Prediction on Taiwan

Mark Bisone asked me to review this post of his after I took my approach to John of Barsoom’s Pagan nonsensical writings about Jesus really being Julius Ceasar and the Gospels being weird “stories” mutated about old Julius instead.

Hi apparent defence of John is basically a MUCH watered down version of my own take, however, this is NOT good. And all it takes to know this with certainty is the first part of his post, which I reproduce below with commentary in the usual way.

Before I do, allow me to point out that the recent olive-branch shared between myself and various writers like the Three of Woe, John of Barsoom and Mark Bisone is a positive thing and I hope it continues and spreads to anyone even just a little bit sane, so that our ideas propagate and eventually rebuild civilisation in a stronger, better, faster, version of the best system we ever had on Earth, which is, of course Catholicism.

So by “our ideas” I mean, of course, the (real – Sedevacantist) Catholic Church (as opposed to the fake, Satanic Novus Orco one), because the ideas of John and Mark and so on, are essentially, fundamentally, structurally, weak. They are wide open to massive infiltration, subversion and degradation over time. So, to be even clearer, I don’t hate these potential allies. And I don’t even begrudge them their false ideas, erroneous thoughts, and cowardly natures. I see them as basically benign NPCs.

I know, I know, that sounds insulting, but look, if you ever played D&D, or any of the awesome pen and paper RPGS from which the term NPC comes from, you know that only a few are adventurers. The rest are NPCs. And while the primary adversary are evil NPCs, a good adventure also has plenty of GOOD NPCs. And sometimes NPCs will literally save your character or even the whole adventure. They are definitely good guys and on our side, but they can’t do the baseline stuff. Or at least, their exposed thoughts, so far, have not given me any indication whatsoever that they are anything other than mostly benign NPCs. I reserve judgement on the Tree of Woe guy on that count because he made a very significant post which I commented on too, which has the potential to really make a small but absolutely fundamental tectonic shift in the zeitgeist of the various intellectuals that might read it. And while my own approach is probably eminently more practical at a tactical level, his perspective is far largere and acts on the strategic level.

But back to Mark, and my dissection of why his “good intentions” are really, just another paved road to Hell. He is referring here to John’s post about the Julius/Jesus thing.

As per usual, it is brilliantly written and elegantly argued. Also as per usual, it’s controversial to the sabre-tip of provocation. But — as I once said to a group of other writers on a somewhat contentious, late-night chat — “That’s what’s great about John.”

I stand by that statement. Still, I knew this series was certain to ruffle some feathers on one side, and attract some ne’er-do-wells on the other. I haven’t read through all the comments on this latest post, but combining those I have with those made on the prior entries, most reactions thus far seem to line up with one or more of the following categories:

There have probably been some other reactions, but these four seem most common. I must be a very different breed of cat, though, because none of them really describe my own.

And so far, so good. Even his generalisation of the 4 reactions is fairly accurate. For clarity, my position would be about 1.5, and I have already explained it at length (see the link early on). That is that while I acknowledge that John is smart, a relatively engaging writer (he is too longwinded, but look from which pulpit comes the preaching of the kettle about the pot!) and he does cover interesting topics and so on. All true. And while I wouldn’t IMMEDIATELY burn him at the stake, as I explained before, he could certainly get himself there with a bit of Giordano Bruno-like persistence. But now we come to Mark’s absolutely broken views.

First off, I don’t have the temerity to go around accusing others of blasphemy. If the search for truth was as easy as reading a book aloud and shouting down anyone who dared to question or differently interpret of any part of it, then Creation is precisely the prison many Gnostics believe it is, and I would gladly seek out a million “lies” with them instead.

At least he admits it right away he is a coward. Filled with fear at the very thought of correcting anyone.

