Archive for the ‘Sedeprivationism’ Category

And now on the R&R…

This is a detailed commentary on the Catholic Church. If you are a regular reader here you should know all this, but as readership here has gone up considerably lately, here is a cliff’s notes. For a better cliff’s notes read Believe! Or for really in depth stuff read RTCC.

If you already know the below, skip to the next section below.

1. What the Catholic Church actually is and is not.

The Catholic Church is the Church created on Earth by Jesus Christ. Its members put together the Bible and had a hierarchy with Popes, Bishops and Priests from the start. The Church went on unchanged in its divine principles and with rules for these as well as for the governing of the human aspects of law, that were all eventually codified in one document called the Code of Canon Law of 1917. This collated all the rules in one place from literally thousands of documents spread over 2000 years. This document, along with whatever Papal encyclicals or ex Cathedra rulings of valid Popes were issued from 1917 until 9th October 1958 constitute the official rules of the Church under Roman Law. Which differs very much from Common or Anglo-Saxon law and even more so from American “law” which is really a joke.

After 1958, fake Catholics (Freemasons, Communists, homosexuals, pedophiles, and Satanists of every kind (carbonari, illuminati, etc etc)) had so infiltrated the Church that Angelo Roncalli, a confirmed freemason and thus a non-Catholic satanist (Catholics can’t be Freemasons) was falsely and illegally elected “Pope”. Effectively being an antipope. This is not new. The Church had over 40 antipopes before 1958. However, we have had nothing but antipopes since 1958. So what most people think is the Catholic Church is instead a hive of pedophiles and Satanists of various persuasions. There is not a single Catholic in the Vatican today.

The only Catholics left are those that still follow the same Catholicism that always was and that is embodied in the CoCL of 1917. Because as a result of Roncalli and his next Satanist in line, Montini, the heretic and abominable Vatican 2 documents were produced which literally tried to invert Catholicism from the ground up and has largely succeeded in the minds of most people who are not Catholic as well as a majority of supposedly “Catholic” people who, ignorant (by design) of their own religion, assume that Bergoglio or any of the antipopes before him were valid. None are. These impostors are all Novus Ordo (New Order) fake Catholics that have inverted the whole of Catholicism including the Holy Mass. I call them Novus Orco as they are simply the latest breed of Orc.

And the reasons for this are very simple and clear and laid out in the CoCL of 1917, which specifies anything these impostors do is fake and irrelevant to actual Catholicism and a lie.

So… the only Catholics left are now known as Sedevacantists (from when the seat of the Pope is empty because between Popes usually when one dies). The rules of Catholicism are such that certain things are done differently when between Popes, a condition known as interregnum (from latin, between realms).

We have now been without Pope, that is, in an extended interregnum since 1958. Contrary to the intentionally maleducated masses, the Catholic Church does not end without a Pope, it simply waits for a real one, and cases of over 70 years of confusion have happened before. Nevertheless, a Catholic believes that no matter how bad things get, the true Church will always remain visible until the return of Jesus (by which time the End Times will be upon us and only a tiny fragment of believers will remain, as told in Revelation).

And while Sedevacantist Catholics are a tiny percentage when compared to the fooled millions who think they are Catholics, but are just fooled ignorants, our Church is certainly far more visible today than it was, say, under Emperor Nero. And we are growing in numbers every day. That said, the attacks against us are many and multiform, which is to be expected, since we are the last Christians left on Earth.

The most pernicious nonsense is not the lies that comes from Bergoglio and his Imps, or the brainwashed Protestants screeching at us try at “I am too a Christian!!” As they tear up, or even the schismatic and insular “Orthodox” of the East, (or their almost extinct friends the Copts) who, at least, are both worlds closer to the truth than any Protestant can ever be. No, the worst attacks come from closer to home, the Recognise and Resist crowd.

These are supposed Catholics that advise, against all reason, logic, and Catholic dogma, that you should both recognise Bergoglio as a Pope yet resist his rules as he is behaving badly. This is nonsense. If a Pope is actually a Pope then his rulings are valid and as a Catholic you should obey them. If he is not a Pope then his rulings are lies and nonsense and should be totally discarded along with him and anyone that agrees with him.

There is no grey area here.

The society of SSPX is one such R&R organisation.

2. Why anything other than Sedevacantism is NOT Catholicism.

In one image:

The Protestant pushed idiotic idea that if you put a man in a situation where sex with women is forbidden he will turn into a pedophile, is about as cogent as saying that if you put a lion in a crocodile enclosure he will somehow become a reptile. No. Straight men that choose the priesthood do not become pedophiles because they give up sex. Pedophiles join the Satanic Novus Ordo cult to get access to children.

The SSPX is ultimately merely an extension of the Novus Orco Satanic tribe. While many good people came out of it and in due course became priests or bishops or lay people of proper Catholic persuasion, ultimately only Sedevacantism is Catholicism. And while much, much, closer to sedevacantism, the traditionalist sedeprivationists, who still cling to a very charitable thesis printed in Cassiciacum back in the 1970s are clearly clutching at straws.

This theory says that the fake Popes might have been elected validly (they were not and we now know conclusively none were validly elected) and this might “materially” be Popes but not formally or spiritually. Which for practical purposes was at the time a very charitable attempt to appeal to the conscience of the fake clergy and those who went along with it to repent and start acting like proper Catholics and reject the heresies of Vatican 2. But with the benefit of time, it is clear that those who side in any way with the Novus Orco are either orcs themselves, or soon will be, and as such we should have nothing to do with them.

Lastly, a quick reminder that as a priest, as with any type of leadership position, the penalties for fraud, misconduct and taking advantage of people you preside over, should be much harsher than for a normal person.

Which is why in proper Catholic times, if a priest ever did molest a child, he was taken to the nearest bog by the town’s men and drowned in it. Usually with the child that was offended as witness, so that they knew that no man there thought less of him for what had been done to him, and all loved him enough to risk jail for… well, we can’t call it murder, lynching without a license? Executing justice outside of official channels? Something like that anyway. And in many cases if the local police chief or sheriff did come to question anyone, the same group of me would all stand, possibly armed, shoulder to shoulder, and the law officer would invariably decide no crime had been committed.

If you are a father of children, ponder these things and ask yourself what world would you prefer to live in? Sedevacantists already know, as actual Catholics have known throughout the ages.

You may not be or care to become a Catholic, but you can hardly argue against the culture we built for the rest of the world, or the one we still have and are busy rebuilding for future generations, who will remember us and our names, as even Protestants may recall the names of Crusaders from a thousand years ago that they somehow conveniently forget were all, to a man, Catholics like us, and not Protestants of any kind.

The message is always the same. There is only ONE Church. The same one since He built it and told us to keep His rules. And you are either in it, or you are outside of it. Accept no substitutes, imitations, or plagiarisms.

No related posts.

By G | 2 May 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary

BELIEVE !

Believe! is now available in digital format direct from the E-store. The paper version remains available at Amazon.

This little book surprised me most of all, because with my completely inability to care about marketing myself or my books, it nevertheless found its own audience by word of mouth I guess and I have people emailing me that they bought several copies and they leave them in random churches with a note to take it.

It’s a pretty short book at only 98 pages and can be read in a couple of hours but has plenty of references and covers all the main perspectives of religious thought, or absence of it in turn.

At first individuals, then families would write me to let me know that they were becoming Sedevacantist Catholics, in some cases, nominally “Catholic” people thanked me for finally resolving for them why they had lapsed and felt the Catholic Church was not really any longer the real Church (The Novus Ordo Vatican II heretic mess is absolutely not only not Catholic, it is Satanic in nature and form). They returned to the real Church finding proper Priests and Bishops and getting baptised or becoming members of the scattered churches that are left and going to proper traditional Holy Mass.

The numbers of Sedevacantists, that is, Catholics that are realising what has really happened in 1958 continue to grow. Sedevacantist groups in England, Italy, France, the USA, Canada, Russia and even a budding little group in Finland, started by a young couple now expecting their first child, continue to grow.

You can’t stop the truth.

And although this little book was really mostly explaining my own perspective on things, it was written in the way I would have liked to find someone discussing these topics in my decades during which the closest I came to religion was a generally Zen-Agnostic somewhat existentialist or fatalist view that probably resembled Samurai-era Shintoism more than any kind of Christianity.

Apparently, my very direct take on things, including the nonsense that gets peddled as “Christianity” has resonated with more people than I ever expected. I hope you read it and enjoy it, and more importantly, it helps you in your passage through life.

No related posts.

By G | 27 February 2024 | Posted in Believe, Books, Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary

Sedeprivationism vs Sedevacantism

There has been a long and quiet suffering by many Catholics (sedevacantists) that goes beyond the mere situation of the Church presently with regard to the non-Catholic, Freemasons, Satanists and impostors presently occupying the Vatican. After all, that situation is easily understood by anyone that cares to look into Vatican II and is in any case prophesied in the visions of many saints as well as in Revelation, so really, there isn’t much to worry about.

The situation concerns the growing gulf between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists.

If you are interested in the details, you can either read my Reclaiming the Catholic Church, available on Amazon in paper format, or for less in digital format, direct from my E-Store.

Or you could read the argument as presented here, which is essentially absolutely correct.

I was unaware of the “Totalist” position, when I wrote my book, but logic is logic, and I made it clear in that book, as well as the reasons why, the only nod to the word sedeprivationism that I acknowledge was that technically it was a better name because the chair of Peter is not actually empty, but filled by an impostor that needs to be thrown off it on his ear ASAP.

But that is not what Sedeprivationists mean when they use the term, and they try to hold onto the completely outmoded and outdated theory of Cassiciacum of Father, and later Bishop, Guérard Des Lauriers. As I stated in RTCC, des Lauriers’ theory was a very charitable and possibly briefly “valid” idea to present to the world so as to give the more timid and cowardly clergy of the day (1965 to 1978 or so) a chance to speak up or at least take a position that did not promote the completely heretical Vatican II event and all those associated with it.

The Code of Canon Law of 1917, and simple logic a child can arrive at, is clear that since Roncalli was invalidly elected on at least three separate counts:

  1. He was a Freemason, which means he was not, and could not be, a Catholic.
  2. He was “elected” only after Giuseppe Siri was actually elected twice, and blackmailed into not accepting in order to protect what otherwise he was told would be a massacre of Catholic Bishops in the Communist East. Blackmail and any event that forces a non-free vote automatically renters the election invalid.
  3. Even if you ignore those two points it cannot be contested at all that Roncalli approved and signed off on the first two documents of Vatican II, one of which contains direct heresy in a number of ways and the other though not containing direct heresy was a document that said the heresy of Vatican II should be spread throughout the world by every means possible, so it was heretical in intent if not actual words of the text itself. This even was and is absolutely enough to designate Roncalli an antipope and as such completely invalid.

