extent you would say to me face to face.

There are several things that will not just get your comment not approved, it will relegate you forever to spam. I will never see a comment from you again and none of your comments will ever make it to the blog. There are many, many, many people already in this category. Why, you say? Simple: The last three five years have demonstrated most people are abysmally stupid, unable to grasp basic concepts, do a minimum of research and are little better than brainwashed zombies. I have zero need to interact with such people. And I really don’t care at all for anything they have to say. None. Zero. Zilch. The interest I have in arguing with them would be exactly the same as I would have to argue with a tick, the blood-sucking parasites. In fact, it’s less. If I could communicate with a tick, the novelty factor alone might entertain me for a few minutes before I invariably kill the irritating little bloodsucker. The zombified morons that walk the Earth pretending to have some intellectual relevance, absolutely do not entertain me at all beyond occasionally using one of them for metaphorical target practice as an object lesson to others.

So, to help you navigate the fact that I will absolutely spam you for your first idiotic, irrelevant, sophistic comment, here is a short list of things that will absolutely get you insta-spammed, forever:

• Intellectual dishonesty:
  • Pretending I said something other than what I said in order to attack the strawman.
  • General sophistry, pretending things like words have different meanings from what they have, or,
  • Intentionally “misunderstanding” something that has been clearly described and specified in the post so as to attack the strawman or create a “doubt” (that is still a strawman)
  • Ignoring the detailed specifics of the post or part of it in order to make your sophistic, deceitful, irrelevant, and moronic “point”
  • Outright lying
  • Straight up misrepresenting anything I said for the purpose of seeding strawmen, doubts, etc

• Being a Freemason – There MAY be the occasional temporary exception here, but as generally these types are absolute deceivers, they are unlikely to not fall foul of the above list. In any case, they are Satanists, so they will simply be spammed after they have been made a spectacle of.

• Blasphemy – Regardless of whether against Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, Mary or possibly any of the valid Saints of Catholicism.

• Religious Retardation – Absurd, long-debunked and easily verifiable nonsense that moronic Protestants, pretend Catholics, schismatic Eastern Churches guys, or general morons will say about Catholicism, the below is not an exhaustive list:
  • “Catholics worship Mary!” No we don’t, you are a retard. Look up venerate.
  • “Catholics killed people for wanting to read the Bible!” Flat out lies. Never happened.
  • “Catholics prevented people from reading their own Bibles!” More Protestant lies.
  • “Protestants put a Bible in Every home!” No, they did not. The printing press did. Protestants ensured the “Bible” placed in people’s hands was filled with error and intentional mistranslations to reduce the importance of Jesus, Mary and the nature of the Holy Spirit, missing several books and parts, and was generally a miss-mash of Pharisaical thought and the fat German who wanted to have sex with nuns, rape maids and said “Reason is the whore of the devil”.
  • “The KJV is the BEST version of the Bible!” No. It is not. It was commissioned by a flamingly gay King, who started the Freemasonic temples as we find them today, that is, Satanic temples of worship. The KJV is known as the Freemasonic Bible precisely because it is an absolute travesty of the original. It was “translated” by Pharisees for 700 years before it got into the hands of the Protestants and Luther ripped out several parts of the original. The Original Vulgate was and remains a much more faithful translation of the original Greek and Hebrew Texts since these were not edited by Pharisees for 700 years. The KJV has over 33,000 “mistranslation” including in the Ten Commandments. One example: the true commandment reads as DO NOT MURDER. The gay Satanic King’s Bible reads: DO NOT KILL. Quite a difference.
  • “Sedevacantists are just like Protestants!” No. We are not. We are Catholics and you are brainwashed idiots at best that are historically and logically absolutely incompetent and ignorant to a shocking degree. Not recognising a fake Pope as Pope is not the same as thinking Popes are illegitimate as a whole. Just for starters.
  • “Sedevacantists are just like us Eastern Orthodox, you reject the false authority of one Pope above all!” No, we are not. You are schismatics that are splintering, just like the Protestants, just slower. The Pope always had ultimate authority over the entire Church, the Filioque issue is retarded from your side, because is fairly clearly explained in the New Testament, if you ever bothered to read it, and most of your Churches are not apostolic because during Soviet times the Metropolitans were placed there by the KGB.
  • “I am an Anglican/Baptist/Anabaptist/Mormon/Seventh Day Adventist/Whatever, so I am not a Protestant, because….!” Yes. Yes you are. And no, I don’t care to explain your entire fake religion to you and its origins. You’re a Protestant and as such, at best, lost sheep heading to Hell, at worst, just some other type of gnostic or Freemasonic Deceiver. Go away.

