Archive for the ‘Agnostic Christianity’ Category

Challenge for the Naysayers

Statement: Catholicism has been the best civilisation humanity has ever experienced.

Go ahead and try and disprove that.

Some baseline issues to consider:

  • Catholicism is considered to be the religion that started (depending on your view of things) sometime between the year 0 and 34 AD, since the life, death and resurrection of Christ is the pivotal and foundational aspect of Catholicism (Christianity).
  • All other versions of “Christianity”, be it any of the 40,000+ versions of Protestantism, Eastern “Orthodoxy”, and including all Novus Ordo “Catholicism” are mere perversions of actual Catholicism, which is the only Christianity that ever has existed or ever can exist, since God is not likely to produce thousands of false and dead ends.
  • Catholicism in its best exterior-known fashion was absolutely infiltrated over roughly two centuries and ultimately almost completely converged to active Satanism by 1958 when Angelo Roncalli became the first of the currently unbroken line of Antipopes. Effectively this means that the Catholic Church has been greatly reduced and has been living in an Interregnum (between royal realms) since 1958. A condition that happens every time a Pope dies before another valid Pope is elected. It is an unusual situation but not entirely unprecedented since there have been periods of up to 70 years where is was very difficult to know which Pope was the real Pope since up to three of them laid claim to the throne of Peter and resolving who were the antipopes happened generally after they were dead, and there has also been a period of at least two years without anyone at all on the See of Peter too. The conclusion of all this is that the only Catholicism left is that espoused by Sedevacantists (ie those Catholics left who recognise that Vatican II and all things related to it are anything but Catholic, and continue to follow Catholicism as it always was and has been encoded in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917).

On that basis, I challenge anyone to find a civilisation in the entirety of human history that was superior for human beings than Catholicism.

So far I have been presented with only two possible alternatives, both absurd.

  1. An unspecified antediluvian civilisation (Eg Atlantis, Lemuria, etc.) Considering I literally wrote The Face on Mars in which I essentially proved that such a civilisation not only existed, but likely was responsible for the destruction of certainly one, and possibly two planets in our solar system and then continued to have a war here, on our planet, the idea that such people were technologically more advanced certainly follows, but that they were a superior civilisation, is laughable. Certainly by the way I measure a civilisation anyway, which is not limited to mere technological capacity. And which should be obvious to anyone not mentally deficient: Destroying a couple of planets and then continuing a generational war between the few survivors on a third planet doesn’t exactly inspire one with confidence in such a people’s concepts of mercy, charity, humanity, and so on.
  1. An equally unspecified pre-Christian people. This smelt rather badly of some Pagan LARPing nonsense, since the “pre-christian” people in question were intentionally left unspecified. Possibly because I have been rather clear in making fun of people that pretend that their supposed Viking ancestors were “superior” in civilisation/religion/belief system to Catholics. Which is hilarious for a large number of reasons, but I’ll identify only three. First of all, the barbaric, vicious and rape-oriented “civilisation” of the Vikings was absolutely a fucking horror show that modern people barely have any concept of, and secondly, because that’s just based on the little that we have left about their practices we are absolutely sure of, because a bunch of the other things that they believed or engaged in remains lost to the fact that they never bothered to write any of it down, preserve it or even bother to continue perpetrating it. But personally, and most hilariously of all for me, is the fact that my own ancestors absolutely were from those genetic people. The Franks and Normans that formed overwhelmingly the largest part of the first Crusade (1095 AD) were the descendants of the very Vikings that up to a couple of centuries earlier (about 900 AD) raided and murdered many Catholic monasteries and monks. In order to stop this, the Catholics offered them lands and space to protect themselves from their raids, on the understanding that they would fight off their kinsmen who wanted to continue raiding. And over time, all of these people converted to Christianity, without losing their talent for battle. My own family line can directly be traced back to the returning Crusaders when the Outremer was essentially beginning to be overwhelmed after a couple of centuries of occupation with no help at all from the “Orthodox” Easterners who had asked for Catholic help to begin with, and with ever increasing costs borne by Catholic Europe alone, and increasing numbers of belligerent Muslims. The returning crusaders with my surname came to Italy via present day Albania, quashed a feud that had been ongoing for 200 years, then split into two branches, one that remained in the south; the Golden branch, since the King of Sicily had made them Marquis (as well as all future first-born sons), and a Silver one (wilder explorers) who went further north to Venice and took part in the war of Candia were they were again rewarded for military bravery and given a perpetual noble title of Patricians (the lowest of Nobles). So, if anyone at all knows anything about such people, it really is me, and no, the Vikings absolutely were NOT in any way, shape or form a superior “civilisation” to Catholicism. In fact it is questionable if one should even consider them a civilisation at all. And pretty much the same goes for any other ancient culture, Spartan, Athenian, Roman, all were far from pleasant societies than anyone alive today normally imagines. Nor can we say the Chinese dynasties, or the Imperial Japanese ones were superior civilisations. The Chinese were far more numerous sure, but in terms of conditions of life for the average Chinese? It’s laughable.