Montini came up after Roncally, and produced the remaining 14 documents of Vatican II every one of which is replete with heresy and inverts catholic dogma. He also changed the mass, which is absolutely not permitted so there is absolutely no doubt he too defected from the Catholic faith as per canon 188 part 4, and that if we are so generous as to assume he was a valid Catholic to begin with, which is questionable at best.

Every claimant to the Petrine see after Montini continued to promote and promulgate Vatican II and its manifest heresies, meaning they too at best defected from the Faith, but in any case had already done so by not denouncing Vatican II. And the same goes for any supposed clergy that does not reject Vatican II and its fake “Popes”.

This is not a matter of opinion, but one of Canon Law.

The position of the supposed Sedeprivationists is essentially a modified form of “recognise and resist”. On top of which Bishop Des Lauriers’ thesis, which I have in the original French, and have read, is also really doing quite the disservice to Aristotle, using concepts of form and spirit or material and formal that clearly Aristotle never intended to be used that way and which really have no place in Catholic theology.

Nevertheless, I can understand the wish to give some kind of a charitable “out” to people who might have been on the fence in the tumultuous times of the usurpation of the Church from 28th October 1958 to say the end of 1965, after Vatican II finished, but even if we generously allow for a period of say ten or twelve years after that, surely, by 1978 everyone that was going to call a heretic a heretic had ample time to do so, and those who did not and worse, continued to promote Vatican II, like the cowardly Vigano, who even has a doctorate in Canon Law, confirmed themselves as Heretics too, falling foul of the same Canon 188.4.

This is really not hard.

The Sedeprivationist clergy seems bent on “hoping” for a miraculous conversion of Bergoglio and the other pedophiles, Satanists, cocaine-driven homosexuals busy doing gay orgies in the Vatican and so on. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, the rule is that a reformed heretic should have authority over absolutely no one and should spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance, so even if the miracle of conscience, repentance and truth hit every one of those miserable scumbags in the head and they honestly converted right there, they would STILL not be allowed to act as clergy, perform sacraments or do anything else that clergy does, as Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio makes perfectly clear and which is still referenced by Canon 188.4 which in any case is moot since it was an ex cathedra pronouncement valid in perpetuity and was in any case the rule before it ever needed to be spelt out by Pope Paul IV in the 16th Century.

So, by all possible perspectives, the Sedeprivationist view is in error. And while the clergy espousing it are absolutely valid priests and Bishops, no one is questioning that, they are in error. And as this error has now been perpetrated for a long time, with increasing grumblings from the lay people that is reading shores that go from America to Australia and even in Russia, where there are sedevacantist communities that all are starting to realise that you cannot square this particular circle, it becomes incumbent upon the laity to correct the clergy.

We are in the current shameful state because the clergy of the Church in 1958 was weak and the laity initially deceived and when it became obvious that an usurpation had taken place, the clergy demonstrated themselves to be in the vast majority of cases, absolutely weak and cowardly where they were not actively Satanic Freemasons involved in the corruption of the Church for decades.

And when that began t come to light, the laity had been slumbering in complacency and also in weakness and comfort and cowardice and did not call out the corrupt, fake, impostors nor the weak cowardly clergy.

We cannot allow a similar situation to stand today, when the clear error of sedeprivationism continues to be perpetrated with inevitable consequences of further error and ultimately confusion, error, discord and possibly even defection from the faith, as any error or deviation from the truth ultimately results in.

As I am used to being the lightning rod for such discussions and debates, which are not a schism, I want to make it clear, but simply a more perfect ordering and understanding of Catholic dogma, I am presenting the first instance of this discontent among the laity here on this blog.

A more formal and combined public open letter will in due course be presented to those priests or Bishops, that are in error. And that error is the result of one of the following:

  1. In good faith but erroneous understanding, some have not studied the Catholic position in sufficient depth.
  2. Habitual obedience to Bishops even when they are in error and have no authority, since without a Pope there is no authority beyond that of performing sacraments and performing the usual duties clergy does when in an interregnum (between Popes).
  3. They are Bishops of Power instead of Piety and are overreaching their mandate from heaven, authority on Earth and over the laity in their misguided efforts to create a “bigger, stronger” renaissance of the true Catholic Church.

I have extremely good reasons, and plenty of evidence, to suggest that almost all and possibly really all, of the laity falls under points number one and two, above. Possibly many clergy that subscribe to sedeprivationism fall under point two, as well, although it is also clear a few are simply not as educated about Catholicism as they should be and are in fact in error as per point number one; undoubtedly in good faith, but error nevertheless.

More concerning is that Bishop who is acting as he is acting, in flagrant error of Canon Law and with imperious ego, because acting under the impetus of being a Bishop of Power, as defined by Rodney Stark in his History of the West How the West Won.

In brief, a Bishop or priest of Power is one that pushes the advancement of the church for the satisfaction of his own ego or worldly machinations. Despite the natural inclination one may have to see these people as evil egomaniacs, a couple of points need to be kept in mind.

Firstly, in some cases, while their ego is certainly ever-present, their intent may be to genuinely increase the spread, power and resilience of the Church. And in their minds whatever little “rules” or dogmas they may need to trample over are justified by the increased “glory” of the church. This in itself is an error of category, since it is the kind of error that laity, if anyone is supposed to be “okay” doing such things, should be taking on more than the clergy. it was crusaders that went off to war and Catholic knights that defended Malta, not priests and bishops taking up arms. So, whichever way you look at it, they are still in error, but their motives may not be as strictly selfish as one might at first imagine.

Secondly, even if they do happen to be egomaniacal narcissists that want to live in luxury, have big homes with servants and gold goblets to drink from, or whatever, the reality is that as a collateral side-effect, in the history of the Church, such despicable creatures nevertheless enriched the Church which permitted its expansion, the creation of amazing cathedrals and an increase in the faithful. Yes it was kind of a collateral effect, but it is a real thing anyway. So, even if at a personal level such clergy would be vile, God, historically, has managed to make at least some good flow from them, because at a worldly level, the use of funds and commitment towards creating more seminaries, more cathedrals and so on, and increasing the number of faithful, obviously has a positive effect.

As a result, I don’t necessarily object to some of the practices of priests or bishops of power, as long as:

  1. They do not break canon Law of Catholic Dogma.
  2. Their intent is not personal but for the benefit of the Church and this can be demonstrated by their personal living situation and so on.

Many other laymen and women are not as “charitable” as I am in this respect, and the grumblings at grassroots are becoming a low-level murmur reminiscent of an impeding avalanche or earthquake.

And such a thing we would all like to avoid. So, consider this simple, somewhat brutally direct, blog post to be an initial canary in the coal mine, in the hope that certain clergy takes note, some laity make them aware of it and they perhaps take note and begin to adjust accordingly, with all dignity and process due, and thus without any scandal or strife between the various faithful, be they clergy, or laity alike.

In my opinion the hope this will work on the relevant clergy of Power is absolutely remote, but, as our Lord tells us, we should first try quietly, then kindly, before we definitely call people to account.

This situation has been building for years, it’s not a flash in the pan, and it needs addressing.

I pray to our Lord that it gets resolved quietly and expediently by those responsible. And if not… well… we, remnant laity of the Catholic Church take our lead not from the timid types our grandfathers generation but rather from that of the Normans and Franks of 1095, from which, incidentally, on a personal level, my family line originates and can trace itself back to.

Glória Patri, et Fílío et Spirítui Sancto, sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculórum. Amen

No related posts.

By G | 27 February 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Increasing Happiness, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

Sedeprivationism vs Sedevacantism an Explanation

There seems to be either some confusion, or perhaps a new and fancier attack on the Church and it is the trying to drive a wedge between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists, as if there was any real theological difference today in 2024.

So, let me nip this in the bud, as much as any layman who can read and think logically at an elementary level at least, can easily do. And which, in fact, cannot be disproved by anyone.

Keep in mind that I have read the entire Cassiciciacum theory in the original French too, so am not exactly jumping in here like some ignorant moron that hasn’t reviewed the facts, relevant Canon Law and so on. The point is that while I could write another 530 page book explaining everything in minute and fully weaponised autistic detail, it really is not required, because the core concepts are really quite simple and easy enough to understand and Canon Law is, as usual with Roman Law, exceedingly clear, humane and just.

As I say, all that is required is a normal level of ability to read and cogitate and a basic but correct grasp of logic and objective reality, which, given the state of Clown World today, is hard enough, but one hopes the average reader here, given the semi-constant insta-bans for not following the rules has purified the gene pool enough that he or she is easily capable of grasping the concepts I will present and further able to review them on their own for further clarity of verification if they have any doubts.

Let us begin then by first of all pointing out a couple of aspects of Catholicism that is quite misunderstood by the average anglo type:

  • Catholic charity requires that if there is doubt, one should try to (when possible) be charitable and allow for some mercy given the fact that all human beings are flawed and miserable sinners. However…
  • When logic dictates that there either is no doubt, or the doubt is minimal, then prudence requires you treat the suspect thing as suspect. In fact, in proper Catholic behaviour, the charitable act of being merciful does not invalidated the just act of pointing out the sin/flaw/error or downright evil of whatever is in doubt.
  • To Anglos this appears to them as a somewhat schizophrenic way of dealing with life, because while on one hand in a proper Catholic world, say, a pedophile would be burnt at the stake, the act of doing so is in the first place one of charity (giving the peso the opportunity to truly repent while he contemplates the fire burning him) and in the second place one of charity towards the victim and the other members of the community, protecting them from further harm and also educating them on the consequences of certain unacceptable acts. But even more confusing for them might be that the very parents of the child raped might pray for the soul of the pedo burning to death. Which does not in any way mean that the father of the child would not be the one applying the torch himself, nor that his prayers are in any way insincere.

This apparent “schizophrenia” is not due to any flaw of logic or reason in the Catholic, but rather, generally speaking, of a stunted and child-like grasp of human affairs, including justice and charity in the Protestant milieu in which Anglos tend to be raised.

Furthermore is the fact that Roman Law works in a far more just and fundamentally correct way than Anglo Laws, which is that Roman Law is principle based in general terms but with each case being judged on its own merits regardless of precedents in the law. A murder under Roman Law is not always the same kind of murder, and while Anglo Law pretends to also have some exculpatory levels of crime (manslaughter instead of murder one, say) in general terms, previous law dictates current law, which is, fundamentally, unjust. Since the very concept of a legal system is mostly absorbed by the zeitgeist of the environment we live in, most people perception of actual Justice is also fundamentally corrupted to some extent by their assuming (unconsciously for the most part) that Common Law, or the British, or American legal system is in any way representative of actual Justice. It is very far from it and while even Roman Law can obviously be used improperly by a judge, it is, in general terms, a far closer representation of Divine Law than any other system of Law ever created on planet Earth to date.

