Archive for the ‘Sedeprivationism’ Category

Your Despair is Their Intent

Look, I get it, the world is going to Hell in a hand basket, more absurd news daily and if you are so foolish as to watch the actual news it’s a constant flow of terrifying nonsense. From Transgenderism to Climate Change and everything in between. they are literally spraying you with chemicals and trying to prevent you from travelling or eating meat. Yup.

And they are also ridiculing anyone who tries to organise or tell the truth and above all they want to keep you separate and infertile.

Yes they are passing laws that make it illegal to criticise laws, any laws, Israel, Jews, or to write anything deemed “hateful”. Yes with huge fines and jail time. And yeah they are going after people already.

Oh, and they want you unbelieving in God, of course.

And 5G and next 6G and always more restrictions and so on. Sure. It’s certainly in their plans and they are pushing these thing through.

Despair for you is their total aim. Their only and constant mission.

But you can EASILY fight back. Read my blog sure, and take notes from the posts I made about how to win against clown world or how your mind is your baseline strongest weapon.

Remember the following:

  • We outnumber them by at least two orders of magnitude and most likely three or four. For every one of these bastards trying to get us to take murder-juice, and “have nothing and be happy” there are AT LEAST 100 people that want nothing to do with their evil dystopia future. And more likely 10,000, if not 100,000.
  • This is why they are TERRIFIED of us having free movement and free association. The answer is simple. Ditch your phones. Leave them at home and meet your friends like EVERYONE did throughout all the 1980s. In person, no mobile phones of other trading devices. Hell, wear Jeans and converse shoes if you want a bit of nostalgia too. Talk. Face to face without digital devices on you or them. Make it a habit.
  • Get rid of TV. If you have one, unplug it and go a week without it. Then try two weeks. You’ll live, trust me. We didn’t have one up for months and then we put it up to watch some films, and now I am seriously thinking screw that. TV existed when I was born, but was life worse when it didn’t exist? People read books. Had conversations. Made more children. My Russian friends in London don’t have a TV in the home and their 7 year old kid kicked my ass at a logic puzzle game while only half-paying attention. Sure he played it daily but I was in my late 40s.
  • Get married. Yes in Church. Yes in a REAL Catholic Church (sedevacantist), after you got baptised and converted to Catholicism for real, not as a joke. Why? Because Catholicism is the only religion in which divorce is not permitted. Doesn’t matter if you married a nasty cheating crack-whore or a violent womanising drunk. So choose wisely. You think maybe that matters more than the other superficial crap they sell you 24/7 on TikTok? Family, is the one thing that matters more than anything else. Real family means you are willing to kill and die for your loved ones. Yes, it’s true that sometimes the family you are born is NOT the one where you find love, loyalty and truth. That’s why you got to make your own. And since you had such shitty examples (as we all had) get a manual and learn the right way.
  • Sure, finding a life-partner today is “difficult”. But is it, really? I went through a LOT of women and I chose wrong twice before I finally got it right. My own journey was one of going through every wrong path until I returned to the origin. It’s a hard way and almost everyone attempting it will be lost along the way. Consider instead, that today, if you refused the murder-juice and don’t believe the big lies, you can already sort the world into those who are pureblood and those who are mutants (a small number of which actually may have got saline so they could be pureblood without knowing it). If you want to remain a pureblood and produce pureblood children… well… your choice is a lot simpler and reduced to a smaller pool of candidates right away. If you then have at least an INTEREST in a traditional way of life, it gets even smaller. And if you are looking at a proper Catholic way of life (sedevacantist) it’s small enough that the likelihood is YOU PHYSICALLY NEED TO CREATE IT. I am in regular contact now with 3 couples that are composed of young men and women NONE of which started out as Sedevacantists, but now all are, all are baptised, all are confirmed and all have been married by side priests in church. I am just one guy and these people in 3 different countries around the world, one of which in Finland, which has NO Sede priests, so meant travelling to another country for Baptism etc. The starting point needs to be YOU. Your mind, then your Faith, then your wife or husband and then your children. CREATE your reality. Literally.
  • Either follow, support or join an existing Kurganate like community, or create your own. Those are the only two options that produce lasting results.
  • If you’re gonna create your own try to select the best geography and own the land in as free a country as you can, and get others to move there with you.

That’s it. Use the Search Me button on the right sidebar to look for other posts that go into more details of each step. And if doing even that small effort for your own education is too much… well… good luck, but I think…YNGMI.

A Strategist and a Tactician…

…Sit and have a glass of wine while they discuss war, would be the ideal way.

I noted with interest Vox’s last, almost throw-away, comment on his post about my post about Clown World resembling the Paranoia RPG more than the Gamma World RPG.

He ended with:

I never read or played Paranoia, but based on the Kurgan’s description, it does appear that Clown World is headed squarely in that direction, with the exciting addition of a reality-defying demonic element.