In conclusion, the only “attacks” that will be forthcoming will be from:

Boomer tier ‘Muricans saying “We went to the Moon!” No, you didn’t the Nazis did it for you, and no, you didn’t really go anywhere near the way you think you did. And in any case, Protestantism has only and purely been the secularisation of Christianity (Catholicism) which has got us to where it is today, with their transgender Bishops, 40,000 plus “demon-nimations” and one rule to rule them all: “Interpreth as thou will!”. The rampant Clown World face of the West currently is Protestantism writ large. It is the “acceptance” and “tolerance” for the demonic, which is, of course, the very intent of the founders of America, since it was financed and created by Freemasons with funds from the French Revolution and the same Freemasonic Mottos of Equality, Fraternity (brotherhood of man) and Liberty, which all translate ultimately to “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”. And since Protestants are absolutely ignorant of anything even remotely Christian, let me spell out that that law is literally the one Satanic Law, as espoused by Alistair Crowley.

Ignorant Eastern “Orthodox”, who will claim they are the true keepers of the faith, while trying to avoid the fact they are as split as the Protestants, with no visible head, their Churches segregated by nationality, but the final nail in their coffin being that they neither spread, the gospel anywhere close to how much the Catholics did, but rather, they stagnated, and secondly, their achievements in terms of humane evolution remained similarly stagnant, as did their art and philosophy. They didn’t create the scientific method, abolish slavery or change much of anything for the better. Catholics did.

Randoms. These can range from people who will try to pretend they are knowledgeable of Japanese civilisation, or Tibetan ones say, while missing the main point that even if we accepted the premise that Shintoism and the Samurai age was superior to Catholicism (it was not, but it certainly has a level of aesthetic appeal), or that Tibetan monasteries were the pinnacle of civilisation (they were and are not, and anyway the Chinks have taken them out) it remains a tiny fraction of the level and number of effects that Catholicism created on Earth when compared to these alternatives. The random brainwashed Protestants left bleating in the dark really have nothing meaningful to say. The so-called “Protestant work ethic” together with the Industrial Revolution, which can be placed under Protestant “achievements” is merely a mechanisation of human beings and ultimately does not actually produce the best quality of work, though it does produce large quantity of it while mostly dehumanising the people in it, reducing them to cogs in the giant machine dedicated to “profit”. And obviously all the evils that Protestantism has allowed to become “normal” by “tolerating” them remain too. Finally, pedophilic religions like Islam or Judaism are clearly inferior religions and systems of belief, one essentially still relegated to little more than desert nomads in terms of technology, ability and discovery, since all they have is taken or paid for and produced by Westerners, and the other hyper-focussed on enslaving the rest of humanity while turning a profit, in case their proclivities for raping children wasn’t enough.

I would certainly welcome anyone cogent, and dealing solely in dialectic, that would be willing to debate the fact that Catholicism is without question the best system for human beings that humanity has ever come up with, but so far the only two people that I thought might make a reasoned argument have either declined outright (Andrew Wilson – Eastern Orthodox), or stated that they may at some distant future date, possibly engage the topic with me (Vox Day – Protestant). And so far, I haven’t really come across anyone, on or offline that might have the intellectual capacity to hold up their end in an honest intellectual debate. Perhaps I should try to get a hold of William Lane Craig.

Commenters feel free to have a go, but respect the blog rules.

Why Nothing Works Anymore

The usual suspects running the planet all suffer from a disease that is incurable in their ranks:

They are completely deluded regarding how reality works. They essentially, and at its deepest level, believe in magic. And more specifically, in their ability to do this magic and have reality warp to their will.

This is a complex subject and I hope at least some of what I write here will be understood at the level I intend.

Depending on your outlook, you might say that “magic” to a certain level does exist, if you assume things like miracles can, have and do occur. Describing and defining this level of metaphysical reality is complex and difficult in part because of the very subject matter not easily lending itself to what I would call strict scientific testing procedures on the one hand, and partly because we quite simply don’t even have the right words to describe certain aspects of the phenomenon, so we use analogies and approximations and the result is sub-optimal; especially given the constant efforts by the wicked to increasingly pervert language at even the most basic level, such as using the word “gender” —which is a purely linguistic related word to define words in romantic languages that have a masculine/feminine— to try and describe imaginary, false, and absurd concepts of sexuality as if they were a natural and normal part of life.

So let me try and define a few concepts first, which will, if understood, not only explain why nothing works anymore, but how the world “rulers” are ultimately as doomed as the “useless eaters” they hate so much, though their eventual downfall and demise is on a much longer and gradual path, but I am not sure it is necessarily preferable to the relatively short and brutal one they have in store for us.