Right then, with that long introduction aside, let us begin.

The Basic Premise of Sedeprivationism

First presented by Father Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers the theory of Sedeprivationism was in essence an extremely charitable proposition designed to allow anyone of the clergy that was either confused, too timid as a result of al lifetime of obedience to their superiors, or otherwise unclear on what a Hellish turn the Vatican II documents had created and how Roncalli (who personally set up the wheels of Vatican II in motion and also approved the first two documents before dying) and Montini (who published the next 14 documents of Vatican II, every one of which is replete with absolute heresy) were obvious heretics, to be able to take a position that allowed them to continue being actual clergy, non-heretics and yet also give an opportunity to the arch-heretic Montini to possibly repent and return to Christianity (impossible to do in my view since I believe he was an infiltrator and non-Catholic from the very first).

Vatican II was the equivalent of a poisonous neutron bomb, that left the buildings intact but reduced almost all the then supposedly Catholic clergy to a bunch of infected zombies spreading heresy and the few survivors dazed and confused.

Sedeprivationism, in simple terms, basically stated that although Montini had clearly produced 14 documents replete with heresy and as such could not be a valid Pope (as per Canon 188.4), he might have been validly elected, as theoretically might have been Roncalli. In Roncalli’s case the very idea he was validly elected has since been absolutely demolished since he was a practicing Freemason and his election was forced by blackmailing Giuseppe Siri (who HAD been voted Pope, twice!) by telling him that is he became Pope a lot of Bishops behind the Iron curtain would be killed by the Communists. A convenient lie that was in fact pushed by Roncalli himself, an absolute Freemason and hence communist friendly plant whose entire intent was the destruction of Catholicism, as has always been the case by those who promote and even start various secret societies like the Illuminati, the Carbonari, the Freemasons and indeed Communism itself. If you are curious, you might want to figure out what ethnicity Karl Marx was and who pushed his agenda.

In any case, back then, when it was not yet clear which of the Cardinals that voted in the various false Popes might have also been heretics or not, since their position was not public and clear, as was Montini’s (and posthumously also Roncalli’s) des Lauriers’ theory allowed that it was possible (slim though that chance was) that both Roncalli and Montini had been technically, that is, materially, validly elected as Popes, but that given their behaviour, they clearly were not spiritually valid Popes, at least not until and if they repented.

This was, in the sensibilities of the time, a rather polite way of saying:

These two guys are thugs and murderers of souls, and if a bunch of you morons elected them as valid Popes, you should see it by now, repent and make it clear you don’t see them as actually valid Popes, given their thuggery and murder of souls. As for the thuggish murderers themselves, whether you are Jewish/Protestant?Gnostic/Satanist or simply secular apostate and imbeciles, if we assume you were materially validly elected and you make a 180 degree swift turn and repent and correct all your public heresy, well, God is merciful and we can pretend you are now a redeemed actual Pope by the Grace of God that promoted your absolute, sincere and true change of heart.

As I said, it was the most rose-tinted glasses, optimistic, and charitable view anyone could conceive of to allow a tiny margin of possibility of self-correction to the cowards, infiltrators, Satanists, Freemasons, Communists, pedophiles and homosexuals that had been injected into the clergy for decades (see Bella Dodd’s book to understand how this was done to the tune of thousands of fake clergy whose sole intent in joining the seminaries and the Church was total subversion), as also the list I reprinted in RTCC of Mino Pecorelli clearly evidenced beyond any doubt the massive number of official Freemasons (complete with codenames) that were already in high offices at the time of the third fake Pope in a row, Lucani.

Such a slim possibility filled with charity was indeed a viable possibility certainly up to at least 1965 when the last Vatican II documents were finally presented to the world, and given the slow movements of the Church on grave matters, one could reasonably extend that charity even to the 1970s, even the late 1970s, but by 1983, when the Satanists decided to come out with a “new” code of Canon Law, in order to try and invalidate the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which to date remains the most vetted document on Earth, having compiled and reviewed and checked and double checked every dogmatic document and position of the Church from the time of Jesus to 1917. And then having remained unchanged for the next 65 years except for a tiny modification to Canon 1099 part 2 done by the last valid Pope, Pius the XII himself. And when I say unchanged I mean unchanged despite an invitation to all Catholic clergy around the world to present any objection, question or argument against any canon. Tens of thousands of documents had been reviewed and checked to produce the Code of 1917 and tens of thousands more after it to make sure they had got everything right. There literally is no other document like it on Earth. And the “code” of 1983 is not even logically consistent within itself, as I have made clear before on this blog. So at this point it was absolutely clear that the Satanists now in the Vatican only aimed to continue the destruction of the Church and there was no repentance or halting it. I described this situation briefly in RTCC but since it is a 530 page book that refutes every single argument against sedevacantism ever produced to date, and no one has been able to counter it validly in any way, not everyone has read it. Hence this blog article to make the topic more accessible to all.

Given what we now know about Roncalli, and the constant unrepentant promulgation of the heresies of Vatican II, and absolutely following the Magisterium of the Church in the form of the infallible Code of Canon Law produced by two valid Popes in conjunction with a team of valid and pious Cardinals led by Cardinal Gasparri, it is absolutely clear, that anyone that continues to hold to the Vatican II fake Church is simply not a Catholic. No “clergy” who does can be considered to be anything other than at best a heretic and more likely a knowing Satanist with pedophile friendly intent at a minimum. And as such, as per Catholic infallible dogma as produced by Pope Paul the IV in his ex cathedra pronouncement Cum-Ex Apostolate Officio, such heretics should be shunned, others warned against them and deprived of all natural human kindness. In Catholic thought they are worse than mere murderers, for they intend to cosign your soul to eternal Hell.

As I said in my book RTCC at the end, the term Sedeprivationist today, should really only be used for two reasons:

  • Etymologically it is a more correct term, because strictly speaking, the chair (sede) of Peter is not actually empty (vacante) but rather it is filled by an impostor that is preventing (privation) the proper filling of it by a valid Bishop.
  • As a memory and remembrance of a great and courageous theologian and Bishop, Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. keep in mind that because he was made Bishop in 1981 by Bishop Thuc he was later “excommunicated” from the fake “Catholic” Church of Satan by none other than Ratzi the Nazi in 1983, just when the “new” (fake and perverse) Code of Canon Law was produced.

In all other respects, Sedevacantism is absolutely correct and no one can make any argument against it, theological, canonical, logical or of any other valid kind. Let us therefore now look at that.

The Basic Premise of Sedevacantism

The essence of Sedevacantism is literally childishly easy to understand

1. If you are not catholic, you cannot be Catholic clergy.

2. If you defect from the faith publicly and notoriously, you are not Catholic.

That’s it. That is literally it. It really is not more complicated than that.

The Satanists pretending to be Catholic (fake clergy) will try to tell you that no man has a right to judge the “pope” as being a heretic, which is a conflation of one true fact with a lie, as is their usual modus operandi.

It is true that no man can pass judgement on the Pope. But there are two important points to note:

ANYONE can judge a non-catholic, non-Pope as being a non-Catholic non-Pope. In fact it is dogmatic catholic law that ANYONE can call out a heretic.

Secondly, it is not any man that decides if a pope is or is not a heretic, regardless of whether he had been voted in validly originally or not. It is, in fact, the INFALLIBLE Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which in its valid and infallible wisdom, produce the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which was approved by two Popes along with their Cardinals and therefore made infallible. And the Code of 1917 in Canton 188 part 4 reads as follows:

Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: 

4º A fide catholica publice defecerit; 

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

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;

See that? Without any declaration and upon the fact itself. it really burns them. And if you want a totally autistic view of the whole of canon 188.4 that atomises the ghosts of dead horses, well then, here you go.

Right then, given canon 188.4 it is absolutely clear that anyone who does not specifically and actively condemn the fake Popes since 28th October 1958 and their heretic Vatican II documents, and changes to the UNCHANGEABLE Holy Mass (see Quo Premium also in RTCC), cannot be thought of as properly Catholic, and any “clergy” doing so are absolutely not valid clerics of Catholicism.

So we now come to the distinctions between current day Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists. What are they?

Having discussed this matter in some detail with a valid priest of the IMBC, the statement told to me was that this priest and thus most of the IMBC I would guess, simply take the charitable position that they, as individuals prefer not to pronounce the current heretics in the Vatican as being actual heretics, including, the (in my opinion) never-was-catholic Bergy the Oleous.

That is a valid personal position that a clergyman can take. It is based on the fact that only God really knows the Foro Interno of a human being, that is, his true heart concerning anything at all.

HOWEVER, and it is a big however, by ALL external indications (Foro Externo) the (at best) heretics in the Vatican (actual Satanists as far as I am concerned) ALL, without exception fulfill the precepts of Canon 188.4. And canon 188.4 refers to and does NOT invalidate in any way Cum-Ex-Apostolato Officio which was an ex-cathedra pronouncement of valid Pope Paul the IV, and which in any case, was even before this an obvious thing anyone of normal intelligence knew. In general, Papal ex-cathedra pronouncements are made only to further clarify an solidify a simple and obvious fact known to all but under attack by gnostics, Satanists and enemies of the Church. So, these fake Popes absolutely ARE to be treated as heretics in a practical sense. Which of course, all Sedeprivationist clergy does. They do not perform Una Cum (one with) masses (they do not use the names of fake popes in the Mass) and they do not promote or promulgate Vatican II and warn people against it, all as they should. The only practical difference is they do not outright call Bergoglio and such as actual heretics because, in a spirit of charity they hold the position that perhaps, by some miracle or mystery unknown to them, Bergoglio and such are all afflicted by some mind-worm, or whatever that makes them not actually responsible, somehow, for their heresies.

Well. They are entitled to their personal view, of course, and for the record, I do not have a personal view as such on Bergolgio etc. I mean, if I had to bet my life on it I would bet they are actual Satanists, non-Catholics from the start and heretics only in the best of cases (because to be a heretic you have to first have been Ana actual Catholic at some point), but honestly, absent any enforced need to make a judgement, I don’t have an opinion. I simply follow Canon Law and Catholic dogma and since they walk like a heretic, quack like a heretic, smell like a heretic, act like a heretic, and do everything else under the sun as a heretic, I will treat them, as is my duty as a heretic.

