Andrew Tate is not just gonna be held for 30 days. He’s going to jail.

The first point to understand about Russian tactics is that they are almost invariably asymmetrical and —from a Western perspective at least— considered to be prime examples of “out of the box” or “lateral” thinking.

The reality is that Russians are among the most pragmatic people on Earth as a culture. They suffered nearly a century of dystopically and absurdist lies from their own government, and learnt to adapt to this surreality by countering it with whatever worked at a practical level to keep them alive and one step ahead of the murderous bureaucracy.

Such murderous bureaucracy now infects the West at levels that would have made the Soviet rulers blush with shame.

So, in practical terms, what does this mean?

In order to explain this in terms even our American friends might understand, Russia is basically the skinny foreign kid that was bullied for a while by an obese transvestite with blue hair. The natural instinct on a fair playing field is that the skinny kid’s best outcome would derive from picking up a brick and grafting it to side of the head of the freak. Preferably skilfully enough to not outright kill the fat tranny, but to do enough damage it’s not going to be soon forgotten. And that would indeed work best… except… the school they are in is an absurdist one where most of the other kids are at least a bit fat. And even if not, most of the popular kids paint their hair weird colours.

So the skinny kid decided to play it smart and suffer the bullying for a couple of years. Just taking shots and getting his lunch money stolen and just carrying on as best he can. Always being dignified and just dusting himself off and getting up again after a beating, with tears on his face maybe, but no whining to teachers. After a while most of the school at least sympathises a bit with the skinny kid. So when the skinny kid starts to give some push back, while the “popular” “consensus” is supposedly against this “rude foreigner”, secretly, a lot of the smaller, non-obese, non-hair-painted-weird-colours kids have a secret weak spot for the skinny underdog.

The fat tranny enlists everyone to bully the skinny kid more, but almost all of them —except for super-gay and floppy-haired Just-in Shitwater, from Cucknada, and whoever the fuck runs Australia and New Zealand— only do a token form of bullyism. You know, throw sand from the sidelines. Shout a few insults, but don’t actively get too close. That skinny kid has started punching back and in truth they are soft and scared.

So… what is the skinny kid to do?

Carry on letting the fat tranny and his token gay friends bully him still (even if less successfully than they’d like)?

What would you do to end the bullying?

Now, I dunno about you, but I know what I would do. And I’m fairly sure I know what a skinny Russian kid would do. We think pretty similarly me and Russians. Do what works.

He’d wait. And then he’d pick up that brick. And when the moment is right, he would fuck the fat tranny up bad enough to put him in hospital for 2 weeks and leave his face permanently a bit different, what with the stitches and missing teeth and broken jaw.

And then for good measure, he might also slap a few of the gay friends of the fat tranny upside the head and make them shit their pants. Physically. In public. While they bleed and cry on the ground.

And what would happen after that? Oh the school authorities would be appalled. Appalled and shocked! And then, they would make sure no bullying happens anymore. Because that skinny Russian kid? He has a skinny, humble looking father. But that father came to school, right after his son hospitalised fat tranny and a couple of his gay friends, and just walked into the principal’s office and said:

“Hi. My name Ivan. I’m father of Vitaly…”

“Ah yes, good, your son…”

“No. Shut fuck up or I gut you with my fish knife *flick* (fish knife comes out). You listen very well now. My son. No more bullying of him. Or I come to your house, shoot your dog, fuck your fat wife, for which she would thank me, and THEN I gut you with my fish knife. You understand, fat fuck?”

And the principal, in that moment knows Ivan is not kidding. He sees the fish knife brand too. It’s called Hypersonic Nuclear Option. Long for a brand name but it’s all neatly etched on the shining blade.

So. I would NOT be surprised if Zelensky’s office (wherever it is, in whichever country) suddenly turns to hot dust. And maybe a few American advisors or politicians suddenly also die of suddenly.

It may be a while yet. But if this nonsense doesn’t end soon (it won’t) that’s my best guess. I don’t know the timeline and I could be way off, but I would say sometime this year.

I know popcorn is mostly genetically modified now, but my wife makes the best ham and cheese sandwiches and a lovely cup of tea.

I hope I can get a nice rocking chair to view it all from my porch before the main event.

In her latest post on the subject she admits that the Petrine See has been vacant before for up to two years and ten months. And goes on to add that two years and ten months is NOT some line in the sand.

Because well… as I have been saying for years… there IS no line in the sand. There IS no rule for how long an interregnum can last.

So tell me Ann, of Bergoglio lasts another 20 years, will you then STILL be TOTES DIFFERENT from is 1958 Sedes?

Even more absurdly, she goes in her immediately previous post, to quote various doctors of the Church that state that one cannot be considered a schismatic if in good conscience he assumes the present “Pope” to be invalid due to rumor or fact that convinces him of this to the best of his ability and conscience to grasp.