Please keep in mind that none of these definitions are necessarily perfect, or complete, except the first one that defines reality.

Reality: While we may not always be aware, or even capable of being aware or understanding every aspect of it (or even perhaps the majority of it when considered in terms of the entirety of creation) it remains a fact that reality is objective. That is, for any specific event, situation, perspective, at any given time and place, there is an overarching reality or truth that is true independent of the positions or relative aspects of perception or fact of any of the constituent parts of the situation, circumstance event or concept. As a result, our powers of observation, deduction and induction, based on logic, are fundamental in our ability to understand and deal with reality in a useful manner.

Ethics: All ethics, if they are to be objective, must, necessarily and inescapably, be tied to the Will of the Creator. Absent a creator, no system, behaviour or action can be said to be any more or less ethical or moral than any other. At best you can claim a preference of one kind or another, but there is, nor could be, any objective reason why murder or rape could be considered intrinsically wrong when compared to acts of charity. And ultimately, absent a creator and thus a valid, objective authority for any ethics or morals, nothing matters. Not only does the individual return to meaningless dust, but so does the entirety of the human race, with the same total absence of meaning. As an aside, for the nodding nihilistic atheists, this in itself is not the only reason or evidence for there being a Creator, it is just one of many data points.

Practical aspects of physical reality

While there are many and important aspects of abstract reality as well as philosophy and logic which may be considered non-physical, there are many aspects that concern primarily the physical realm, even if they may well be driven by non-physical realities, and the average human being is mostly concerned with this aspect of reality in his day to day life. This is not to say the non-physical aspects are not important, or even primary in their influencing and directing our actions and reactions on the physical plane, they absolutely are, and as such, the question inevitably arises for each one of us of how and why you do as you do. Or not do, as the case may be. In short, your behaviour on the physical plane, is absolutely informed by your philosophical belief. This is true even if you are not aware of what that belief is.

You might say as an Atheist you don’t believe in a creator (and as such you also don’t believe in ethics as objective, even if you will argue the opposite until you go blue in the face, all you can argue for is your preferences, which have authority over precisely no one outside of yourself unless you are willing to impose your preferences by the use of force. And yes, this is the absolute reality, even if you don’t realise it. Trust me, as an ex-atheist I at least understood this point even then) and so your “unbelief” informs your choices. You might never have considered any of these things deeply, as most have not, and thus inhabit the general morass of vague Agnosticism and Churchianity that most people exist in, which is really just a more comfortable self-deception to allow you to deny you only do what you prefer instead of what is objectively more just.

You may also ascribe to various philosophies, ideologies, religions and beliefs that are mostly wrong, or in any case at least partially wrong. In fact, it is a given, certainly in real Christianity that not a single human on Earth is perfect and only Jesus was, by virtue of being God made man as per the mystery of the Trinity.

Nevertheless, some ideas, philosophies and so on are demonstrably closer to reality and consistently produce better overall results than others. As such, it certainly matters what your beliefs are, regardless of whether you even know what they are in any depth or not.

Once you understand these three basic concepts, it becomes obvious why certain people behave in ways that are relatively absurd in terms of objective reality that is cognisant of an objective aspect of Truth, Justice and Ethics.

Let us now think about such things in some more detail and see why this naturally leads to a generic degradation of services at all levels.

Some moral points to determine your overall philosophy.

Let’s begin with a few easy ones.

Would you say a philosophy that accepts child rape as natural and normal is something you personally prefer as a philosophy? Or that at any rate you think is the best approximation of objective reality? If not, would you then agree that any such philosophy as might exist that has the normalisation of child rape as part of its tenets is a philosophy that even if it had other components that might be accurate in reflecting reality, this one glaring error in it is enough to declare the whole thing suspect and therefore not to be used or accepted in any general way as a whole?

I am certainly of that persuasion. If you are too, then you clearly cannot be a Muslim or a Jew, since both those religions make it explicitly clear that child rape is perfectly acceptable in their belief systems.

Of course that leaves a great many other systems of belief, but if you are similar to myself in regard to child rape, you may at least be steering clear of those two. Hinduism results in strict caste systems determined by birth, not any kind of meritocracy, and thus, aside from any other aspects of it I tend to be inclined to think it is nonsense, since I have met people from all walks of life and their character is not determined purely from who or where they were born to, but also by their choices in life. That still leaves Buddhism, Taoism and Shintoism, along with a general Zen Agnostic Stoicism. Buddhism has many facts and most rely on the principle of not doing harm, which is a good start, however, those versions that did rely on non-violence to extreme levels have been for the most part taken over by other philosophies that are quite happy to use force. See Tibet for example. Or the Amish when rules against raw milk came into force.