That’s it, and that’s all. In any case, the Sedeprivationists do that too with the only exception they don’t call them actual heretics due to their rather (in my opinion) unnecessary charity towards what I consider to be spiritual, intentional would-be mass-murderes of souls.

So, in essence, in practical terms, there is no real difference between a Sedeprivationist and a Sedevacantist.

One last note, if anyone says that if Bergoglio were to repent he would become valid Pope, this is, of course, absolute nonsense, since a heretic, even if he repents, by infallible and perennial dogmatic and divine Law, as pronounced infallibly in Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio, cannot ever again have ANY authority over anyone and must spend the rest of their days in constant penance in a monastery with, again, I repeat, no possibility to teach or have authority over anyone, ever again.

So, in essence and practice we are all Sedevacantists today. Sedeprivationism was a kind idea that has, in the course of time, been demonstrated to have been mostly overly charitable wishful thinking.

Nevertheless Father (and later Bishop) Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers was an outstanding theologian and Catholic clergyman. May God keep his soul in the eternal presence of His beatific vision as per His Will.

No related posts.

By G | 12 January 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary

Sede Priest Explains Cassiciacum, etc.

Father Steenbergen is one of the most awesome people I know, and I am glad he did this interview. He even refers to the Finnish couple who came to visit me towards the 1:17 mark, and shortly after, indirectly, to people like me, with words to the effect of… you wouldn’t BELIEVE the kind of people that are coming to get baptised these days! Meaning people with no Catholic history in their background whatsoever that come to it in almost miraculous ways. And it’s true. Just over a decade ago, the idea I would one day be a hardcore Catholic would have made me spill my drink if I had been drinking. And here I am now.

All sorts of people are waking up to the truth, and it’s accelerating from the attendances I have seen over the last few years.

No related posts.

By G | 16 December 2023 | Posted in Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

What Next?

There are three paths I can go down with respect to the next book I write.

NAZI MOON (linked) is now available at least in the US and CANADA and should be available soon in other countries too.

Do you Prefer I next write:

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

I have been asked to do the relationship book by friends and men in general for years; at least 20 of them. I resisted the impulse* for at least a couple of decades, primarily because, as one of my alter egos/nicknames —given to me by friends in Italy over 20 years ago— said in one of the graphic novels he appears in: “Any man that says he has understood all there is to know about women, is either a liar or insane.” And it’s close enough to the truth in some ways. Nevertheless, I feel that after two divorces, a lot of women in between, and finally a proper Catholic marriage, not to mention 4 children I fathered, I have probably made —and persevered!— and (one hopes), learnt enough that it is probably acceptable to pass on a few pointers to younger men; at least on those issues I feel I have now got enough experience to retroactively note when I did the right thing (regardless of outcome), and when I did the wrong thing (again, regardless of outcome). I mention this, because as I say, there have been a lot of people asking me for this for a long time.

With regard to my non-fiction, each book I have written so far, is really mostly a compilation of my theories and conclusions formed with many years of experience.

The Face on Mars was the result of a lifelong interest in Astronomy from very early childhood. I understood what a light-year was at age four, thanks to an uncle who was, and remains, a total geek to this day. He also sent me a telescope in my early teens, with which I observed the mountains of the moon, and how the moon itself moved. I also saw Haley’s comet with it, from our home in Africa at the time. And to this day the concepts I put forth in that book were then, and for the most part continue to remain today, unique. Some have badly plagiarised aspects of it (hello Graham Hancock) but the overall main issue had not been understood by anyone I am aware of before I saw it. And most remain totally ignorant of it, despite the predictions and theories I made back in 1995, playing out as correct in the intervening time. The update in 2014 also added a new dimension to the reality of my ideas, which is partly expanded on a lot more in my fiction work.

Systema was similarly, a book I wrote after I had personally spend decades in the martial arts world. And I wanted to demystify a LOT of the nonsense that goes with many martial art “concepts” and their related egos, and which —in particular— seemed to have a vortex of “mystic ninjas” concerning the Russian system. Which is an impression many martial artists might have if they have not experience of it firsthand. By merely watching YouTube videos or hearing “fantastic” stories of almost magical ability, they are most likely going to assume it is some woo-woo nonsensical “martial art”. That thought is disabused within minutes of confronting any of the top exponents of it. Unfortunately, as always, along with the really good practitioners, there were also a lot of “mystic ninjas” and some of the practitioners did nothing to demystify the situation, so I did it. I have been doing martial arts since I was a very small child, thanks to my dad, so I had pretty extensive knowledge of it before I put hand-to-keyboard after almost four decades of it.

Reclaiming the Catholic Church was in some ways the “odd man out” because I had a road to Damascus Event in 2013 and the book came out in 2020, that is, only 7 years later. However, I had been reading different books on all the main religions, mysticism, “spiritual” and even New Age stuff, again, since my teens, and literally infiltrating various cults as a hobby, in order to see if anyone had anything that was demonstrably true, real, or worthwhile. I had settled on a basic Zen-Agnosticism, with a clear understanding there must be an intelligence behind creation (the math, astronomy, biology and physics, as well as logic, pretty much confirms it many, many, many times over) but no sense of a God as such that was specifically interested in us mere mortals, much less me specifically. That changed in a radical, unexpected and utterly surprising way, that while “subjective” in the sense that I cannot prove it to anyone else, was absolutely objective and very much so for me. The other part that helped was that because the Catholic Church has ALL of its rules and dogmas written down, it was fairly easy to follow the thread of its history and see the astonishing truth it is founded on. As it was, to see that the current inhabitants of the Vatican are, without putting too fine a point on it, flat out Satanists.

BELIEVE! Instead, published a year before RTCC, was a much smaller work, putting out my new, or updated, basic outline philosophy. For those who have read both books, you will notice that BELIEVE! is not even a fifth of the size of RTCC, at just under 100 pages, and is a lot more open with respect to overall views and concepts. RTCC was the follow up that basically said, “OK, so that’s sort of where I am with respect to religion as a whole (BELIEVE!) now let’s take a look at this one path that I state is the best one I can see so far, and in this book, (RTCC), I went full autist, covering every aspect of Sedevacantism (i.e. the actual, current, only Catholicism left) and demonstrating it in a manner that no one has so far even attempted to refute, much less succeeded. The result is that RTCC is the foundation on which BELIVE! is really sitting on, which is probably why even if a much smaller and less detailed book, BELIEVE! has resulted in now over 100 people converting to Sedevacantist Catholicism (aka simply: Catholicism).

The reason I point all this out, is because in these last two non-fiction books, it becomes obvious that even my overall looser and more generic ideas, as expressed in BELIEVE!, for example, clearly have had a lot of genuinely positive effects on people who read them. And we know it was this that sparked the results, because BELIEVE! came first, and yet, even without all the details (presented in RTCC), it had a serious impact on people’s lives.

I see a LOT of confusion, struggles and heartache among young men today concerning intimate relationships and finding the right woman.

I literally get questions, emails, or messages on the topic to a frequency that is starting to become hard to keep up with. And as anyone that reads my blog knows, I have a rather low opinions of PUAs, and would very much hate to be mistaken for one. That said, I know for a demonstrable fact that my advice benefits these younger men, because they are getting married, having babies, and resolving issues they had for many years of their lives. I have literally had everything from friends, neighbours and even strangers, asking for advice, on an ad hoc basis, to hypnosis sessions with people that were under clinical care as supposedly paranoid schizophrenics under medication that went on to stop the medication (yes with doctor approval and full knowledge of my sessions with them) and go on to have a productive life with a functioning relationship, when prior they were 29 year old virgins. And I have been doing this for at least 15 years, with positive results.

So, perhaps, there is some utility in putting together some of the baseline concepts concerning male-female interactions and so on.

The other options (SF saga continuation) or YA SF books are, respectively, more a divertimento for myself and, a less fun, but I think helpful addition to the current dearth of adventure stories for boys mostly. I am not aware of anything like the Hardy Boys and so on coming along anytime recently, which is why Castalia House is doing well printing old classics. I would not enjoy writing such books as much as my own adult Science Fiction, but it would not be too difficult to do and they should be able to be produced fairly quickly. Although, I am not likely to be acclaimed as a children’s author anytime soon, or even long after I am dust, so the effort might not be worth it.

Anyway, I’d appreciate your thoughts on the matter, so please feel free to leave comments after you vote, thanks. 

* Vox, on this post, referring to someone else, Taleb, in this case, said something that holds true for most of us. Personally I have always genuinely tried to resist the temptation, and often people have been quite “deflated” when trying to make me their “guru”, when, after being asked something I know little or nothing about or at least I don’t feel qualified to take a stand on, I simply say “I have no idea”. Some were quite insistent nevertheless and I always consciously dissuaded that, as I explained in some detail in my book Systema: The Russian Martial System.

You might be interested in the following posts:

  1. NAZI MOON OUT ON…
  2. 12.12.23 – NAZI MOON is Out
  3. Increasing pressure and the space of variations
  4. Moon Nazis Part 1
  5. Overlords of Mars 3 – in the works

By G | 12 December 2023 | Posted in Ancient Technology, Believe, Books, Brazilian Ju Jitsu, Catholicism, Christianity, Face on Mars, Hypnosis, Increasing Happiness, Karate-Do, Martial Arts, Nazi Conspiracies, NAZI MOON, Overlords of Mars - 1, Overlords of Mars - 2, Poll, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Relationships, Relationships, RPGs, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, StCZA - Module 0, StCZA - Q.O.R.G., Systema, Systema, The Dirty Old West, Writing

The Dyer Debate Revisited

It is now something like 4 years after the original debate and as always, time demonstrated that I was in fact right and everything the man said was nonsense or a lie.

I recently received this comment on YouTube which reminded me of the debate again, which is now, here, with all the commentary from me to give the full context, while the originals have all been memory-holed and disappeared. I wonder why, eh?

I’m at about minute 36 of your video, where you’ve read out the various canons and shown that they bear no relation to what Jay claims they are speaking about. I am struck by this because a few years ago I was watching his series on Tragedy and Hope, with a copy of the book in hand, same edition as Jay’s. He was summarising it page by page, citing where he was, and yet I found that his ‘summary’ bore no relation what so ever to the pages he was referencing. I don’t know why he was doing this, but it was very strange.

Interestingly enough, the comment itself has now apparently disappeared from YouTube, which has been behaving increasingly bizarrely. So I will not mention the man’s full name other than to say that if Stephen wants to get in touch and make his full name public so I am not accused of making things up, he can do so. In any case, it may be he deleted the comment himself not to receive the usual barrage from the dyer-bots, which can indeed be quite annoying.