Allow me to explain why. Do you think would be as fearful to call someone that said 2+2 is purple, a moron or wrong, or someone that need psychiatric help? Probably not. Why? Well because he is sure of his facts in this case. So all that Mark is telling us is that:

• He’s been too lazy to have a position. He couldn’t be bothered to spend the required time, energy and effort to know what he REALLY believes about the very nature of reality.
• Even if he did have a position, he’s far too timid to share it, or test it, or correct someone driving off a philosophical cliff, because God forbid someone thinks badly of him. I mean THERE MAY BE DOUBT! It’s fine to say a guy that says 2+2 is purple is simply wrong at best, but say that the Filioque is obviously right as the Catholics see it and not the Orthos, and OH MAH GAWD! Someone might point a finger at you and call you a bigot or wrong, or whatever. So… yeah… on this basis alone, I could dismiss Mark entirely as any kind of defender of civilisation. I certainly wouldn’t post him at the gates, or even the parapets. Mark might be a good baker for all I know, and he should stay in the nice, safe, village we Catholics will one day build and he should focus on making bread and being the nice guy I am sure he is. But if I become emperor Mark doesn’t get to vote on much. Certainly not on who keep in or out of the village, nor how the laws of the place are made.

Secondly, he is clearly marinated in the Protestant Zeitgeist, either having been too uninterested, bored, indoctrinated, or incurious and illogical to ever care enough to learn enough of the basics about Christianity, that basic logic clearly demonstrates any of the 40,000 branches of Protestantism must be fake. But he also goes a step further, stating that IF the truth really were all spelt out in one book (it isn’t because the idea, as well as the concept of sola scripture is brain damaged level of retard, but let’s go with the hypotheticals here) and you could shout down anyone who didn’t respect the messages in the book, then God would have to be evil.

I mean, think of how absurd that is. If God, gives you free will, and also the means by which to know his will, easily, simple, readily available just for the asking, but you choose to reject it, then when you end up in Hell. And this is somehow all God’s fault and terribly unfair… why, exactly, Mark?

The truth as it happens resides in more than one book and in a long tradition too, but if you read a decent Catechism from before the 1958 fake Popes, the actual Bible (a Catholic one with all the bits the Protties have removed) and the Pio-Benedictine code of Canon Law of 1917, you do have pretty much all you need to grasp the jist of things, and have enough references within these two books, to go after and use to further educate yourself to the point that to build this knowledge means to live it too. But here is the Protestant Zeitgeist in two concepts:

• Reason is the whore of the devil, and
• Once saved always saved.

So as a Protestant, God is some remote figurehead you just have to swear allegiance to once, then you’re set, no matter what, and… don’t you go using your brain, boy, it’s all about the feelz! Nor do you have to DO anything. Like the Hindus, you can just sit on your ass and wait to be called to playing a harp on the clouds (or in their case be reincarnated into a fly, since they love cow-shit too). And while you think a smart guy will see through these moronic facets of that fake religion (yes, Protestantism, and yes, Hinduism) well… don’t be shocked. Professor Cipolla was absolutely right: There are always far more idiots than you can possibly imagine. Everywhere.

The second group doesn’t really reflect my view either, though it’s probably closest to it. In fact, while reading the second essay, part of me suspected the whole series was the setup for an elaborate joke (while simultaneously being a fascinating thought experiment in itself). For example, his contention that “Jesus had an affair with the prostitute Mary Magdalene,” seems not merely to be a reference absent a referent1, but the kind of sophomoric begging that John is far too smart to do by accident. Was the point to inflame and provoke? I didn’t know. But John’s a great writer, so I was willing to let the string play out.

In short: It’s nonsense. I know it’s nonsense, John knows it’s nonsense, we all know it’s nonsense, but hey, John writes great, so let’s just enjoy it.

Riiiiiight Mark… except this is not an Arnie film, or a Stallone film, where it’s all nonsense but it’s so ridiculous it might be funny, so we can excuse it as “mostly harmless” entertainment (it’s far from harmless, but that’s another post), time wasting entertainment to be sure, and not good for you, but hardly a matter to burn you at the stake for. But here we are literally talking about the very core and nature of reality. It deserves a LOT more seriousness and thought than the excuse of “hey, I like how he frames it.” Let me put it this way: Would you ever take the reality of actual child rape and murder by Satanic pedophiles who actually do this, as a real, serious topic, and then say it doesn’t really matter if it’s really happening because it makes a great story? Would you Mark? I pray not. Because if you would then, you sir, are a moral relativists and are scum. And indeed if I become world Emperor you will be left alone as long as you don’t try and infect anyone else with such degenerate, absurd, and ultimately damaging lies and moral turpitude.