• Fake Catholics (Freemasons) Pretending they are Catholics – This includes the imps from Church Militant, the imps from Emo Jones, the imps from Milo the Freemason, the imps from the SSPX, the imps from the Knights of Columbus, the imps from The Knights of Malta, and any other structure that in any way recognises the Novus Ordo (forever here called the Novus Orco, for they are the real Orcs) as in any way valid.

• But Vatican II was only a Pastoral… Don’t even try it, Freemason. Vatican II is replete with heresy and every one of those documents I have read and detailed at least SOME of the heresy therein in my book, Reclaiming the Catholic Church.

• But Sedvacantism is not right because… Shut up, I answered EVERY single objection to Sedevacatism in detail in the same book, read it, publish your rebuttal in an intellectually honest manner or be silent.

• Random Idiocy/Insults/Incoherent ramblings – This is not the place to try and work out your mental problems, life frustrations and so on.

So. Now that we have that all cleared up, you may understand why there are relatively few comments on my blog. Remember: while I enjoy honest intellectual exploration with honest people, I do not enjoy having to educate you, put up with your ignorance, your stupidity, your misinformed misconceptions, your maleducated opinions, your deceitful, sophistic, lying or much of anything else, and I will not. You can disagree with me viciously if you want, that’s fine, but… if you do so without paying attention to what I wrote, by making false or intellectually dishonest arguments, or because you’re simply too stupid to understand the issues, well… you will not fare well here.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

As usual, you raging feminists and gay white knights, hold your rage until the end, you might be pleasantly surprised (or not; either way the information is real and important).

There are some fundamental objective realities you need to be aware of before you can digest this piece properly. In brief they are:

1. The theory of the Dual Brain I came up with based on work by others too (I am a synergist and I always try to provide references for the work of others I use).
2. The neuroscience work done with people who had their corpus callosum cut (usually a procedure done to help people with extreme epilepsy) that proved the left side will simply make things up on the spot, and BELIEVE them fully, to justify an action the right brain initiated, even though the left brain has NO KNOWLEDGE or information as to why the right brain did what it did.
3. The fact that structurally the female brain is demonstrably DIFFERENT from the male brain.

The links I provided above are basically background for those of you that want to know more, are skeptical of my theories (you damned fools!), or simply want the background too.

This is the most relevant part of point 2 above for our purposes:

Interpreter studies (Gazzaniga, 1980s): Left hemisphere explanation of right-hemisphere actions. Left hemisphere generates immediate but fabricated explanations for actions it did not initiate. Narrative self-construction is a left-hemisphere function operating independently of actual causation.

The following quote is even more clear and explains already a LOT with respect to female behaviour when compared to male behaviour:

Emotional processing shows a similar pattern. The right hemisphere tends to be more involved in processing negative affect and certain forms of emotional recognition, while the left hemisphere is more associated with positive emotional valence in most individuals. With the corpus callosum severed, these processing streams decouple. Brain lateralization of emotional function, which is subtle and integrated under normal conditions, becomes more exposed and more consequential after callosotomy.

Notice the difference: The right brain tends to be processing NEGATIVE emotions and remember that the right brain also doesn’t have LANGUAGE. While the left brain, that DOES have language, and more readily processes logical processes, tends to focus on POSITIVE experiences.

Now, given that my theory is that women operate mostly out of the right brain what does this mean?

Well, first we can check the premise of what I just wrote above, which I believe I already did to the tune of some 50 million people looked at and a number of studies and meta studies on the concept that women do not, generally act as they SAY they want to act, but rather, make up STORIES (on the spot, especially in arguments) as to why they did what they did. And absurd, obviously wrong, false, and deceitful as those stories can be, they apparently, far more often than a man would, BELIEVE them too. At least with enough conviction to really be indignant if questioned on it.

Now, while women DO have a corpus callosum, 1 and since it is also measurably THICKER than men’s it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they are quite aware, on some level at least that they are absolutely talking shit a lot of the time. 2 The more self-aware women are aware of this and admit it, yet, unlike men, tend to experience ZERO guilt about it. Which of course, is in keeping with their demonstrated solipsism. A woman may be perfectly aware that whatever emotions and feelings she feels about a person, event, or ideology X on Monday, can very much become the exact opposite of it on Tuesday. The reasons she will make up for it, very often, are merely squid-ink cover for the real process. At least in part to cover her own culpability, lack of accountability, deceitful behaviour, or actual crime, BUT, and it is important to state it, ALSO, at least in part, due to her right brain coming to whatever conclusion (usually based on ancestral, social, or genetic behaviour modes, that are ancient, opaque, and invariably concerned with baseline survival as the primary motive [regardless of how wrong or inappropriate for the specific circumstances of that moment]) and that conclusion being at least in part opaque to her left brain, so her left brain makes up something “reasonable” to justify it.