At any rate, if you are into autistic theological debates interspaced with entertaining ridiculing of deceivers, you may wish to get some popcorn and go see it here.

No related posts.

By G | 27 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Impostors and Frauds, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

Oh No! Kurgan vs Vox Day Theology!

I know there are now going to be heads exploding in various gamma hives around the internet as they hope and pray to their slithering nether-gods for a major rift between myself and Vox.

While I am sure nothing of the sort is or will be the case. In fact, many moons ago, I asked Vox if he would be willing to have a friendly discussion/debate on Catholicism vs Protestantism, or to be more precise, my Sedevacantist Catholicism and his specific brand of Protestantism which I believe hinges on the original Nicene creed.

Even back then, somewhat to my surprise, he said he wasn’t against it in principle, but the time required for it (and I suspect utility of it) was not really worth it. Which, in general I agreed with.

That all said, my brain can’t help but want to continue down paths that in my view are likely to increase my understanding of reality. Christianity, is one of those paths that is essentially endless in this regard, so, like say learning to paint, or make music, is a lifelong continuous investigation.

With such endeavours, after a time, there comes a point where your understanding or skill in the topic is good enough to outdo the common men and women in the field and then even the well-known ones. In short, it becomes difficult to find other minds against which you can confront yourself in order to learn more of the topic that interests you. And when you do find one, naturally, at least for me, you’d like to investigate it and push and prod at it and test your theories and ideas and baselines against.

Well, Vox has such a mind. I also consider him a friend and few things in life are as enjoyable to me as philosophical conversation of some substance with a friend. Preferably over a good wine and light meal, or with decent cognac after a good dinner. Alas, distance and circumstance prevents such discourse in the customary civilised fashion I just described. So I find myself limited to this rather barbaric format. Blog to blog. Well, perhaps we might do a livestream on it one day, but be as it may, I will now simply dive into the post Vox put up which prompted this one for me: This is it.

As baseline axioms I think I have the following, which are:

  • Pretty sure both Vox and myself do not like having human authority over us. I think the generic difference might be that I am willing to go along with it for the greater good as long as the human with “authority” over me continues to follow the correct rules. As far as Catholicism goes, if the priest/bishop does not himself contravene Canon Law (as per Code of Canon Law of 1917) and his advice is in line with it, I will obey. The reason I believe the Code of Canon Law is correct is because at core, I believe that Jesus would not have left a FALLIBLE Church on Earth. He wanted a Church and we are instructed to use reason and logic to figure stuff out, but not that it’s all guesswork. Having read the CoCL twice, while I find rules that personally bug me, in objective consideration, even those rules are civilisational, and my personal preference is the one that is not ideal to building a truly civilised world. The classic example is duelling. I am all for it, but Catholicism forbids it, because, in general, duelling would be a sin of pride. Not really my problem, but if it were widespread you can see that the sin of pride would be what motivates it for most, instead of a burning desire to see justice done.
  • Pretty sure we both dislike dishonesty in general and especially dishonesty designed to lead people astray spiritually.
  • One thing I think we differ on is that I think Vox is more prone to the error of Erroneous Loyalty. Something I discussed in Reclaiming the Catholic Church at some length. It is an error I used to live myself for many years, so I think I understand the dynamic well. As an extreme and hypothetical example that ignores human laws for the purpose of the intellectual exercise, I recall a long while back, in one of his posts, Vox mentioned that under certain circumstances, a friend that was guilty of certain crimes would be best served by being handed a pistol with one bullet in it and leaving him alone in his room, giving him the dignity of suicide. I believe he was referencing a supposed “friend” of John Scalzi that had been discovered to be some kind of sexual predator, and if memory serves Vox’s comment was along the lines of what you would do if someone you considered to be a friend turned out to be, say a child rapist. In my case, my loyalty of friendship would NOT prevent me (again, in a hypothetical world of no human laws being present) from helping the man pull the trigger, or even doing it for him. You don’t want to leave these things to chance! In fact, as per my comments many times, I absolutely believe that the punishment for child rape should be the legalised and accepted method of burning at the stake. Suicide is considered a mortal sin by Catholicism and as such, judgement by the community so you burn at the stake gives you the chance to repent while you burn and possibly enter purgatory and eventually heaven instead of eternal Hell. So, in broad terms, I think Vox may be more prone to being loyal beyond the just point. As I say, an error I myself had for a long while in my youth, but that I gradually got out of over several years until I finally realised that the line of Justice is more important than the line of loyalty. Vox may have other theories on this, which I am unaware of but that’s the sense I have of it presently.

Given the above premises/axioms, I will then look at the above linked post critically. And consider that I am absolutely in no way defending the Boomertastic Doug Wilson. I read a couple of his post years ago, before I was even a Christian and the illogic and hypocrisy prevalent in Protestantism made me conclude he’s an idiot and not worth listening to at all.

  • One more difference between Vox and myself I need to point out, the man is certainly more patient than I am as well as far more forgiving. I remember we briefly discussed Jordan Peterson at the time and Vox stated the man was intelligent. I was astonished and asked why on Earth he thought that, he quite correctly pointed out that in order to spew the level of bafflegarble nonsense he does and fool a lot of people into thinking he is not some absolutely insane globalist with severe psychological issues, takes a certain level of IQ. Personally I evaluated the bafflegarble nonsense and concluded the man is mentally unstable and absolutely wrong and a liar. I can’t reconcile that with being intelligent, but strictly speaking, that is an error on my part conflating ethics and sanity with intelligence.

Vox concluded that Doug Wilson is a gatekeeper but still keeps tabs on him clearly, which is understandable, as I keep tabs on other gatekeepers like Milo and EM Jones and Taylor Marshall and so on. But perhaps does not condemn him as thoroughly as I do, and perhaps, in general he might not condemn the gatekeepers as thoroughly as I do. I may be wrong, but I suspect he is more forgiving than I am on such matters.

Anyway, to examine the post in more detail:

I will first note that this is precisely the same defense that is regularly offered up on behalf of other gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, and also of books like the Harry Potter series. Don’t criticize the obvious errors and the demonstrable falsehoods when they are otherwise doing so much good? Don’t you understand that if they tell the truth instead of lying, they won’t be able to reach as many of those who need the truth? Isn’t it better that they read godless tales of evil being portrayed as good than not read at all?

And the answer is no. This is a false, pernicious, and fundamentally short-sighted perspective. It is less a defense than an attempt to negotiate a guilty plea in exchange for a lesser penalty.

And so far we are in absolute agreement. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that it is better to leave aborigines in jungles alone and not instruct them at all than to instruct them with Protestantism. Because as per Church doctrine, a savage that has never heard of Christ might yet enter heaven judged by God on the merits of his own conscience, but one that has taken on a perverse version of Christianity is far less likely to escape the mortal sins of pride and in essence, choosing “me and my way” over “God and His ways”. I have always had the same idea. I met some of the last Khoi San that were free of any influence from so-called civilised men, and I found them to be honest, reliable, friendly, and just. Their society might be very primitive, but within the confines of that limitation they were essentially innocent and good people. Take a couple of generations of essentially Protestant “education” and a previously scrupulously honest primitive people become dishonest, haphazard, unpredictable and liable to suffer from everything to alcoholism to being criminals.

Let me be perfectly clear: No one who advocates equality of any kind, and no one who is a civic nationalist of any variety, and no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.

Because liars cannot, and will not, defend the truth. They will always produce one reason or another for refusing to do so. And if you are foolish enough to trust or follow a liar, you will come to regret it, as all of you – and readers here should recall, the vast majority of you – who used to lionize Jordan Peterson and consider him to be a great intellectual champion should know.

Again, I agree whole-heartedly. Although, I realise Vox here was referring specifically to Civic Nationalism and so on, the fact remains that:

no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.

And this remains the absolute point for me which I cannot reconcile with Vox’s theology.

Vox, is, after all, a Protestant. A very unique one he might be, but he (as far as I know) does not subscribe to the rules of the Catholic Church as per the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which in essence simple explains/extrapolates from both the Bible and Catholic (Christian) Tradition and has compiled and summarised all the various extrapolations, dictates, and dogma of the Catholic Church into one volume that covers all of those documents from the period of human history up to the year 1917. As a Catholic, you then may also wish to add the Papal ex-cathedra commentaries made from 1917 to 1958. After that we have not had any valid Popes since, so everything else can be safely ignored.

I am fairly sure Vox has not read the Code of Canon Law. And if he did I think the things he might object to are probably not as many as he might envision, but I am (foggily) aware he has some issue with some aspects of Mariology, though I am not sure what they are. I feel fairly confident he is well-read enough to be aware that Catholics do not actually “worship” Mary, but simply ask for her intercession, as we do to various Saints. In essence, the difference between catholics and Protestants is that we don’t stop communicating with our dead friends and people. We pray for them and we also ask them to pray for us.

One of the only times we briefly discussed my Catholicism (sedevacantism) and I pointed out some of the main issues he immediately said words to the effect of “Oh, well, those are Catholics I can get behind”. So again, I doubt the differences between us are huge in terms of theology.

He also agrees with me that in general humans need rules, otherwise they will pretty much eat each other alive in the street, which, to a certain extent we are starting to really see on a global level when Christianity fades.

We are also both smart enough understand that, while perhaps a certain optional rule for people may not really be designed for me or him specifically, we can’t really have rules for thee but not for me. And if there are exceptions, they should be based on sound reasoning, logic, and justice, not personal preference. So, in short, I ask myself:

“Why is Vox not actually a sedevacantist?”

I am presently only aware of one possible hitch which is his specific interpretation of the Trinty. Which I will not attempt to speak for him on as I would probably get it wrong. For myself, I do not pretend to know the intricacies of the Trinity, and I am perfectly happy to act in this regard very much as an illiterate peasant from the year 800. The Church says the Trinity works thusly, and I accept it as a given. I see no possible profit in trying to atomise that concept, nor do I have any interest in it.

While I may atomise the concept of not duelling and understand it very well, and instinctively want to say: “But Bishop, I don’t want to run that guy through with a rapier because I am proud, but because he defrauds little old ladies and steals candy from children, and blasphemes! C’MAWN…Just this one (ok, half-dozen) time?!” But intellectually I understand I must just bow my head and NOT challenge the man to a duel to the death. And if I do confront him, it would be a sin to smack the living crap out of him until he makes amends. I know that. Which makes it a bad sin. But… y’know… I’m only human. Maybe next time I’ll give him a warning first. You know, if I really see the error of my ways. Otherwise all I can do is really try to work on it over time. But in the meantime: no duels have been had. #winning.