There were other epic reaches peppered throughout part two, including that crowds heralding the arrival of two famous men was compelling evidence of their interchangeability. I laughed out loud at this one, recalling the crowds that gathered at a mock-funeral Howard Stern put on for rival DJ Lou DiBella back in the late 80’s. It also put me in mind of Charles de Gaulle. who led a famous march on the same day as Caesar 1891 years apart (and with a very different reception).

Ha-Ha Mark. Funny, Mark. Here’s a colourful beach ball, Mark, bounce it on your nose while you clap like ea seal Mark, ha-ha! Wha-aat?! It’s funny Mark! Go on, post a video of you doing it! Worth it! C’mooooon… I just don’t get why you wouldn’t! What are you some kind of rigid bigot?

Starting to see how this works yet, Mark?

Regardless, none of it angered me. I merely found certain aspects of it intriguing, others less so. Moreover, I had a theory about where it might be leading, and was curious to find out how correct it was. Turned out it wasn’t, but that’s no great loss. It was still well worth the read, because it got me thinking about stories (and “histories”) in a much deeper way than before. And as John himself notes: how strong is one’s faith of Christ if some Barsoomian Internet Warlord can wound it with a few thousand words, to review some book you’ll probably never read?

The only correct point is the one about not getting angry because, quite rightly, what care I if an ant tries to bite me through a Moon-boot? Zero. But the point is this vicious nonsense gets read by ten people, who then spread an even more watered down and absurd version to a 100 people, and so on. Before long you will have some Satanist trying to print the Julius Caesar Bible.

I am not wounded, nor angered. But you bet your ass every time someone says 2+2 is purple, I will be there to take sure that nonsense is exposed. And if the perpetrator keep insisting, and trying to get, say my children, or people at large, to believe that 2+2 is purple, then he may well come to a new conclusion that 2+2 , whatever his idea about it is, actually is a very painful thing if you don’t get it right.

As for John’s conclusions, I think what he has found is a way to re-shoot and re-edit the history movie in such a way that aligns with his spiritual sensibilities. This isn’t in itself a problem — that’s what we’re all doing, all the time.

No. It is not what we are ALL doing, ALL the time. I have no story I need to make up about Jesus. I accept the version the Catholic Church teaches and always has done, found in the Gospels and related traditions. There are probably many little things that I don’t specifically like about Catholicism (because I am a flawed human being like all the others), but that’s not important. The TRUTH is important. And here, in the end, we see that in his error, Mark is so deep, he literally spouts the Satanic inversion of the truth, and that is, that it can never really be known. Which, is of, course, like the entirety of his “reasoning” absolute nonsense.

The problem as I see it is when people confuse this story-editing process with an unearthing of the Actual, or even of the Truth. That is something human beings simply cannot do. It’s a lie we tell ourselves about our capabilities.

Truth exists, Mark. And human beings are and have always been able to discover it. They do it all day, every day. It’s how buildings are built, how math is done, how pretty much everything even remotely related to engineering is done. It’s literally how you manage to tie your shoes in the morning, Mark. There is ONE ABSOLUTE TRUTH about reality. it doesn’t even matter if you believe this or not, because it’s true regardless of anyone’s approval, understanding, wish, or anything else. If you don’t think truth is achievable by human beings, then you should obviously just do whatever you want. Who advises you that “Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law?” again? Do you recall Mark? Red guy? Horns. Hooves.

Ring any bells? Anything at all?

Or worse, it’s a lie that others tell us, in order to gain power over our minds and lives.

The final Gnostic kick at truth, reality, beauty and love.

So THAT is why these people are not your allies. Not really. How can you trust a self-admitted coward who has no idea, nor wish to engage with the truth of anything, since he thinks it’s an illusion? You gonna let that guy fly your plane? Or make you a cup of tea for that matter. Or think of him as some stalwarts defender of civilisation? I sure as Hell will not.