Taoism, shintoism and generic Zen agnosticism and Stoicism all are generally relatively practical, can encompass aspects of self-defence and do not concern themselves overmuch with the after life, other than a generic reverence for the dead ancestors and maintaining a good overall family name reputation. Its adherence to various principles of justice or ethics can be somewhat arbitrary in that they are most often coloured by regional, cultural or geographic aspects and can vary greatly from place to place. This tends to suggest a general lack of coherence that indicates it cannot be a good approximation of reality beyond general over-arching views that are held together by a feeble reliance of possibly tradition or general amorphous concepts of “justice” that in any case each individual may feel personally different about and thus react differently to. Absent an overarching moral imperative beside a generic “do good” perspective, what exactly “doing good” entails, as well as its opposite, remains at least partially subjective to each person and thus ultimately not particularly fair or objective in the finer aspects of life.

When you look at Christianity, the situation is not much different. Almost all versions of what people call “Christianity” do not, in fact, have detailed, written down, specific positions, rules, principles or laws that one can refer to, other than one: Catholicism.

The result is that in every other aspect of Churchianity, the adherence tends to again be of a generic, amorphous, undefined type, of “overall do good” with the only real difference from say Buddhists, being that they ascribe their behaviour to being “Jesus followers” instead of “Buddha followers” or imitators. Leaving aside the fact that in both instances the practitioners fall very far short of the imitation of their supposed Godhead.

Only Catholicism took the step of ensuring its rules were codified and written down throughout the two millennia of its existence, and even that was a rather messy and difficult thing to follow as the documents piled up and only a select few had full access to them as well as the capacity to grasp their nuances and details. Finally however, all of these documents were vetted, examined and checked for ensuring no contradiction existed and were summarised and encoded in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917. This astonishing document essentially comprised (and referenced for completion) all of the dogmatic beliefs of the Catholic Church into one volume. No other religion has ever done or even attempted this. And here are a few important points to note:

Firstly: The broad history of Catholicism demonstrates many things, but among the two most important ones are that:

  • It was ferociously attacked from the very start, and many attempts at subverting and changing and perverting it have been made constantly throughout its history. The very fact it continued and continues to exist unchanged in its core (divine) philosophies, while making various changes and allowances (all of which can and at times have been returned to origin and/or done away with) for the human aspect of managing a world-wide organisation is in itself probably indicative of supernatural and miraculous protection given the absolute flaws in every human alive and the clear infiltration in the Church from the earliest times of frauds, impostors, nefarious enemies of the Church, greedy and power-hungry misers and so on.
  • Catholicism has not only civilised the world in terms of providing many human improvements like the scientific method, the abolition of slavery, the elevating of women to a role in the family that is respected while not pedastalised, an increase in art, architecture and beauty in general, as well as the raising of logic, mathematics and philosophy as a whole towards a more holistic, humane and charitable aspect, but it has done all this all while respecting the individual instead of mechanising him and his contributions to the human race.

These two aspects of catholicism are absolutely fundamental to evaluating it in the proper human and historical context. Despite many evil and corrupt men that pretended to be Catholics throughout the ages, the overall contribution of Catholicism to the human race has been overwhelmingly positive to a degree that absolutely no other philosophy in all the known history of mankind can make claim to. It’s not even remotely close. And this point alone should immediately make you begin to suspect that perhaps then, at least certainly in its overarching ways, Catholicism may indeed be the best representation of reality we have ever been able to come up with. This in itself, as a purely intellectual exercise is a fascinating topic to explore. If you do take the time to do so, it becomes pretty obvious fairly quickly that the Catholic Church too, suffered a huge tectonic shift as a result of the Vatican II heresies where two millennia of dogmatic and divinely inspired rules were literally flipped to their opposites. Luckily, prior to this event, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 had already been put together since Pope Pius X had seen the writing on the wall with regard to the massive subterfuges infiltrations that had started since the late 1700s and by the start of the 20th Century were Hellhound towards the destruction of every royal House in Europe (because since Charlemagne nearly a millennium earlier, European nobility had been recognised as the defenders of the Catholic faith). By 1958 however, the last valid Pope (as per Catholic dogma) had died and impostor antipope had usurped the Throne of Peter (this was not a unique occurrence, there have been over 40 antipopes in the Church’s history before 1958). This is clear and obvious if you simply follow the rules defined and described for all eternity in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which covers the entire period of the history of the Church up to 1917. The only other ex-cathedra documents which need to be considered are those published by valid Popes from 1917 to 1958. After 9th October 1958, there has, to date, not been a valid Pope back on the throne of Peter, although valid Priests and Bishops continue to exist, that is, the ones that never faltered and continue to follow the proper Catholic rules as set out in the CoCL of 1917, the valid Popes, accepted catholic tradition and the Bible. None of these people are in the Vatican currently, which is now an infested hive of pedophiles, freemasons, satanists and homosexual orgies fuelled by cocaine.