So, it might be an intellectual disparity, perhaps the things that interest Vox to dissect are so different from the ones that interest me that it causes him a problem with Catholicism. And this, THIS is the real interest to me.

What are those details? Is he seeing something I am not, or is it vice-versa? Or is there a third possibility that we are both missing?

Such conversations, or investigations, if you prefer, are what fascinates me, and the ones that I think help us to see more truth when done with an intellectually honest person that is also curious enough and interested enough to examine such details.

I seem to recall for example that Vox also labelled Once Saved Always Saved as a retarded concept (he may have been more polite about it) and I would expect he similarly considers Sola Scriptura as absurd, but I never asked him the question. I also seem to recall that his generic approach to the Bible was not that this or that version was “better” but to just read one and go with it as best you can, which is “close enough” for really about 99.99% of people.

I suspect that his avoidance of hardcore Catholicism is linked to what he believes are “lies” or untruths that the Catholic Church has as various dogmas. What these are, however I am unaware, and it is my experience that most such ideas are usually rooted in some Protestant fake news about Catholicism. Several aspects of which, honest historians like Rodney Stark have pointed out even though they are not Catholics.

At any rate, I would certainly be interested in looking at what the differences between his and my theological philosophies are.

I suspect he doesn’t have the time, but the invitation is open.

UPDATE: A reader pointed out I have not explained the absolute point that anyone who advocates that a sin is not a sin should not be trusted. As often happens with me, I thought the point was obvious, but I failed to realise it is not as obvious to many as I think. So, to clarify, The very concept of Protestantism that each man can interpret the Bible as he wishes, is a pernicious sin of pride. Even the sola scriptura retards must know that man is perfectly honest, clean and good as well as smart and reasonable. It very clearly states this in Hebrews and elsewhere if memory serves.

Secondly, it is just as obvious that a good and loving God would not leave a DYI kit for interpreting His Will and what the rules He wishes us to follow are. Because given the fact we are all a bunch of retards to one degree or other, we are guaranteed to screw it up. And the idea a flawless and loving God would leave us a flawed theology is equally retarded.

Therefore, a FLAWLESS theology MUST exist. And there must be a way to know which it is. As it happens, there is. Jesus Appointed Peter as the Head of His Church, instructed the Apostles to teach His teachings and Paul tells us also that we are to reject things that are not as per their teachings as given to them by Jesus (that is, Apostolic succession, is a thing).

All of which would still screw up if it were not for the fact that Jesus also told us He would be with us to the end of time. Now, if Jesus is with us always to the end, and He commanded the Apostles to teach what He taught them, then their teachings cannot be in error. Not because even the Apostles are flawless, but because Jesus is.

That is the whole point of Papal infallibility. It’s not due to some superhuman characteristic of Popes. There have been plenty of greedy, power-hungry, deviants as Popes, but they did not teach erroneous dogma when speaking ex-cathedra because of the supernatural protection due to Jesus’ promise. Who can speak erroneous or wrong doctrine? People who are not protected by Jesus’ promise and who is that? People who are not the foundation on which the rock is based, which has two parts. The non visible supreme one, Jesus, and his vicar on Earth, which is the man holding the position that Peter held as leader of the Apostles.

18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Priests can lie or be wrong. Bishops can lie or be wrong. Popes can lie or be wrong. But valid, legitimate Popes talking officially for the entire Church on matters of faith and morals, that is the foundational principles of Christianity, cannot be wrong. Again, not because they are infallible in and of themselves, but because Jesus specifically said he was specifically with them to the End of the World. And Jesus cannot be wrong, nor is he a liar. And what He taught the apostles is true and He also specifically stated he would build the Church on Peter,, renaming him from Simon to Peter, which in Latin, Aramaic and most Latin languages literally means Rock.

Regardless of whatever brain-twisting Protestants come up with to try and say Jesus didn’t mean or say what he meant and said, even a child can understand that if someone says, to a guy called Simon:

“Hey buddy, come here, gonna run a little test by you…”

And he does, and Simon passes, and the guy says:

“You know what buddy, I’m gonna call you Rock from now on, and on this rock, I will build my church.” It’s a fairly clear point that Good old Simon/Rock, is now the head of the Church. Seriously, a child gets it. You need to be indoctrinated into lies from birth not to see this as it is.

So, the first lie is to tell people that to not be Catholic is not a sin. It is. You’re ignoring God’s Will. And the entire retinue of sins that follows from anyone following that advice is literally endless. And frankly, it ALL stems from pride to begin with. Some German fattie with a penchant for sexing up nuns and raping maids and swearing and calling reason literally “the whore of the devil”, comes along some 1500 years after Christ and the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY valid Christianity to that point and he FIXES everything? It’s moronic. Jesus didn’t say:

“Oh, by the way, all the people for the next 1500 years or so that call themselves Christians, and all the Popes which everyone agrees for that long are the main dudes, yeah, well, forget about all of them, they are all wrong and Pagan worshippers that ask my mother and a bunch of dead guys of no importance whatsoever to put in a good word for them with me. Anyway, all those guys? Going straight to Hell. Only when that rotund German with the beer and all the sex comes along will AKCHUAL Christianity be fixed. And he will do it by changing the Bible before he says it’s the only thing you should refer to at all. But only the one he changed, not the one everyone used for 1200 or so years and that was put together by the same Catholics who got it all wrong. And oh that Bible that the German guy changed, which was also changed by the Pahrisees, you know, the guys who had me killed, for 700 years before him, that’s the good Bible, scrap that other one. And oh, oh, one more thing: The best Bible, it’s the one with 33,000 translation errors ordered to be put together by a flamingly homosexual English King. Jimmy boy, that’s his name. He also starts up the Freemasons, which are Satanists, but don’t let that bug ya, seriously, his version of the Bible is the best one.”

So… yeah. I hope it’s kinda obvious now.

No related posts.

By G | 11 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary

Who’s a Good Catholic Then?

My friend Tony sent me a link to this article, which is a very decent and short, to the point, article on Catholicism today. He deals well with the whole Sedevacantist and not sedevacantist issue.

In essence, and much more politely, it is not far from what I have been saying for years now.

And in case you are not aware, in summary, my position is this:

  • ANY clergy of the Novus Orco are NOT Catholics, nor valid clergy at all, and not members of the Church. If ordained before 1958 (or 1964 if one wants to be extremely charitable) they are apostate heretics that have defected from the faith, as per canon 188.4 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917. If they were “ordained” after 1964 at the latest, then they are not validly ordained to begin with and in any case the charge of non-catholic, either because knowingly and intentionally heretic or never-was catholic/Freemason/Satanist, or heathen pretending to be Catholic through INEXCUSABLE ignorance. Which all results in all the same thing: They are ALL, without exception, to be treated as heretics. Should ANY ONE or more of them, confess, publicly, repent and accept the true Catholic position, then, as per Cum Ex Apostolato Officio, they should spend the rest of their days sequestered in a remote monastery in perpetual penance and with authority over precisely no one.
  • Any layman that subscribes to the Novus Ordo (Orco, I say, ORCO!) in abysmal ignorance and laziness of their own purported religion, is guilty of laziness and ignorance, but is not, in such cases, a heretic and in his or her genuine innocence, remains, in fact, by virtue of their actual ignorance, a member of the Catholic Church. HOWEVER, if you have read this far, that no longer applies to you. If you have heard of the controversy of Vatican II, of sedevacantists now being the only Catholics, and so on, it is incumbent upon you to research and satisfy yourself of what the truth is, and where the actual Catholic Church is. So, while ignorance might be “bliss”, wilful ignorance is not. At best, such people who refuse to educate themselves once the facts are presented before them, are definitely guilty of wilful ignorance, wilful laziness (sloth) and probably a good dose of pride. While these people might still be considered Catholics, they are in definite error and wilfully so, and should be shunned and shamed, as one would a perpetual fornicator, adulterer, habitual drunk, and so on.
  • Sedevacantists are the only genuine Catholic left.
  • Disagreements amongst sedevacantists are not “schisms” but merely personal opinions they may hold, of which some will be in error and some will be less so. Humans are always in some degree of error, as we Catholics know, so this is nothing new or a reason for trying to label the other as a “schismatic” or heretic. And generally, the lay-people of Novus Orco “Catholicism” are also merely ignorant and/or lazy, but can be considered Catholics, though in error. There, are however, among them, definite wolves in sheep’s clothing, so SOME of these lay people can in fact be heretics and/or (more likely) Freemason/Satanists intent on leading the masses astray. Case in Point, see the degenerate Milo. Or any of a bunch of Opus Dei funded grifters.

In general terms, the article says the same sort of thing, except that I have two objections, a major and a minor one.

My “major” objection, is one that I well understand can be used by enemies as pointing to my “arrogant self-determining authority” (it is no such thing. I can simply read and do logic, just like insisting that 2+2 is 4 is not arrogant, regardless of how many fools say it is 5) and by idiots to become protestant in their “interpretation” of canon law, (the 2+2 = purple brigade) so one must tread carefully when voicing it, but in essence, it is this:

Whether a Pope is valid or not may not ALWAYS be absolutely and immediately obvious, but, logic, and God, demands that they eventually become so. Because Catholicism is the TRUTH and as such, sooner or later it reveals itself. And when it does, it does so unambiguously. Because the truth, like math, is not subject to opinion. And canon law is, like math, eternal and not subject to opinion, only error by those not adequately possessed of the faculties required to understand it, just as math is not subject to opinion, but only error in the same way.

In this regard then, I object completely to the idea that is initially expressed along the lines of “well, if everyone goes along with it (Bergy the Oleous being Pope) you gotta as well”. I no more need do this than go along with 2+2 being recognised as being 5 by an overwhelming majority.

Truth is not decided by a majority but by the laws of nature, reality, and God. End of.

And a second objection: quoting this or that doctor of the Church is irrelevant in trying to make a definitive argument. It is really merely a distraction. At best it can just be supporting evidence to further elucidate the only thing that matters: dogmatic, canon law.

In this regard then, while I understand, and appreciate the writer’s intent, and it is a very noble and good one, and I do not wish to detract from his fine points, well and succinctly explained, I must point out that, if one is careful, observant, and follows the rules of Roman Law (which are essentially reason and logic turned to the human condition) there is no ambiguity as to whom is or is not a valid Pope, and, as I have detailed in my works, from 28th October 1958, that is, from Roncalli on, we have not had a valid Pope to date.

No related posts.