As the owner of Uncle John’s Band blog noted about me on SG, I sometimes drive people crazy by noticing what he referred to as single data point patterns. What’s worse, of course, is that I then talk about the extrapolations I get from these and people end up assuming I am either some kind of Magician or seer, or a crazy fantasist that just assumes he’s smarter than everyone else. The truth is that for some people, the ability to do this, extrapolate and understand a whole pattern from what may be a single data point to others, appears perhaps closest to the effects given by the wonder-drug in the film Limitless.

This is not exactly a single data point since I have known about Vox’s tendency to be a strategist rather than a tactician since before 2016, when I had a conversation with him on the phone in some detail.

Anyway, I found his sentence fascinating because it highlights our different modes of operating in the world quite well I think.

So, let me explain, in that semi-autistic, over-detailed way.

Von Clausewitz, in his On War, described essentially four types of men, as relates to the art of war. I forget the other two types (because they were below my station, just as never spent too much time thinking about how many versions of Beta men there were below Alpha and Scout in my own SSH) and I also forget the names Clausewitz gives the top two, but in essence, the General-type is the Strategist and the Commander type is the Tactician.

In my opinion you cannot win a war (at least not well or easily) without both (and a bunch of subordinates and soldiers, of course). If you only have strategists it’s akin to America in Vietnam and Afghanistan. You may have the air superiority, and you may have the technology, and you may have the intelligence, but without knowledge of the details, and dedicated soldiers at the squad level, if the war carries on long enough, you will lose. Even if you “win” you will never really have the “hearts and minds” of the people you are occupying.

If you only have tacticians, you might win almost every small battle, but lose the war politically or logistically or morally.

It is true, that if you have a LOT of tacticians, you can win a war (see Vietnam and Afghanistan, as I said) but it will take years and a huge loss of life and limb.

If you have a good mix of strategists and tacticians, that trust each other and work well together, it becomes really hard to defeat you, even against numerically much superior foes. If you add in a touch of fanaticism, well, you become a real unstoppable force.

Vox’s comment interested me because he brought attention to a strategically very significant issue. He posted a few times about the possibility of AI and computers in general being a possible portal from which demonic spirits may interact more readily with the material world. A case in point is shown below:

Vox noticed this at a strategic level, considering it from that perspective, one might actually do something about it at that level, which might look like blessing specific machines by a valid (sedevacantist) priest prior to use. You could get a whole industry of demon-cleared AI and computers that could give humanity at least an equal footing with the demonic AIs. It is a strategists perspective and it would have a strategist’s solutions, which means, at a relatively bird’s eye view of things.

I have not been unaware of demonic influences, in fact, I am pretty constantly aware of them, but until this comment, I had not given any specific attention to AI or computer-interface with demonic spirits. In my mind, it was just “Eh… more demons. Get the Holy Water infused Flamethrower, keep calm and carry on.”

A Tactician that is good will overcome fantastic odds in battle and be surprising, inventive and hard to predict, while managing men he trusts and relies on who will follow him into the depths of Hell. But he may miss the big picture.

There are notable differences in temperament and moral limits too.

And they may be a little analogous to my discussions on 2D versus 3D thinking.

A strategist has the ability to make alliances and deals with people that a tactician might not even be able to force himself to be civil to in a neutral setting.

I know this is definitely the case with Vox and myself. I recall a conversation we had about Ethan Van Sciver and his behaviour regarding a comic book crowd-funding event and the behaviour Ethan had exhibited. I honestly forget the details as it wasn’t something that affected me directly, but I recall a sense of shock when Vox mentioned he may work with him in the future. The conversation went something like this:

Me: “…why? Why would you ever trust that guy again? Or work with him?!”

Vox: “Who said anything about trust? And why not? If he helps me achieve certain aims?”

Me: “…but… how?”

Vox: “Well, he would never be allowed to have any position where he could control anything, and he’s a good illustrator.”

Me: disapproving silence.

I understand the point, of course, and it makes strategic sense. But personally, the idea of having an unreliable vermin in my ranks, however cordoned off, would disturb my sleep.

In an actual war situation Vox would need to keep such allies far, far, far away from me, for I’d be more liable to slit their throat in darkness, just to be able to rest easy during the carpet bombardments of enemy artillery.

While I would be able to maintain a certain level of decorum at the victory parties after the end of the war, I would not be able to share a table with the allies that behaved in a cowardly fashion, abandoned my men in difficult actions, or chose to somehow put their personal needs before that of their men, even if overall, their contributions would have allowed us to win.

Ultimately the difference between a strategist and a tactician is one of numbers I think, which is why Clausewitz defines them in those terms, that is, the number of men they can direct well at any given time.

My preferred choice is one of course, me. But as I also recognise I have certain abilities, that number can be considerably higher, but always with a need for high trust amongst my men. It is more of a Russian style command structure I favour. The leader is the leader, no questions, but the specialist takes over when it’s his specialty that comes into effect.

Vox is more akin to a general in that he may give a vague aim point, then let the relevant person get on with it as they see fit.

If a strategist is wise enough to direct his tacticians in such a way that they do not overlap with persons, ideologies or obstacles that render them counter-productive, the advances that can be made are astonishing. If you also get some synergy going between the various tacticians, suddenly, the chaos of war begins to take on the form of an amazing, self-creating painting of high art.