There is a third aspect of actual Catholicism (now referred to as Sedevacantism [from Latin: Empty Chair, as the chair of Peter being empty of a valid Pope]) that is also extremely important: A willingness to defend itself by whatever appropriate means, including violence if necessary. This universal divine right every living creature has, is a natural part of Catholicism, as is the concept of the death penalty for certain crimes. This means that Catholicism does not suffer from the “non-violent” trope that has been pushed on humanity by those who want to have the monopoly on violence. In this respect then, Sedevacantist Catholics are the biggest real threat to those who would rule us by virtue of their “magic” word-spells.

And if you look around, the Satanists in the Vatican rail against sedevacatists with more vitriol than any other group, while they extend brotherly love to religions and people that literally would prefer every Christian on Earth dropped dead. It’s quite the contrast to observe. Now, why should this be?

Well, consider:

The ruling class that sees itself as lords and masters of humanity with everyone not a member of their club being at best their slave or sexual plaything to be discarded and used at will, from children all the way to adults, operate by subterfuge and manipulation. In their view, their cleverness at making you believe, agree with and even celebrate increasingly outrageous nonsense is indeed their very power. And you can hardly blame them for believing their word-magic is a real thing. They have, after all, achieved almost all of their objectives to date, even if it took several millennia. The point is that just like the Gordian knot was “dissolved” instantly by Alexander’s sword, all the carefully crafted web of lies overlaid upon falsity, baked in with deception, fermented in duplicity and matured in subversion, to which you have been subjected constantly since birth, will come crashing down in one fell swoop once you see the pattern and investigate it and recognise the constant, pervasive deception you have been subjected too. Once you dig deeper into human history and go to primary sources instead of the narratives you have been fed, and once you begin to follow the money, all the way back to their origin today, and once you follow it in the media, in entertainment, in politics, and you see it, and you keep seeing the same pattern over, and over, and over, it becomes impossible to be fooled any more.

Once that happens, the word spells no longer work on you. The “magic” of the usurpers is forever broken. At that point, you realise that you and we have something that is akin to Alexander’s sword: The simple ability to build. To do. To create. And that as long as we ignore, excise, ostracise, and eject the “wizards” from our midst, there is very little they can do. They are completely incapable in the real world of things and truth and objective reality. Like the wizard of Oz they are absolutely impotent when faced with such things as objective, factual, physical reality.

If you doubt it, look at the war in Ukraine. Incapable of doing anything physical with any kind of skill themselves, they bamboozle, and “word-magic” hundreds of thousands or millions to their death in wars that they orchestrate but never take part in. How many wars would take place if the people behind the curtain were paced on the very front of the first front line? Almost none. What would have happened if every Ukrainian male had said, “No. I will not fight. Let Putin come in, demolish the CIA offices and the CIA biolabs and take out the puppet government the USA has frankly admitted it placed in charge of Ukraine from 2014 using word magic, money and Mossad operatives to cause the Maidan “revolts” as they do everywhere when they start their colour revolutions.”? There would have been no war. Millions of people would not have been displaced, the totally corrupt elements of Ukrainian society would have been removed and the people controlling America would have screeched to high heaven with little consequence.

If you can understand all of the above, you will begin to understand that nothing works only because you have been fooled into believing a complete web of interwoven lies at every level and have been rendered practically useless in the physical world. You have been coerced and manipulated to stop learning any real physical skills and farm out the whole thing to third and fourth worlders. So much so that in the intervening 70 years, some of those guys have since got really good at the manufacturing of everything from widgets to microchips. See China.

Even as a child when the concept of “export of goods” was first presented to me in primary school at age 7, I thought it made no sense because they told me the best stuff gets saved for export. I was like…”Why? Keep the best stuff for us and sell the less good stuff to those who have none of it and need it even if it’s not the best.” It literally is a concept so simple a child gets it that you do not outsource your defence weapon construction and key industry manufacturing abilities. But this is apparently too difficult for the puppeteers to understand. Why? Because, remember, they believe in word magic.

All you need to do is get back to basic, rebuild things yourself, educate everyone around you about the wizards and their lies and word-magic nonsense and simply keep them and their lies out of your head first, family second, friends next and community last.

Let them have no hold on you at all. Eventually, they may well try to use some of their brainwashed servants to try and apply force to you, but by then you should have built up enough reality-based effects that you should have quickly become a veritable force to be reckoned with and as the education of these concepts continues, the wizards will become less and less powerful.

The current demise in the service quality at all levels is a direct result of this nonsensical belief in lies and word-magic over the practical, empirical and factual reality that makes your nose hurt when you walk into a wall.