By G | 4 September 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

Why Catholicism – Practical Considerations

Vox has made several posts ovr the years, and more recently, concerning how the malaise of this world is now, more obviously than ever before in our lifetimes, due to spiritual evil, which determines material evil, which in turns determines the practical and day-to-day evil we confront in various degrees and levels of intensity.

His last point on this was particularly interesting as it captured in one image, exactly how this system works, as well as the reality that it is a most ancient knowledge, that people from all cultures across the Earth, from different times and geographical locations, all understood in one way or another. I re-present the image he put up at his blog here, though I encourage you to read the whole thing there.

For the purposes of this post, it is assumed that the reader not only accepts, but also understands that this is in fact the reality of the situation. If you do, you may want to skip directly to the heading OK, but Why Catholicism? further below. Although I suspect the writing between here and there is probably useful for most readers.

If you still think that the Universe happened by chance, that spiritual entities of great power of both good and evil, do not exist, that there is no God, and so on, then this post is probably beyond your ability to draw anything good from it.

If, however, you accept that this is generally the situation, then as any reasonable person would think, it makes sense for you to know how to best protect yourself from this situation, as well as how to counter it. Depending on your psychological, spiritual, and even material situation, you may also lean more towards one or the other of these two aspects. Most people,, will lean heavily towards the finding the way to be protected or shielded from the worst of the evil that is directed at humanity in general and each one of us in particular. Only a few will lean more towards the replying in kind, and causing damage to the ranks of the spiritual enemies, yes, the material and Earthly ones, but even more importantly, their masters behind them, which means, ultimately, attacking the spiritual entities that are the real originators of the evil that men do.

Given the above premises, summarised here below:

  • That we exist in a Universe where, spiritual evil is the originator of material evil, as per the diagram above.
  • A loving and just God, who, because the love is real, allows free will, necessarily has to permit evil to exist, yet, being loving, also allow for two very important points to exist as well:
    • A way to achieve ultimate salvation from this evil even if we might not escape it here in the material world, and
    • Restitution/Justice for the evil we suffer AND the evil we do ourselves.
  • Which necessarily must mean that while the Restitution/Justice can take many, many forms, both here in the material, as well as in the afterlife, or in the presently spiritual world, the route to salvation should be available to all who choose to take it and everyone should have the opportunity and/or ability to find/seek/take this salavation.
  • Understanding the above, we then can realise that the option of sitting on the sidelines, was never a real option, and in the present day, the fact that ultimately we only have a choice to either side with the evil or with the good has become far more obvious.

Now, aside form tall the fedora wearers, there are huge majority of people who would describe themselves as some kind of believer, that will still take great exception to the above summarised model of reality. It is a little tedious, but in the interest of wanting to do my best to bridge the IQ gap, I will list here below a few of the obvious “objections” such people may have and give a brief explanation of why that objection is nonsense. These are bullet-point style levels of data, (to try and keep this post under novella size), so if you have a particularly strong objection to some of these, I encourage you to begin your research using my shorthand notes as your starting point, and dig there, instead of to try and support your erroneous a priori “conclusion”.

The Objections

1. If God were really Good and Loving…Shhh. Free Will. Learn the consequences of it and learn why it is an absolute axiom of a Loving God. As is Justice. For True Love cannot exist without free will and justice. I explained this in BELIEVE! in more detail.

2. Not EVERYONE has knowledge of your legalistic explanation for Salvation! True, but everyone has the possibility of Salvation, by those very same “legalistic” (aka true and so absolute) rules. Yes they do. In one of several ways:

  • Direct access to the Gospels, The Bible, Catholic Tradition and Dogma, studied, researched and acted upon.
  • Indirect access to it, which leads to direct access to it through actual study, seeking of the origin, truth and reality of the situation
  • God’s Mercy for Invincible Ignorance.
  • God’s Mercy by simply observing the natural world objectively and as it is and as a result following one’s pure and good conscience (this is admittedly a very hard route given we are all born with sin).
  • God’s Mercy allowing any one of us to be eventually saved by purification in Purgatory to remove any/all stains from our souls before entering the Beatific Vision in His Presence.
  • God’s Mercy ensuring that no one is condemned other than by their own free will choice of which path they choose.

3. What about all the people that died BEFORE Jesus. He literally went down to Hell and saved the ones that deserved it from it (hence also yet another clear evidence of Purgatory being a thing, as if the relevant Bible verses were not enough).

4. But… The Catholic Church is a hive of pedophiles, liars and con-men. No. The Impostor Church PRETENDING to be the Catholic Church is, and worse than that too. The only Catholics left are Sedevacantist Catholics. As explained very briefly in BELIEVE! and rather thoroughly in Reclaiming the Catholic Church.

5. But… If Catholicism was the Way, it would not have been infiltrated and reduced in glory to a mere remnant! Really? Do you read your Bible at all? This is PRECISELY what we have been told will happen. Are you honestly unaware that the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions, AND is wide, and well-travelled? But the road to Salvation is hard and narrow? Why do you think we are told that, yet you think you’re perfectly fine skipping along on a road followed by the great masses of “christians” that are in reality just Churchians, and are merely paying lip service to their “christianity”? And do so in whatever really sincere format they prefer, that gives them the most internal sense that yeah, I’m one of the good guys. But in reality, if faced with a gun to their head and the option of dying so as not to denounce Jesus as Lord would fold, there and then?

6. You’re just a zealot trying to brainwash people to your cult! I honestly am doing what I can to present the truth before you so you will hopefully see it and choose well. I do this because it is my duty as a Catholic. Personally, if God allowed me to be exempt from this and I could simply sit in my little life, write my books, (on plenty of other topics that interest me) play with my kids and enjoy my days with my wife, I’d be perfectly happy to never utter a word about Catholicism again. The fact is though, that THE TRUTH, yes all in caps, is the most important thing for people to know. And that cannot avoid Catholicism. It is true that Catholics (and non Catholics too) have become very good friends and have and continue to help me in many small and large ways. But, firstly, I always had such friends in my life, and secondly, I believe I give back to others as much as has been given to me, and if I can, more. In any case, I try to ensure whatever exchange happens is based on genuine friendship. I have absolutely no wish to lead a bunch of people, however, I know from past experience that at times such duties are thrust upon people like me. And if I need to lead an army of Catholic Zealots, well… so be it. My personal “profit” from such a venture, if it ever comes to it, will never be anything that I would trade my personal free time and freedom for, if I had any decent alternatives to avoid it. But… if you believe in truth, if it means something to you beyond your own personal happiness, freedom, or comfort, then, you cannot help but take up that mantle sometimes. And personally, I would really rather it is someone else, but since so far, all the supposed “Catholics” turn out to be grifters like Emo Jones, Milo, Tay-Tay Marshall, Michelle Voris and so on, I guess I have to keep telling you the truth. And if you think I am trying to create a cult of personality as a result of The Kurganate, well, you go on believing whatever you want sunshine, and feel free to depart from me and my writings.

7. Any Other Objections. Feel free to put them in a comment, but read the rules of commenting here first so as not to get spammed forever if you violate them.

OK, but why Catholicism?

Even if the objections have been answered and even if you are intellectually grasping the point, I understand that there is an emotional, instinctive component that can (and usually does) hold one back from saying something as absolutist as: “Yeah, ok, I get it! Catholicism it is. Baptism, here I come, and Holy Mass with Sede Priests only and no divorce, ever, np contraception, and make as many children as possible and let God take care of all my problems!”

Especially given that you have marinated literally ALL your life in a world of lies and fake religion from literally birth.

The path to truth has been so over-filled with lies, false prophets, nonsense, scams, con-men of every stripe and each has and does take a toll on you, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually and physically.

People have given away their time, resources and opportunities to false people, false beliefs, false idols if you prefer. So why and how, should this “Catholicism”, which is supposedly being represented by an obvious pedophile protector in the form of a fake Pope, who literally has performed demon-worshipping rituals in the Vatican (Pachamama) be the One True Way?

Well, the answer, is surprisingly simple… sort of. I mean, you would have to know quite a lot of history and how things actually were and what actually happened. Which is best done by referring to first-hand accounts of things written not necessarily by the big players of the time, but the mere chroniclers of events, be they simple peasants, or soldiers.

If you do this, with respect to christianity, it becomes relatively obvious, and relatively quickly (a year’s worth of study in such matters generally suffices) that several rather astonishing points are true, despite being absolutely counter-intuitive and counter-to all you have been taught. Here, in summary note form they are. And I encourage you to look every one of them up.

  • 11 scared men and 4 women went from being terrified of being crucified for their having followed Jesus, to 10 of them at least being martyred in His name.
  • Even more astonishingly, they went on to create the start of the largest and longest lasting, continuous Human organisation (call it empire, call it, religion, call it what you will) that has ever existed on this Planet. The Catholic Church has existed, Popes and all (including absence of valid Popes too) for literally almost two millennia.
  • From a tiny flame in the Middle East, the very centre of this religion became the world’s then most powerful city which was a persecutor and absolute enemy of it. Rome. The Navel of the World.
  • Despite gnostics, impostors, heretics, occultists, of all kinds, the church managed to survive and re-emerge from its supposed “ashes” (supposed because it was never fully vanquished) to become only stronger after every attack. Our present day times might be compared to the Arian heresy, which saw almost every single Bishop buying into it, only to have that monstrous lie, fully reversed, against all odds. This situation, of the Church prevailing under the most unlikely situations recurs many, many, many, times throughout history.
  • In practical terms, the incredible achievements made by the crusaders, when fighting in ratios of being outnumbered in over 100:1, are also a reflection of this.
  • Catholicism was literally responsible for incredible advancements in both social and scientific terms, to name merely a few points:
    • The use/invention of the Scientific Method.
    • The raising of the value of women and children from essentially property to cherished mothers and wives, and the progeny of the future.
    • The principles of meekness (controlling one’s power in mercy and charity until it is sinful to avoid action as required, in which case, however forceful a response as is required is acceptable).
    • The essential eventual abolition of slavery.
    • The principle of Justice, fairness in all things and the equality under the law of all men.
    • The recognition that ordered and safe societies require a hierarchical structure.
    • The abolition of divorce and contraception, thus returning sexual relations between men and women to the natural order of procreation being the primary objective, avoiding all manner of perversion and degeneracy that flows from sterile coupling for mere entertainment and pure hedonistic pleasure, as such trends degrade society as a whole as is now abundunatly obvious to anyone not in full immersion and the clutches of such behaviour.
    • The greatest advancement in beauty in architecture, painting, sculpting, and the arts in general that the human race has ever seen. A level of mastery of artistic expression to elevate and inspire the human need for beauty and spiritual enlightenment that has yet to be duplicated.
    • A level of belief in mercy, forgiveness, truth, sacrifice and family that created the greatest civilisation/s on Earth. The Western world was literally created by Catholicism in its multiple and myriad ways. A man would be ostracised if not beaten within an inch of his life for blasphemy. Ferocious warriors tempered their undeniable ability in war by bending their knee in service to God and the principles of mercy, compassion, honour, courage, beauty and peace.