What is reasonable to a hormonal, stressed, woman that is acting on some primitive and outdated biological modality her lizard brain has kept around because it was advantageous 17,000 years ago, is, of course, possibly quite far from what an objective, in-the-present male brain might consider as being such.

This however, explains not only the generic “deception” women exhibit, the lack of concepts like honour as men understand it. It also explains her infinitely mutable nature. Some of us have seen women we know well go from one political or ideological or religious extreme to its very opposite simply based on the man they were having regular sex with. And then go back AGAIN to the original one and make up a story about that too, once they move on from that last guy and start with a new one that has her previous, or even entirely new, philosophies.

Now… bear with me.

Assume my theory of the dual brain is correct, and it finally explains the behaviour of women once and for all, what are the consequences?

Well, at a minimum, if you are even half-way intelligent, the following points will be noted:

1. Female agency is impaired. Their ability to process anything objectively is statistically inferior to that of men.3
2. Their so-called ‘“female intuition” can indeed be a thing. However, ultimately it is merely the right brain picking up micro-cues to a higher degree than the average male brain, which is more logical and processes things more objectively so is less likely to notice micro-cues. For some of us, who have a rather high IQ and can process also very well with the right brain (it may in fact be my most dominant hemisphere) our capacity to have an almost supernatural intuition can be superior to that of the average woman, but this too is generally speaking the exception to the rule, at equal levels of IQ, the female use of the right brain is statistically going to be higher and thus her capacity to spot such micro-cues (unconsciously) from her environment will tend to be better than that of men. Of course, depending on her IQ in general, her instincts may still be way off because they are processed with the same 17,000 year old reasons (but so may be the male brains, if to a somewhat lesser degree due to the influence of the left brain which is more dominant in men). These factors mean that an attentive man, using both SOME right brain perception (unconscious) and tempering it with good left brain logic, is probably no worse off than a woman with a higher functioning right brain, having a “feeling” about something. The man’s primitive sensations might be tempered by logic applicable to the current day. In a female by the way, the tempering of her basic right-brain instinct, at the lower levels of IQ can be catastrophic. She can be conditioned to ignore her instinct based on FALSE social engineering principles. i.e. all humans are humans, and walking in a bikini on a beach in Mogadishu is just as safe as doing it in Sweden. No, it isn’t.
3. They tend to focus on, and remember, the NEGATIVE emotions primarily. Which over time, tends to degrade any relationship if she tends to hold on to the negatives and dismiss or forget the positives. Which also explains the roughly 70-80% of divorces initiated by women after a couple or three decades of marriage. It is explained in the Bible rather classically with Lot’s wife turning to a pillar of salt, which I believe is a metaphor for shedding so many tears your life becomes meaningless, which, generally speaking is what happens if your focus in life is not only the past, which is bad enough anyway, but the negatives of the past. This kind of way of thinking is anathema to people like me, who at age 13 invented their own motto, made up of two aphorisms from different cultures: We will cross that bridge when we come to it (English) and Don’t burn bridges behind you (Italian), which I changed to: We will burn that bridge as soon as we cross it. I.e. there is only one direction: Forward. Which probably also explain why I divorced twice and went through a lot of women before finding the right one.

Now, does any of this mean that women can’t be objective, think properly, realise their own faults, improve as human beings, be good wives, mothers and positive members of society? No. It does not.

But they DO have these factors that make it a little bit harder for them than for men.

Of course, never forget that one of my philosophical heroes is Professor Cipolla and his five laws of human stupidity, so there are plenty of criticisms we can level at men in general too, and most certainly to humanity at large.

This is not a bash women post. Quite the contrary, it is my (rose-tinted glasses, absurdly, wildly optimistic, utopian) hope that if you grasp this issue, you will be better able, as a man, to navigate your interactions with women in general, and that as a woman, you will now be more aware of your tendencies and work hard to overcome whatever limitations you might recognise they have caused you in the past.

At any rate, I would welcome your comments and feedback in respect of how accurate you think this theory of mine might be.

Poll at the bottom too, but I’d prefer detailed comments if you have them.

There are further consequences, which I have mentioned before:

If the above is true and correct, then should women REALLY be allowed to vote? I mean, it really doesn’t matter right now because it’s not as if ANYONE’s votes count for anything in the pedovore run planet we exist on, but on some hypothetical actual democracy, surely, some sort of minimum cognitive test based on objective reality should be applied before we are allowed to vote. We certainly have one for age. Mental infirmity, and so on.

And that’s just one area. Given the results we now have from across the globe concerning the outcomes of single parent families and how catastrophic the stats on single mom children vs single dad children, should custody not be statistically now primarily perhaps switch to fathers in the interest of the child?

And are we even surprised at the fact that without exception single mom children are inevitably statistically worse off than single dad children? I mean if one of the two does not have the same level of capacity for seeing reality as it is, and is more likely to be swayed by their own negative emotions, thoughts, and memories, is it any wonder the children of THAT person will turn out worse off?