So, to summarise, we 1958 sedes:

1. Are NOT schismatics. Since fact, reason, logic, Catholic doctrine AND the infallible magisterium of the Church, in the form of Canon Law, ALL line up telling us we are indeed correct in our belief that from Roncalli to Bergoglio they all are fake clergy, as are ALL Novus Ordo “clergy”, without exception, so any “Pope” that may come from their ranks would similarly be invalid.

2. Are NOT wrong on Catholic dogma, canon law or doctrine. And Ann cannot, at ALL find any fault with our reasoning in fact.

But… we are still wrong because… oh yeah, according to Ann we’re very stupid.

But she will not say exactly HOW or precisely WHY she thinks this, other than implying that 64 years is too long. Yet she refuses to say where the line of “too long” is.

And then she accuses US of being incapable of doing basic logic?

OooooK Ann.

How’s that bottle of tequila doing? Wait, what number bottle is that? This stuff’s not cheap you know…

This may be a longish one, but hopefully those of you who care about actual Christianity may find it instructive, useful, and perhaps even entertaining.

Ann Barnhardt, while saying Sedevacantists are being spiteful, raging at her and so on, actually calls people like me ideologues who are working for Satan. No, I’m not making this up.

I’ll post the relevant parts of her blog post below with commentary so you can see for yourself.

I have no doubt, some who emailed her may well fit her description, and my own blog posts have certainly been mocking, but not in a vicious way, (certainly by my standards anyway, being as rhetoric nukes are a speciality) and I believe, rather, in a way fitting to her demonstrated egotistical pride. Which I specified in an earlier post (use the search me button on the sidebar if you care)

But I always made it a point to explain I believe Ann is sincere in her error. That I did not think she is an intentional deceiver. I still hold that view, however, as I have noticed with others –Bishop Sanborn being the prime example– once a person not only begins to live in dogmatic and canonical error, but prides themselves in it, they seem to begin a descent into deeper error and deeper pride rather quickly.

Now, far be it from me to pretend to be a model Catholic. I also always stated that I may not be a very good one, but I am a fervent one. I have many flaws and some are hard to correct even over time, but I do not pride myself on these things. On some I may be stubborn and if asked specifically I may explain my thinking, but none of my flaws continue in a specific and clear assault against reason as a result of personal pride. Despite my many flaws, putting my ego before reason and logic has never been one of mine. Possibly putting my sense of justice before reason has, but it is not for personal pride, I assure you, no matter how it may look to you or others.

That all said, Ann seems intent in making two false accusations against me and people I know personally that while different (and better than me) in many respects all hold the same generic beliefs. One accusation is somewhat excusable; she believes we are ideologues. That is, that our Sedevacantism is the result of some cargo cult-like brainwashing. This is absolutely false, I certainly am unaware of a single Sedevacantist that I met personally that is one or became one as a result of anything other than deep, personal investigation, reflection and study. Usually over a period of years. I don’t even know anyone that is a “cradle Sedevacantist”.

So that accusation is as false as, say, the often repeated, and retarded, accusation of Protestants that Catholics “worship Mary and the Saints”. It may be “understandable” but only insofar as that the person/s making such accusations are either, lazily ignorant of having ever looked into the matter deeper than 30 seconds on even converged google would take, or are knowingly and intentionally remaining “ignorant” because to do otherwise would put the lie to their nonsensical accusation.

Now, Ann is not stupid. Or ignorant. So, unfortunately I can only conclude she is intentionally remaining “ignorant” of our position. Out of charity I have assumed from the start that this is due to her personal pride, injured by, I believe –because I take her word for it– what I would call trailer-park-pope “sedevacantists” i.e. mentally challenged schizophrenics, autists, and con-men who have “elected” some quasi-homeless guy as the “real” Pope, or who belong to spook-infested “wandering Bishops” of the “old Catholic Church” (literally a CIA psyops that was linked to JFK murder and a bunch of other stuff).

I believe her when she said that such “sedevacantists” emailed her horrible, pornographic, vile messages. But I would posit two things:

Firstly: such people are not actual sedevacantist and I assume not Catholic at all. My personal experience of sedevacantist is that they are unfailingly polite, dignified and morally as well as logically sound. They tend to be men and women that can disagree with you totally while remaining completely composed and dignified as they explain their perspective. In fact, in my experience, I am, honestly, the rudest, most outspoken of the lot. Genuinely, without exception so far.

Secondly: Ann has certainly said enough about herself to make it clear she is absolutely and totally (rightly) rejectful of anything even mildly suggestive of sexual impropriety. So, being called a whore, receiving sexually explicit insults and so on, I have no doubt, are absolutely offensive to her and by whatever measure “painful” enough that they cause a real (and rightful) resentment towards the perpetrators, and, as a rule, against the totality of whatever “class” one might tend to put them in. So, if she has associated such insults with Sedevacantist, it is not unreasonable to assume that she considers the lot of us as basically rapey orcs deserving of hellfire. Be that as it may, her perception is in error by every metric that I have any personal experience of.