Whatever you decide to do, do it yourself. Do it well. You want to code? learn it yourself. You want to farm? Farm. You want to build engines, you start learning how to do it. That’s all you need to do. And surround yourself only with people of this mindset. Marry and make as many children as you can. Do that, and even if you have passed the half-century mark, like I have, there is a good chance you will see some good fruits amidst the chaos that is coming even before you drop dead. You will quite likely see the beginnings of flourishing mini-city states and communities that are so self-sufficient that in a couple of generations they will likely really begin to consider becoming a star-spanning civilisation. The technology exists. It the communities free of the parasitic invasion of the liars that are lacking. So, do as I do. Build them. You build them. You. Not your neighbour, not some other guy… you. Or if not, at least join one. Not everyone is born to create and do. Some are better at following and supporting, but do one or do the other. any other option is a loss for you and your entire progeny, if it even will exist, without your choosing to either do or support.

Orthobros Complaint

A reader on SG had a comment regarding my piece here, where I essentially bullet-pointed the failings of all religions when compared to Catholicism. It was really a side-issue though relevant to the post, and in any case, the Orthobros came out best of the lot really, nevertheless, we have this comment from Anthony.

Hey man, il just reiterate point I made on SG as you requested. The Orthobros to my knowledge did not spread the Gospel as far as Rome did since they did not have a globe spanning empire to do so. Spain to my knowledge did most of the converting among the Catholics which I credit to this. Other Catholic nations were functionally as “insular” as the Orthodox in their missionary work. Also the Orthodox converted people spanning from the Mediterranean all the way up to Russia which is respectable given their sphere of influence of that time period. 

I have alot of respect for you and your work and look forward to your reply.

He sort of missed out Portugal, but even if we were to concede the point, which I do not, because explain to me if the Orthos were so keen on spreading the gospel it was Catholic missionaries getting boiled alive in oil and crucified in Japan (and samurai secretly converting to Catholicism by putting little crosses on the tang of their katanas) and not orthobros who are literally next door?

But aside that point, it would do absolutely nothing to answer to the following questions:

If the Orthos were such good Christians, please explain how/why:

  • They asked for help from the Catholics after failing to defend their own lands from the depredations of Muslims, some 40 years AFTER they supposedly split from Catholicism?
  • When the Catholics went to help them they immediately turned against them after these won some battles with the muslims and variously, throughout the first and subsequent crusades:
    • Lied about providing food and water and logistics to the fighting Catholics. They would leave them stranded in hope the Muslims killed them off.
    • Made pacts with the Muslims and even joined muslims in battle against the Catholics that had come to rescue them a their request from Islam.
    • Repeatedly failed to help and aid the Catholics and repeatedly sabotaged, lied did not fulfil any promises made to them.
    • They did this for three crusades in a row. And the Catholics STILL came to help them. Then when on the fourth crusade the Catholics finally sacked Constantinople (a “ravaging” according to the Orthos but a very mild sacking by all other objective witnesses at the time that reported on it) they are still whining about it today.
    • Despite all this the Catholic held the line in the Outremer for 200 YEARS! Having to fund it all from Catholic Europe because the Orthos wouldn’t lift a finger to help maintain and recover their own lands they had let the Muslims take until the Catholics put them in their place.
    • When the Catholics finally could not justify the continued expense of maintaining a huge fighting force in lands they didn’t even lay claim to, and they offered to the Orthos to please at least take all the fortresses we built over and carry on protecting your own lands, they refused, letting it all go to the Muslims.
  • The Filioque – It’s a retarded argument. If you actually read the Bible it’s pretty clear that the Catholics are right. The Ortho “argument” is basically Protestant nonsense where you have to twist things just so to “interpret” it so it fits your singular perspective.
  • All the Orthos agreed the Pope was the main dude many times before 1054, and did so again after, including at the council of Florence in 1400-something.
  • You still have the problem that if the Orthos are “right”, like the Protestants, they still need to explain how come they went along with everything for a thousand years plus. It’t the same retarded “argument” the Protties make. It makes zero sense.

In short, no my dude, Orthodoxy is simply not the answer. It comes a LOT closer than protestantism, and it probably fills some lack in the Protestant zeitgeist Anglos are all raised in for a sense of “tradition” just like the average American is bowled over by things like the fact my house dated back to some 300 years ago, but in Europe we have Churches that have stood where they are for well over a thousand years and it’s normal. Plus the Orthos are not in any way coherent among themselves and have various other practices that are in error.

Truth is a hard road, and only a few will take it, we know this, but an honest man cannot help but try and follow it.

I wish you all the best in what I hope will be your continued search.

Heretics, Heretics Everywhere…

…and not a brain to think.

Yes, I have adapted my own adaptation of the famous poem about being lost at sea.

Water, Water, Water everywhere, And not a drop to drink.

At about age 15 or 16 I changed it to:

Idiots, Idiots, Idiots everywhere, And not a brain to think.

But one evolves in thinking, so, the slightly new version.

It was brought on by reading Malcom Collins’, rather retarded take on a topic I have pondered at times here and there, and which is somewhat covered (not fully yet, but it will be) in my Nazi Moon book.

That is, religion in an Interstellar society.