There are HUNDREDS of other areas of life we could discuss regarding this issue, and none need be extreme or treated in an extreme fashion. But reality is what it is. Accepting it, of course, might be more difficult for you if you are a woman.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

The Cassiciacum Thesis is nonsense, and everyone knows it. The below is not by any means exhaustive but it’s excellent, since, as a simple one pager, it already guts the heresy that is sedeprivationsim.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Ladies, don’t freak out. Read this through to the end and control your feminist rage until the end; you will probably be pleasantly surprised by the conclusions if you can manage it.

This post proves in detail what any normal person that has ANY level of historical knowledge already knows: no civilisation in the entire history of humanity has EVER functioned with women in charge. And the current absurd (but intentionally orchestrated) attempt at gynocracy has already resulted in what is essentially civilisational collapse. The phenomenon is primarily focussed on the West (aka Caucasian civilisation) because that is historically the people who have best resisted the efforts of the Satanic forces that promote gynocracy (Talmudians primarily, pedovores, pederasts, weak, effeminate, homosexual “men”, the mentally ill, and of course women in general (because like children, they mostly simply don’t know any better, it’s like asking a kid in a free candy store to choose to eat ham and broccoli instead)).

Most specifically, proper Catholicism (no longer existing in the Vatican and only espoused today by 1958 Totalist Sedevacantist Catholics) is the best system under which human beings operate.

In proper Catholicism, men and women each have their expected and complementary duties to fulfil, and society at large is also geared towards protecting them all (both men and women and especially children, which is precisely NOT the case today) in not the absurd, unfair, and ultimately tyrannical and evil “equality” false narrative, but rather, as is logical and true and correct, more broadly in terms of their ability and agency.

In a proper patriarchal society, women have less say in the running of things at an institutional, political, and practical sense of society, their influence is not direct but rather indirect (as is female nature in general anyway). Men will create harmony or discord in the world, and women will do so in the home. The woman is not “oppressed” but rather valued, cherished, protected, looked after, and praised for her role as mother, wife, grandmother and nurturer and raiser of children. The social expectations placed on her are those she naturally enjoys most and is best suited for. And similarly, less responsibility on certain matters also means less culpability. In a patriarchal society a woman will (and should) get somewhat milder sentences for the same crime committed by a man. Take as a hypothetical situation a man that drugs a woman to have sex with her. His punishment should be severe and possibly even capital. But should a woman drug a man and then have sex with his unconscious body (but hypothetically erectile function unimpaired) the punishment would not be as severe at all. Even if the crime was essentially identical and filmed on video, the natural tendency is to punish the man far more for than the woman. And I think that’s fine and normal. And has been that way for millennia.

Similarly, women get lower sentences even for murder, and again, I am not opposed to that, with one exception: the abuse of their own children (women are statistically the biggest perpetrators of this by the way) or the murder of their own children, which last should always be a capital (death penalty) crime for everyone.

The duties of each of us stem from our capacity to act in accordance with reality. In other words, your ability to:

1. perceive reality objectively as it actually is instead of distorted by your personal biases, emotions, or mental defects, and then,
2. Act accordingly (whether for good or evil),

Defines your level of responsibility.

And with greater CAPACITY, come both greater RESPONSIBILITY as well as CONSEQUENCES for failure.

If a child falls asleep at the wheel of his tricycle, the damage is likely small, not so the adult male pilot of a 747.

And contrary to all the lies we have all been told for decades, the simple reality is that women have less capacity for the correct perception of reality than men. This is empirically demonstrated any time anyone ever bothered to test it, in pretty much any field of endeavour. And we all really already know this, just as we know children have even less capacity for it than women. And again, this is not “controversial” it’s just a fact.

And no amount of exception to the rule changes the broad statistical fact. Just because YOU or some woman you know is the exception does NOT change the overwhelming statistical reality. And as we have seen before, the difference is not tiny.

Given our current state of affairs however, it is my contention (and has been for a very long time, about 40 years in fact) that things will not be able to be “forced back”. That is, I very much doubt a sudden rush of incels will force women to become “good Catholic wives”. In fact, I can’t think of anything worse, because in effect, what THAT “society” looks like is something we already have, it’s called Islam.

Which is actually the opposite of actual Catholicism in most respects, being as it is one of the many Satanic religions.

But in any case, there would never be such an army of properly Catholic men doing any such thing. There CAN be an army of Catholic men creating proper Catholic enclaves, villages, whole towns, monasteries, and even city states, but Catholicism is founded on the individual’s inalienable God given right to CHOOSE. There is no forced marriage or conversion in Catholicism. You need to choose it. And if you do you are implicitly and explicitly saying you believe and devote yourself to the best of your ability to that system of belief.