In short, Catholicism, has not only stood the test of time, but if you merely scratch the surface of reality, you will see it has undeniably created the best ways of living on Earth that this planet has ever seen. that literally no other religion, no matter how “christian” they profess to be, has come even remotely close, be it the “Orthodox” with their insular ways, or the Protestants with their hydra-like spouting 40,000 heads and TV evangelists.

If you can grasp a real sense of history, if you take the time to look at it, from a bird’s eye view, you cannot escape the very simple reality that:

In a world under the dominion of the Prince of Evil Spirits, the only religion that has created a flourishing human happiness, complete with safe villages, happy wives and happy children —cared for by modest men who nevertheless were absolutely capable and willing of being warriors as and when required, without hesitation— has been Catholicism.

In short, it is literally the one tried and true method, that has stood the test of time, when considering how to fight against evil, be it material or spiritual.

As a consequence, it is the reason that I myself became a Catholic, and the reason why I push it as hard as I can to anyone that will listen, without trying to force it down anyone’s throat. You can read my views here. You can buy my books if you want to. And if you come to my home, and you ask me or you want to, we will and can talk about all this stuff and Catholicism in particular, in as excruciating a detail as you want, as long as your baseline level of understanding at least approaches the minimum requirement, and that is, I admit, a shifting line, because while I was fine arguing with retarded protestants who think Catholics “worship Mary” or “banned the Bible” or a hundred other outright lies about Catholicism, and willing to do so to the tune of 800 comment long threads, that ship has sailed. You should at the very least be if not conversant, at least curious about the baseline principles of Catholicism versus the other fake “Christianities” on some level. But in any case, short of you asking me, even if you are sitting at my dining room table, I am not going to force my Catholicism upon you. By the same token, I will also not keep quiet if you begin to speak some utter nonsense. Be it the flat Earth, or how trans women are “real” women, or how the Sun really rises in the West.

But why do I assume that the details, that the rules, that the rituals of Catholicism are so important? Simple. Because they are. Because they literally ARE what created the Western World in all its good aspects. And the things of it that are its worst aspects are all, without exception, running COUNTER to Catholicism.

That’s pretty strong evidence.

It’s also the major failing of the strategist, be it in war or in economics, or really any human endeavour dealing with large-scale human behaviours.

The strategist dismisses to some degree or other, the importance of tactics and the small-team or even individual actions that can, and do, have a butterfly effect. While many of these are absolutely unpredictable, the most successful endeavours are those where the strategist is very much aware of the importance of the tactics.

Large scale, bird’s eye view of things tend to imagine that humans will act somewhat rationally, or at least somewhat selfishly, and thus be “manageable”. It is an almost total lie. The human monkeys are about as rational as a macaque on crack. And the evil ones understand this to a very high degree, that the “good guys” seem mostly oblivious to.

Why do you think the whole covid farce, and the upcoming climate change farce, and all the other farces went so well for the evil puppets being puppeteer by their spiritual leaders? Because they lay the groundwork tactically. They spent decades brainwashing you into a mental sludge of laziness, comfort and crappy food. They spent decades making you afraid of your own shadow. And they co-ordinated patently and trained the foot soldiers in academia, in churches, in government offices. they trained and trained and trained them relentlessly to be the cogs that operate exactly in this and that way in the machine. And they kept adjusting and correcting so as to make the natural human impulse for freedom die a small death every day in a million ways. And only after 70 or 80 years of this absolutely intentional, absolutely precise training, dedication and effort to the Satanic ideas, did they launch their main assault. And Covid was just the first of them. Next they will squeeze and squeeze and squeeze, until the resistance is crushed, demoralised and poor. And only then they will launch another crisis. And that crisis may even take the mask of a “salvation” of sorts. Why, of course we will give every one of you your own, free universal income. Sure it’s not enough to actually make you survive in any kind of dignity, but it’s a big help! Right? And it’s free! here, take it. And then they will gradually shrink away the other options even more and restrict what you can and can’t do with that “free” income once you are hooked on it. Just like a pimp and drug dealer.

And what reserve of mental, emotional, and spiritual strength, do you have left in you?

Especially as a secular humanist that doesn’t believe in a True, Good, Loving and Just God? Because your own pain surely hampers your ability to even imagine such a God. The dystopian reality you are in prevents you from even considering such a God. And that is exactly the plan. Once you have zero ability, willingness or interest in even looking for the Catholic God, that is, the true one, then they have won. And they don’t mind at all if you believe in a fake one. In a rainbow painted one that says pedophelia is just another sexual orientation. Or any number of false “gods”.

What chance does a secular man have of resisting the current onslaught? I would say close to none. I think of myself before becoming Catholic and how would I face the current world, and while I would never have bent to it, it most likely would have broken me. And I never felt that level of pressure even at my worst times. It would have broken me because without God, the entire thing really is absolutely insane. Without God, and only a materialistic view of things, nothing, not greed, not money, nor earthly power, can explain what has and what is and what will be happening.

It is literally the experience of living in a mental asylum with literal mass murderers running the show and no way out at all. Nor does it explain at all why things are this way or why they would be. There is literally no reasoned explanation that makes any kind of sense.

And that leads one to actual insanity. Both in terms of how the world is, and ultimately, how you will become, because no sane person can exist in a mental asylum with no way out and also not eventually lose their mind or kill themselves to escape it.

And that… again… is precisely the plan they have for you.

IF, on the other hand, you consider the Catholic God, and The Catholic Church, the real one, that is, the sedevacantist one, as it is the only Catholicism left, and you study it, you begin to notice three or four things, of absolutely extreme importance:

  • The evil of the world and its madness suddenly makes sense. Everything fits and you now understand why things are as they are, and why the seeming insanity is actually very well-reasoned out behaviours. They seem illogical because they are so evil, and ultimately, yes, illogical too, because choosing evil over good in a Universe owned by a Loving God, is going to be a losing proposition anyway. But aside from that fundamental error, the in-between state, between the current day and judgement day, makes sense from the evil beings’ perspective.
  • Because it makes so much more sense it doesn’t hurt or touch you nearly as much. An evil understood is an evil you can largely prevent or at least prepare against.
  • Inspiration and hope arise. Even if you are broken, single and lost, if you become aware of the true existence of God, and commit to it, properly, in the true seeking of Him, then miracles will eventually begin to happen in your life. I know because they did in mine and in everyone who has truly committed that way.
  • Purpose arises. Whether it is to bring the church back to its former glory, whether it is to get married and start a family, or whether it is to simply resist the evil and add to the good, you will find a new and better way to fill your days and hours, and months, and years. And over time, you will build foundations that are unshakable and your effect in the world will become a source of spreading light, love and goodness. And this seemingly small, inexorable change, will continue to grow and spread in ways you can’t even imagine and touch a much larger number of people than you can possibly imagine.

None of these things arise or come to be with a “mere christianity” type of C.S. Lewis, British style, wishy-washy-ness. You need good, solid, Chestertonian hardcore Catholicism in your face like a shouting sergeant, followed by a sharp kick in your backside, a shot of espresso and a GLORIOUS MORNING that makes the expected 50 mile hike with full kit to rush the enemy a rare moment of living joy! And not because you’re some poor Ukrainian bastard hopped up on meth laced with moly, but because it’s real.

If you think a generic, “non-denominational” (which really means without rules) “Christianity” will save the west, or even just you, you are sorely mistaken. You really need to think a little better and a little harder. You really think if a Loving God exists that He doesn’t have very clear and specific rules? And you think that that set of rules is the same one that applies even to demons, and only that (Jesus is King)? Come on. Wake up.

And why do you think we would need rules? I mean… have you even looked at humanity? Have you seen what they get up to when there are no rules for them to follow and no one to enforce them? Because if you have not seen it yet, then you are not reading this; as obviously you live on a remote mountain, sealed off from all digital information and other human beings.

Humans need rules. The question is only which rules are best. And we have 2000 years of history that tells us without any equivocation or doubt, that those who follow the actual rules of Catholicism (not the presented ones, not the ones impostors tell you are the rules, not the fake ones given by fake clergy or fake or ignorant laymen, but the actual ones, codified in the Pio-Benedictine Codes of Canon Law of 1917. Which are all based on Biblical and Catholic Tradition and dogma, and have remained unchanged from the beginning (The divine rules. The worldly rules can and do change as required to manage the church structure).

So it’s up to you, ultimately, as Catholicism teaches, no one can or should ever be forced to convert. It must be chosen. But I would say that the evidence that Catholicism creates the best situations possible for human beings is overwhelming and lasting, and continues to be true today.

So I hope you’ll join us.

To counter the degeneracy of John Lennon’s imagine.

Because, think: The Church was finally almost fully collapsed and thoroughly infiltrated by 28th October 1958, when the first of the current fake Popes sat on Peter’s throne.

And by 1969, a mere decade and a few days later, the boomer generation had been released on the world with their “free love” faked Moon Landing, the Beatles, and a completely ego-driven belief that only they mattered and only they knew how to enjoy life and nothing else mattered. Degeneracy on every level began to pour out into people’s lives via television to a degree and on a level never before experienced. Ancient customs and traditions of honour, courage, and virtue were replaced by “new” actions of greed, deception, and narcissistic egoism. Do you really think it is a coincidence?

If you have read this far, you have at least demonstrated the ability to read relatively long passages, which is a very positive thing. it means you have the baseline ability to at least educate yourself about history and the various topics I mention above. If you want to save yourself a lot of time, you may want to read some or even all of my books, which summarise the things I learned in each topic over a period of about 20 years per subject, roughly speaking (concurrently to some degree in all cases not sequentially). But it’s not a requirement. You can, and should, do your own research. I just happen to have travelled that road before and probably longer and deeper than most people ever would, so I wanted to share what I learnt. But you can certainly find your own way without nay more prompting from me than possibly this blog post.

May God guide your path, friend. And may you become a Catholic soon. There are many more of us than you imagine, and more coming every day, we’ll be here when you decide to get stop swimming, lost, or hanging to the side of our ancient, damaged, but still and always viable ship, and instead decide to climb abroad, and join us in sailing over this sometimes dangerous and treacherous ocean, but always in the Glory of God and the Light of Truth.

No related posts.

By G | 18 July 2023 | Posted in Agnostic Christianity, Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

« Older Entries

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