The simple reality of it is that this idea is not in any way new. Aquinas touched on it as did I think at least one other doctor of the Church, though I forget which one. Dan Simmons, explored it probably in the most depth, though using the works of the arch-heretic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which paradoxically, brought me closer to Christianity, probably given how far from it I was.

The question is only apparently interesting though, because if you think about it for a few minutes, or even seconds, it hinges on an unspoken premise of doubt. A mind-worm of heresy and gnosticism that corrodes the truth while acting in darkness. Because ultimately either you know your religion is real and true and therefore the ultimate truth, or you doubt it. Now, for myself, I thoroughly understand that essential doubt, that questioning query, that unanswered “deep” question you think you have. I lived that way for about 43 years, despite the fact that by age 16 I had rejected atheism as untenable, and remained a Zen-Agnostic that simply could not believe in the resurrection with any real faith. While I did not discount it completely, I had absolutely no evidence in my life that anything comes back from the dead in a corporeal form. I was ready to accept continuation of life after death in some fashion, ghosts, spirits, reincarnation, transmigration of the soul, whatever, were all at least possibilities, but rising from the properly dead, Lazarus of Jesus style, was something I gave a vanishingly small chance to be true to.

So I understand the wish to try and find a system of life based on a philosophy rooted in truth, and thinking Christianity is wanting. And Catholicism also being very much far from what I would expect from the true religion, as it is presented to us with Bergoglio as Pope and his pedophiles and homosexual indulging in cocaine fuelled orgies while pretending to be bishops and priests right in the Vatican. It is only when I looked at Christianity from the start and discovered that Catholicism has nothing to do with the Satanists currently pretending to be Catholics that infest the Vatican, and realised that Vatican II was when the great usurpation had happened. Yet, after my road to Damascus moment, without which it is unlikely I would be a sedevacantist Catholic today, the doubt about Jesus resurrecting simply vanished. And strangely, I found myself reconnecting with a part of myself I was unaware remained. A kind of innocence I had maybe still at age 2 or so, that has been shredded shortly thereafter by living on this planet. But aside my personal sensations, the astonishing thing is that Catholicism , the real one, not the fake poisonous version spouted by the child-raping enthusiasts of the Vatican, not only modelled reality better than any other philosophy I had encountered, but it answered many of the long-unanswered questions I had. The problem of evil, how prayer actually works, the consequences of free will, and many, many, many more. It also is the best model for predicting how people in general will act and even how large trends may go.

Malcom’s idea of cobbling together an “Abhramic religion” for a potentially interstellar society, is simply the thrashings of a man that has no real conviction, no real faith, and no real reasoning capacity. It is the grasping attempts of someone outside the cathedral pretending he can make his own version of it outside it that is “better”. In short, he is a heretic, or a gnostic. He may even be genuine in his attempts, but he is like a cargo-cultist thinking if he carves a shape that looks like an aeroplane out of a palm tree, that he will be able to fly in it. No, Malcom. you will not fly in it.

All you need to do is read the first paragraph of his post to know he is not a great thinker.

Most traditional religions in the world, while relatively more resistant to prosperity-induced fertility collapse, are still facing extinction (just with a slight delay). This buys these religions precious time to build better defenses and acquire more allies for the coming trials. Those that indolently decide to return to a structure and mindset that evolved within (and was optimized for) a pre-internet, pre-AI world, … heck pre industrial world—blinded by arrogance and Golden Age Thinking—deserve their fate. Only through cultural innovation does our species survive.

Let us count the ways in which his thinking is flawed.

Firstly, it is absolutely clear that if any religion is true, then that truth is absolute. If you assume a loving God, then that truth is also as complete as humanity can ever understand it. And will continue to be so to the end of time. Therefore, there is simply no need to “upgrade” anything concerning modernity. It is the very core of the infiltrators, heretics and especially gnostics, that you have to “adapt” or “improve” on the absolute truth. Most telling, Bergoglio recently changed the Ave Maria and also the Pater Noster. This Satanic protector of pedophiles, thinks he can improve on the very prayer that Jesus gave us, the Pater Noster.

It is, of course an obvious tell that either you are an intentional deceiver, or, at best, you simply do not believe any religion is true.

Secondly, he also does not believe in God, nor His Love, Mercy and (at least for Catholics) the promise of His always being with us and His return.

If he did, he would not worry about his enemies so much, nor would he be trying to make alliances with random un-believers. Which is not to say that I wouldn’t stand shoulder to shoulder with a Muslim if it meant cutting down the Davos Satanists, but the best a Catholic and a Muslim can hope for is separate nations with high walls and a rigidly strict code of conduct for either side visiting the other. Most often, the historical relation between Muslims and Catholics is that Muslims will try to wipe Catholics out, until the Catholics begin to respond, then the Muslims tend to retreat, until the tide shifts again. And given Islam’s intent, it is unlikely that they will leave Catholic alone even in an ideal setting.