As a woman that means knowing that your duties are those of a wife and mother primarily. That your duty is to your husband first in all things but the physical safety of your children, and his duty is to you in the same way but with with the added point that he also has many more duties that extend outside of the family unit that are his to exercise when he should.

Catholicism “seems” oppressive only under the lens of the current dystopia, but is in fact a partnership of harmonious fluidity between a man and his wife and between them and their children and between their family and those of all of their neighbours.

It is also exceedingly hard to do and achieve in the current zeitgeist marinating in the lies we have all been drowned in from birth.

A woman that has lived in the dystopia as it is will likely have a body count that is scandalous by any even remotely Catholic standards.

A man that has done so while “following the rules” of the dystopia is likely a broken shell, or some kind of metrosexual/homosexual neurotic who worries about his inherent “privilege” and fears the fury of a woman on a par with that of trained attack dogs. Conversely, a man that refuses to bend to the dystopia is likely either in jail, harassed by multiple ex-wives, or juggling a harem while presenting a façade to every woman he meets while harbouring a certain level of contempt for them all.

So… even IF such a couple get together, the idyllic romance of it all immediately shifting to a soft focus of fields of poppies, a half-dozen blonde children playing around their wholesome mom and dad as they head off to Church on Sunday and picnic by the lake later, is not how it works.

The woman will have to let go of a LOT of the solipsistic-sustained bullshit feminism has inculcated and colonised in her head, which to be blunt about it, and list, will feel like:

• Learning her opinion is not only not the most important, but is often wrong or even irrelevant
• She is a second class citizen
• She has no time for herself
• She is a sexual slave to her husband’s brutish needs
• Her voice is not heard or cared for
• SHE is not heard nor cared for
• She is just a breeding machine
• Her children are a constraint
• Her husband is an arrogant fool and/or misogynist and/or psychopath and/or narcissist
• She is just the maid/slave of the house
• Her husband does not care about her or respect her as an independent person
• He does not understand or care about her concerns and problems

Conversely, the man will feel/think as if:

• His wife is blind to reality
• She is lazy
• She is selfish

• She only cares about herself
• She does not respect him
• She does not understand his concerns or care about them

You will notice the female list is longer and at least double the size of the man’s. That’s because as has already been demonstrated, women hallucinate reality, and do so in an OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE DIRECTION.

See the linked article further above, where women perceive reality as 80:20 instead of 50:50 as men do when perceiving attractiveness in potential sexual partners.

Even then those numbers don’t tell the full truth of the warped perception women have, because that 20% of men they find attractive (as opposed to the natural distribution which is 50%) is ALSO skewed towards ephemeral fantasies and NOT objective reality so the actual percentage of women that even CAN perceive reality correctly is not 20% but something less than that!

I am not aware what the real number is nor of studies done on a large enough scale to show it, but we do know women are disproportionately influenced by the “choice of the masses”. If 5 billion women say 2+2=5 they are overwhelmingly more likely to say it too. So I would guesstimate (optimistically in my opinion) that the real number is around 10% of women that have a generally good ability to perceive reality as it is.

And the future of Western civilisation very much depends on them.

It will be the women who voluntarily see, choose and understand their role and then commit to it that will produce the next generation of men and women that CAN rebuild civilisation, throw off the yoke of the pedovores running things, and with any luck make them extinct too, and build a future too bright to even imagine right now.

The men too will need to change.

It is unlikely that the metrosexuals will suddenly all become sensitive alpha chads, but those men who retained their testicles and somehow avoided becoming a ward of the state in some prison for the crime of simply still being men, will ALSO need to undo some of the programming.

It means, mostly, ejecting a bunch of red pill and men’s right activists bullshit, which are the male equivalent of feminism if not quite as toxic perhaps. It also means that they will need to learn to ungrit their teeth, realise that war is out there and not also inside their home.

If the women need to learn to trust the men fully again, the men need to learn to be trustable too. It is a delicate balancing act and one primed to fail by the zeitgeist of the world. Women are taught men are all unsafe (especially the masculine ones) and men can see the women are unreliable and untrusting so they too become guarded. Conversely, if the woman lets all her defences down, gives herself fully, and commits, the man used to war will possibly take her for granted and become bored of her, not distinguishing her from the dozens of others that have given themselves to him physically (because that is the zeitgeist of the era) but whose minds and souls held little or no attraction for him.

So… no, it is not easy ladies and gentlemen, but I firmly believe the future is primarily in the hands of the women who will be most capable of Logic, self-reflection, and the objective interpretation of reality. Certainly in the first part of it.

In the second part of it, where those women pick men that are still men, those men too will need to first of all abandon the hedonism of the age, and focus on the future of their children. And in doing so, on the cherishing, nurturing and guiding of those women, and of their children too, with a hand that despite being calloused and scar-filled by life, is gentle and kind with them.