I do not mean that her reaction is in error. Remember that since even my teens, I have always stated clearly (yes in writing even some 30 years ago) that the whole concept of “freedom of speech” is absolute nonsense that only a people as enstupidated by brainwashing as the average Americans are could believe in. Similarly, even as a pre-teen, when I first heard the English adage “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me” I there and then thought the whole concept was absolutely retarded and the people who came up with it absolute idiots. And I have not changed my mind since. You may disagree (if you are stupid and lack any kind of imagination) but that would be because you are wrong and I am right. I’ll give you an example at the end of this post to prove it.*

So it is not her reaction to the vile messages that is wrong. But it is wrong to assume those who sent it are actually Sedevacantists, and, in any case, it is wrong to let a personal offence colour out perception of objective facts unrelated to it. If a child rapist says 2 and 2 is 4, it would be absurd for me to reject that, and therefore math as a whole, simply because the person who said it, as far as I’m concerned, deserves to be burnt at the stake.

So, even if she hates Sedes on principle, she should STILL take the five minutes it would take to either confirm, or REJECT our position on FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE FACTS. Not her emotions.

But I believe she knows the facts, which are easy enough to summarise:

1. Roncalli approved the first two Vatican II docs before he died. This is indisputable. One of those has direct heresy in it, making him an antipope posthumously (as most of the more than 40 antipopes before him have been). He was also a Freemason and the vote that made him “Pope” was the result of blackmail against Giuseppe Siri, who was voted Pope twice before Roncalli was “picked”. Election by blackmail is invalid. So it is very clear Roncalli was not viably elected, but even if you ignore this, it remains clear he was a public and notorious heretic since nothing is more public than official documents issued by the Vatican for the whole world. As a result, Roncalli falls foul of canon 188.4 of the code of canon law of 1917 which was (and remains) in full force in 1958.

2. Every antipope after Roncalli, to date either produced the remaining 14 documents of Vatican 2 (Montini) or promulgated them and continued to pretend they were Catholic doctrine when in fact they ALL contain direct heresy. As far as I know I am the only person that has detailed at least SOME of the DIRECT heresy present in 15 of the 16 documents (see RTCC).

So, in short, there is no escaping the fact that sedevacantists are correct. As per Code 188.4 and as per the infallible and perpetual encyclical of Pope Paul IV Cum-ex Apostolato Officio, on which Canon 188.4 is based (as the notes to it make clear).

Ann knows this. I am sure she does.

She also knows that there is NO RULE whatever concerning how long an interregnum lasts (the period between Popes when none occupy the seat). We KNOW FOR A FACT that interregnums without anyone on the seat lasted at least a few years before. We also know that there was a period that lasted some 70 years during which there were 2 and even 3 “Popes” and during which time it was almost impossible for the average Catholic at the time to know which was legitimate, and it all got sorted out only after most of them died. So it’s not like we haven’t got precedents to go on.

Her ONLY objection is as below:

64 years is too long.

That’s it.

And that is an Ann Barnhardt opinion. Supported by NOTHING in Catholic dogma or Canon Law. Literally nothing. But it gets worse, because not only does she refuse to address the facts that are black on white written down as per the infallible magisterium of the Church, but she goes on to accuse those of us who DO follow it as being agents of Satan.

And to that I DO take objection. Very much so.

So Ann, supposedly, according to you I am not stupid. I am evil.

Yet you:

1. Refuse to show me where my supposedly fake stupidity lies. Where is the error, Ann. Point it out clearly in small words, since it’s so obvious, yes? After all, maybe I really am that stupid, and if it’s so obvious why not take a minute to spell it out?

2. Choose to believe a bunch of demonstrable heretics (if not apostate or even never-were Catholics) were “Popes” and presently are “priests” and “bishops” when most of them have not even been validly ordained.

3. You quote “canon law” from the fake, invalid, “code” of 1983, created by the same enemies of the Church, as if it was valid, (which it is not) yet you ignore and choose to not ever mention or show your reasoning as to why you do so, the code of 1917 which was infallibly present, valid and remains the most vetted document ever compiled on Earth in 1958 and to this day.

I KNOW you got this before. I know you received my emails on it. And I know you will continue NOT to address this. Which tells me that your error is one of pure pride at this stage Ann.

I am genuinely sorry for the suffering some orcs may have inflicted on you, and I still think your error is genuine, but you can only ignore facts so long before it mutates from an error due to a wound to an error due to pride.

In my opinion you have now crossed that line. And the next one is not far off, and that is knowing and intentional deceit to salvage your ego.

I Truly hope you don’t cross that line and come to your senses very soon. I pray you do.

* Example of why absolutism of free speech and the whole “sticks and stones” nonsense is nonsense, for the mentally challenged: A child rapist knocks on your door and cheerfully announces he saw you have beautiful children and he will try to rape one as soon as practicable.

What would a good father do in such a situation? Turn the pedo’s head into a pink cloud there and then. If you do not, it is only because, either, you are a vile child rapist yourself, or, you fear the consequences due to your local law. But in many, even most, places on Earth not too long ago, such a response would not even have been punished by the law.

Now I hear the morons say “Oh but that is not free speech because…” shut the fuck up. You just proved my point.