The point is that if your God loves you, and your religion is true, as St. Bernard would say, what are you even worried about? Martyr of warrior that goes down in battle or that wins glory for God, if you are with God, what threat does death hold for you? Or hardship? It is all just temporary. And while some trials will absolutely test men to breaking point, if you truly believe, you will not lose your faith. the story of Job being the classic example.

Thirdly, his contempt for his predecessors is self-evident and little does he realise that a true system that is given to us by a Loving God, cannot ever be incomplete, or “not up to date”. Truth doesn’t have a sell-by date, Malcom.

As for his last sentence, it clearly demonstrates Malcom is a sub-par autist (which his mannerism makes quite clear, if you watch the video) that hasn’t even the capacity to observe the last hundred years or so of history and draw some conclusions concerning “cultural innovation” and the over 100 million lives murdered by it, not to mention however many millions will die as a result of the latest “cultural innovation” of “medicine” and how many children have been satanically mutilated on the “cultural innovation” of transgenderism, and on, and on, and on.

If you wish to know what an Interstellar religion that would work would look like, you need look no further than proper Catholicism, which today is only found in Sedevacantism, and being true, necessarily rejects all other religions and pretences at “Christianity”, precisely because the truth is only one.

Poul Anderson, wrote The High Crusade some 50 years ago, and yet it remains a fantastically entertaining and excellent book, which I think better describes a truly Interstellar religion than anything else I have come across, including Dan Simmons’ modernised pseudo-catholic version.

Anderson’s work is great because it also reminds the reader that until Henry the VIII, England was Catholic, and if the residents of the United Kingdom had any true idea of what was taken from them, there might be another crusade tomorrow.

In short then, Malcom, if man ever goes to the stars, the religion that will last out there with him is the only true one. And there is only One Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

Just a Reminder

In theory, all supposed “Christians” who considered themselves “based” are in agreement with he above statement.

In practice, not a single Protestant actually lives by it.

If Christianity is true, then it necessarily means that a loving God who is the epitome of Truth, Love, Mercy, and… JUSTICE, has, necessarily MUST have, very clear and defined rules as to what is and is not good. And thus what is acceptable or not acceptable behaviour. This is why the Catholic Church and actual catholics have always maintained that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. And that non-Catholics are not in fact Christians at all, but heretics.

This is also absolutely obvious and true regarding anything that is true. It either is true, just and correct, or it is not. Just as in math, the tiniest deviation from the truth will eventually lead to untenable errors and collapse.

Since the Catholic Church was there from the very start, with Popes and everything else, it necessarily MUST follow that EITHER the Christian God exists and therefore Catholicism MUST be true, and indeed infallible, OR the Christian God does not exist and all of Christianity is a lie.

Furthermore, we can tell that if the Christian God is real and True, then His Church MUST be infallible, that is, the official pronouncements of it must also be TRUE. And while any number of men and women within it can be in abysmal error, or even part of the enemy forces, the overall official position of His Church cannot be flawed. A Perfect God cannot create or allow an imperfect Church to exist on Earth. While He can and does allow imperfect humans (because Free Will) His Church will be supernaturally protected from error.

And this has indeed been the case with the Catholic Church, which has all of its rules written down in the Code of Canon Law of 1917 plus whatever Papal encyclicals were released up to 9th October 1958 when the last valid Pope died. Everything since has been the work of Satanists, infiltrated into the Church for at least 200 years and creators of the Satanic and Heretical abomination that is Vatican II.

The only people still holding to the truth and the official position of the Catholic Church are Sedevacantists.

Because tolerating evil, lies and fakeness is NOT part of Christianity and only Catholics are Christians, this is why Catholics do not pray with non-Catholics or consider their “Churches” as valid or relevant.

And in most cases the protestants get really upset about it, yet it is an obvious way to be.

It’s why I always make the analogy of how much sewage to you want in your ice cream.

The truth is ONE.

It is infallible. It is eternal. It is not open to corruption.

And the truth itself remains what it is regardless of what you feel about it. Just like God Himself.

So, if you are not a Sedevacantist Catholic yet, you may want to ask yourself why that is. What, exactly, is your position that you think it somehow can avoid these inescapable logical conclusions? Because there is absolutely not a single logical argument against what I have written here. In fact, the only objection I have ever heard worth mentioning at all, from even the most intelligent Protestants is simply this:

“I feel that…” And fill in the blanks. Well, I have news for you. Some people “feel that” they should be of a sex different than the one they were born as. And yet, surgically mutilating yourself doesn’t change the fact you will remain the sex you were born as, for the entirety of the rest of your life.

This is much the same. It really doesn’t matter how you feel about it. Maths is a thing. Reason and logic are a thing. The Truth is a thing. Your feelings about any of the above? They are not a thing to anyone anywhere except you.

All content of this web-site is copyrighted by G. Filotto 2009 to present day.
Website maintained by IT monks