These are hard tasks for both men and women, and there will be little guidance or help in any such path. The only sliver of it I have found is in proper Catholicism, to whatever degree you may be able to understand, absorb, or integrate it in your life.

So… why the subtitle that women will follow if men implement it? Because for the women that can be proper women, that 10% of mythical quasi-unicorn-mermaids, they will need a man that is actually still fully a man.

To him, and only to him, can they reasonably expect to produce something new and better than even before. So in the very first instance, YOU, sir, still need to be a MAN in the first place. And need to have been smart, fast, and brave enough to not bend, rebuild stronger if you got broken, but never bend, and then, when she does come along, her job has been done . It is up to you to:

• Recognise her
• Lead her properly through the swamp of her own mind that is still swamp, yet…
• Make her feel safe and loved as you do

Now… ideally such a woman will also make it easier for such a man by taking care of his armoured heart so it softens, but… gentlemen, don’t count on it, because the nature of woman is what it is. Even so, don’t resent her if she does not do so. Even if she is willing, even if she is able, it can take time.

The key is to learn to distinguish those who can from those who can’t. No easy task, as many will fake it convincingly for a long time.

So… while men absolutely do have the duty to first of all be men, and secondly to learn or maybe re-learn, to be the right kind of man, the future of civilisation, I truly believe, rests on that minority percentage of women that can be objective and see reality as it is while controlling their natural impulse towards solipsism and the hallucinations it involves.

The hard part is that even then, those men and those women will make mistakes, hurt each other, get things wrong, as all humans do. And the current zeitgeist is geared to make everyone jump ship at the first (or hundredth) obstacle. Keeping at it is a lost art, a lost science, and, almost, a lost religion.

I keep going on about Totalist, 1958 sedevacantist catholicism for a reason.

Do your own research, don’t take my word for it. If you are a man you may want to read The Crusades , by Harold Lamb. If that does not inspire you, I doubt anything will.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I found his questions interesting and this is my attempt at answering them after years of observing (and rejecting) their generic existence:

And here I have some pertinent questions:

1. What is the point of scanning for faults that you can criticize?

I believe it’s the classic “by tearing them down I prove I am better than them”. Fully nased in trying to fill the black hole of ego deapair they have in their soul.

1. Do you feel as if you are somehow scoring points each time you are able to identify a problem, a mistake, or a flaw?

Yes. Undoubtedly, in their mind it makes them smarter and the more points they score the “better” they are than others.

1. Does complimenting others or paying them their due for legitimate achievement cause you pain or otherwise bother you?

Yes. In their mind it lowers them in the eyes of the other and is therefore only to be done insincerely when trying to curry favour (with a man) or gain sexual favours/intimacy (from a woman).

1. Do you even notice when others do things well or achieve something positive?

Oh yes, they notice, and it makes them seethe!

1. Can you tell when people don’t want to be informed of their faults?

Probably bit it will NEVER stop them because scoring points to become the “better man” is far more important!

1. Does that make any difference to whether you will inform them or not?

None, as far as I can tell.

1. Is it the identification of the fault or the criticism provided on the basis of the fault that provides you with the most joy?

The crowd noticing both their identification of it and their SUPERIOR criticism AND suggested complex solution, that gives them the biggest rush as they expect accolades medals and imagine everyone sees them as the superstars they clearly are in their own mind.

At any rate, those are my best guesses as to the internal motives of the gamma free from subterfuge.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This is basically a postcard sized 1 explanation for those of you who are interested in being, believe you are, or actually are Catholic. For the rest of you, feel free to read on, but PLEASE don’t bother me with detailed questions that I have already answered exhaustively a 1,000 times. If you want to know more, read Believe! (short and quick read with references) or Reclaiming the Catholic Church (autistically long and exhaustive), you can get both here.

People ignoring the above paragraph will most likely be banned or blocked without any further warning.

The positions

1. Novus Orco – Totally heretical, Satanic, Freemasonic at every level of the Clergy. While I accept there COULD be some retarded Novus Orco “priest” who believes truly he is Catholic, it’s about as likely as an Elf going to Orc school and coming out the other side of it, with the sodomy, heresy, blasphemy, cocaine parties, child rape, and so on, believing he is acting for the good of Elvenkind/Mankind. It’s a POWERFUL level of retardation, and we certainly can’t base our Church on such obviously mentally handicapped men.
2. Any of the Fake Trad Grifters – Con men. They are in it for the money. This covers:
   1. The unrepentant faggot Gary/Michael/Michelle Voris and his “church militant” which would have been more properly labelled as “Fudgepackers of Latter Day Faggotry”.
   2. The spectacular grifter E.M. Jones, or Emo Jones, as I refer to him. He too was/is funded by the same Opus Day supernumerary wealthy patron that Gary Voris and others are (or were) financially backed by (I forget the details, but fairly sure it included the other two below as well).
   3. Taylor “Tay-Tay” Marshall, this noxious grifting gnome used to vacuum money from Protestants originally, then as that headspace is so filled with grifters he remodelled himself as a “Catholic”, wrote and unreadable pile of trash called “infiltration” where he literally dodges and avoids making any point or drawing any conclusions, or calling out anyone properly with regard to the usurpation that was and is Vatican II, hedging his way through the whole thing in language and grammar that would make a 12 year old laugh. Which is partly why I think he probably DID write it himself.
   4. Milo Yank-my-pole-us, another faggot, this one supposedly “repentant” but who immediately after his “I no longer take it in the ass from big black men” conversion, immediately hooked up, joined with Gary Voris in his fudgepakers-are-us “church” before it imploded. After I exposed him as a total Freemason, he has essentially fallen off the face of the Earth and his probably hiding somewhere hoping his Freemason buddies don’t gut him, as their rules say they should if he exposes them too much (which he did by his own obvious Freemasonic symbol throwing in many images).
   5. Many other examples, but these above are the ones I have covered more extensively also at the OG blog.
3. SSPX, The Cassiciacum Thesis (Sedeprivationists), Ann Barnhardt, Vigano, and a couple of others – These pretend to be, or claim allegiance to, some version of “Sedevacantism” reject some or all of the Popes but not fully, and have a “he’s a valid Pope, but we won’t listen to him!” attitude, which is absolutely schismatic at best, possibly heretical and wholly retarded by Catholic Dogma. If you believe a Pope is the Pope then you obey him. End of. Or, as Bishop Sanborn, who has featured here before, has put it, in his own words (I shit you not, go search for his name and see the video I posted): “He is NOT the Pope, no one can say he is the Pope. He IS the Pope.” These are idiots, fakers, heretics, and wolves in sheep’s clothing basically saying that all the Satanists in the Vatican have to do is say “Oh, sorry mmmhkay?” and they magically become the real Pope and Bishops and so on. Their “arguments” are literally absurd lies that contradict Canon Law in obvious ways. If you are autistic and care to see the ways in which the Thesis of Cassiciacum is absurd, you can knock yourself out here. The main problem here is that some of the Sedeprivationists are actually valid Bishops and Priests, but completely in spectacular error. So they are Catholic, and Valid, but they are wrong in their views. In the Case of SSPX and others, they are just completely schismatic at best, and in the case of Bishop Sanborn, they have now broken Canon Law for at least 7 years, so they are now straying into heretic territory, by also lying about Canon Law that is there for all to see in black and white.
4. 1958 Totalist Sedevacantists – these are the ONLY fully Valid, legitimate and Catholic clergy left. They follow Catholic Dogma, Canon Law, and the infallible Magisterium of the Church (as left in the Canon Law Code of 1917 and the Papal encyclicals up to 9th October 1958 when the last Valid Pope died), and believe the Catholic Church is indeed the One, True, Holy and Apostolic one, in the same way the crusaders in 1095 AD, or the knights of Malta in 1565 AD did.
5. The Laity – This one confuses people but is not hard to understand. The above four positions (probably more like 8 or ten if you get into the details) refer to the Catholic CLERGY. And speaks to their validity or lack thereof. Of the above, only Sedeprivationists can claim most or at least SOME of their clergy is valid and legitimate too, BUT, they are in error. The error is not one that will cast them out of the Church as long as it is held as a personal opinion, but when or if they start to lie about Canon Law, break Canon Law, as Bp. Sanborn did in 2019 when he excluded parishioners from receiving the sacraments if they did not subject themselves to his ABSOLUTELY NON-EXISTENT authority, they begin to become pertinacious abandoners of the. Faith and will eventually fall foul of Canon 188.4 just as all the other heretics and never-where Catholics have done. The Laity is a different matter and we can’t really judge them in the same way. In essence if a person truly believes they are Catholic because they have not bothered to educate themselves about the heresies of Vatican II, the dogma of the Catholic Church, Canon Law, and so on, they are at most guilty of Sloth (too lazy to learn the truth about their own supposed religion), and are in error, BUT, they have been lied to since at least 1958, so we can hardly blame them too much. If a Catholic priest turns out to be a pedophile and desecrates the host every mass unbeknownst to the parishioners, they do not incur any guilt. They would do if they KNEW the host was desecrated and STILL took part in the Holy Mass. So, while the “nominal” Novus Ordo attending “Catholic” is in ignorance, due to his own laziness, and thus he is attending fake, blasphemous masses in fake, desecrated Churches presided over by Satanist and Freemasons pretending to be “Catholic” Clergy, they are not actually heretics or schismatics, they are, in effect Catholics. A bit dumb, a bit ignorant, or certainly fooled by lies, but still Catholic.

So… WHERE IS THE CHURCH?

There is only one sure place it resides today, with valid and properly Catholic Clergy, they are all the signatories to Unam Sanctam .

Why? Because this was the only Bishop with enough courage to state the obvious no valid Bishop has had the balls to say for 70 years, which is essence is: We are the Church, we are the only ones that can elect an actually valid Pope. If you disagree, make your argument. Either way, come and meet up and let’s see where we are and how many agree we should hold an imperfect general council and elect a new and valid pope.

And the opposition to is only one of three kinds:

1. Satanists, Freemasons, Grifters. They all either hate the Church or are making their deal with the devil, money for lies, so will attack actual Catholics at every turn, pretending to be the second or third type instead.
2. Cowards. These guys KNOW the Vatican is filled with liars, impostors, child rapists, faggots, actual practicing Satanists and an overwhelming number of Freemasons, but they are SCARED by numbers. The MASS of people that are fooled cower them into being weak, scared and terrified of being even further “ostracised”. To which one must have only contempt for such Lilly livered excuses of “men”. Gideon they certainly are not. Nor properly Catholic. Truth and God are more important than life itself, as all the Catholic Knights, Saints and Martyrs have demonstrated over 2000 years.
3. Lazy Idiots. These are basically a subset of 2. above but they genuinely are too stupid, and also too lazy, to actually educate themselves on Canon Law. Or the history of the Church, or basic Logic, on which, Catholicism is also based, as is Roman Law, on which Canon Law is based. After all Logos is also the root of the word Logic. These unfortunates do NOT understand the arguments, they can barely read them, never understand them, and are in essence just NPCs repeating sound-bytes they heard from the impostors or the Cowards above. They are the people whose mind cannot be changed with facts, but is a nuke hits the Vatican today and all the impostors drop dead as if struck by lightning, they would immediately follow the pope elected by Unam Sanctam as if nothing had changed at all.

If you have been paying attention, the vast majority of the Laity and not an insignificant number of the would-be or quasi-clergy, are in essence swayed not by facts, not by dogma, not by truly understanding God, Faith or the True Church God placed on Earth. They are only following two things:

1. Their own emotions. And these are PRIMARILY set by:
2. The number of people apparently holding the fake/erroneous/Satanic position.

They are essentially the zombie horde. Whoever makes the most noise wins with them. If the majority of people suddenly said loudly that 2+2 = Purple, they would start wearing Purple robes to show their allegiance to the unthinking biomass.

SO… IF you consider yourself a Catholic, and you have read this far, it is incumbent upon you to find out the truth. You can examine all my arguments in great detail by reading Reclaiming the Catholic Church (see earlier link) either in digital or paper format, or get a good sense of elf it by reading BELIEVE! which would both likely save you time as in RTCC I exhaust ALL the objections that have ever been raised to 1958 Sedevacantism, or, feel free to investigate and learn by other means, whatever takes your fancy, but what is a certainty is that the onus is on YOU to know the truth.

Seek and ye shall find is not a statement that is equivalent to sit on your ass and it will come to you magically.

So, get off your ass and start doing some seeking.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This thread is direct, uncompromising and essentially accurate.

Not every comment is 100% accurate. Try not to be a binary thinker. Understand the broad CONCEPT; don’t get lost in the minutiae.

https://substack.com/@darkagesage1/note/c-310465894?r=2gid6q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This title may not immediately strike you as germane, but I am testing a theory.

Besides, I have loved dinosaurs since a very young age, and women a little bit later after the dinosaurs, though, the similarities don’t end there, and frankly, often it would be far preferable to live in the Xenozoic Era than dealing with the dual brain solipsism of human females.

The dinosaurs would certainly at least balance the human females. Imagine… hunting a rabid T-Rex that has been terrorising a local village, watching herds of Triceratops thundering through the Precambrian vegetation. You could put up with a lot of female weirdness if you could have that sort of life… you and your .460 Weatherby against hungry velociraptors… And I also think the female weirdness would be a lot less than it is today under those conditions. Your Pterodactyl soup would be warm and freshly cooked when you return from dispatching the sabre-tooth tiger that had been stalking the outskirts of the village walls.

Are women even interested in palaeontology? I am not aware of any prominent ones, though I am certainly not an expert in the field. But it is one of those topics that I think may be mostly the domain of men, as, I think, are almost all abstract concept topics (physics, mathematics, cosmology, astronomy). I think Palaeontology is a good test, as definitely bound to something physical and material but removed in time, and I suspect this sort of material too is not appealing to the female brain. See also, history in general. Your theories as to why are welcome. I have my own of course.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here