And now, of course, I am wondering if I could interest a sede priest to consecrate a specific brand of crusader computers, running Temple OS, in order to fight the demonic hordes of pedophiles at the WEF forum and the Davos and Bilderberge meet-ups, not to mention all the Western Government officials.

You see? As a tactician, I immediately go to the weaponising of tools and practical concerns of sending demons directly back to Hell.

Now Vox just better set up that factory that will produce laptops running Temple OS made in Russia or China by making deals with shady, heavily accented, Russian programmers that chain-smoke unfiltered cigarettes, and fast-talking chinamen without religion.

Tony Lowe Beats a Heretic With a Stick

Tony is becoming quite the heretic basher, and doing so nicely. He wrote this short book, which is quite entertaining. I know it intimately as he emailed me most of the correspondence as a vetting process before taking my suggestion of putting into book format. If you want to see how deceptive fake “priests” are, this is definitely a good read.

More recently, Tony came across yet another impostor, liar and deceiver, who tried to do a “takedown” of Peter Dimond’s debate with an SSPX heretic.

The original debate was, as I think Vox once described a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens “Frog meets train”.

With Peter Dimond being the train. And yes, the train was fine.

This character; Trent Horn, who has all the charisma of a drone reading a teleprompt, tries to pretend he can derail the train. He cannot, and he does not, and Tony took the time to list just the nonsense Trent Horn says about Catholicism in this video, meant to support the fake, satanic infested Bergoglian “Church” of the Novus Orco.

Here are tony’s notes for just the first 25 minutes of the video, enjoy.

2:00 -> He says that there are no Bishops… wrong because there are Sede Bishops and Bishops can ordain other Bishops.

06:30 -> Contradiction: T. admits that there can be an interregnum (when there is no visible head) and then says that The Church teaches that there will always be a visible head (which it doesn’t say and can’t because there are times of interregnum when there is no visible head)

Also, Sedevacantism doesn’t mean that the office of the Pope has finally ended. The office still exists and The Church still retains the power to elect another Pope, we just don’t have one at present and might not for a while.

9:30 -> Messy interpretation juggling about Bible and prophecies. Still, the Bible does predict a great apostasy.

12:00 -> Red-Herring/Conflation: He mentions past heretical Bishops and then argues that this didn’t mean that The Church defected, but having some heretical clergy is not the same as having a Church that consistently and publicly teaches heresy in councils, liturgy and catechisms!

16:00 -> Very Subtle Argument/Misdirection here…

T. talks about the “sin” of heresy but admits that Popes lose their Papacy if they commit the crime of heresy. Then he argues that the sin of heresy is only private and that the crime is only a crime if it is concluded by a trial. He also argues that priests who mortally sin still retain their Orders (which is true).

The problem is that whether we call it the “sin” or the “crime” The Church teaches that public, manifest heretics are automatically excommunicated (Ispo-Facto) without any public declaration (Canon 188.4)!

The subtle deception results from the fact that it is indeed true that sinful priests or even excommunicated priests retain their orders but, of course, they lose ALL authority! 

Even the Eastern Orthodox still have valid orders but they can’t become Popes.

Now, T. also says that we can’t ever judge when someone has become a public, manifest heretic and so, the logic goes something like this…

If a priest walks into a catholic church and sacrifices a goat on the alter in the name of Satan, no one can really tell whether that priest is a public heretic or not. And so, the laity should patiently wait while he does his ritual and then go to receive the sacraments from him. After all, its only been 10 minutes and no trials have been had yet and so, who are we to say if that is heresy or not?

23:00 -> Bergoglio isn’t in communion with Peter because he contradicts papal teaching and the Catholic faith.

24:00 -> Conflation: He equates “small” with “invisible”. Just because the Church is “small” doesn’t mean it is “invisible”. It wasn’t “invisible” when it only consisted of 12 Apostles and some Holy Women.

24:00 -> Conflation: He says that “If heretics cannot become Pope, therefore no converts can.” WRONG! Converts are not heretics! That’s why they’re converts. They have recanted their heresy and now hold the Catholic faith. This does not apply to heretics, the anti-Popes or their clergy.

24:00 -> Lie: He claims that Cum-Ex Apostolatus Officio was “abrogated” by the 1917 code… No it wasn’t! Its IN the Code!

I will only add that the only fault I find with Peter Dimond’s position is that he (erroneously) does not consider baptism of desire and baptism of blood ads valid, which leads him to essentially not recognise any valid priests or bishops. He is clearly in error on this because he apparently follows the ideas of one Leonard Feeney. But Feeney was excommunicated by Pious XII in 1953, who, of course was the last valid Pope in current times, as we have not had one since then. So, following the ideas of an excommunicated heretic, makes you a heretic in turn, which, sadly, is what Peter Dimond is, purely on this one point, because as far as I have seen from the rest of his site, he is otherwise rigorously correct. As far as I have seen anyway, his site is extensive and I have quoted him in various places and ways when his arguments are correct, which they more often than not are, as well as exhaustive, but I have certainly not perused the entirety of his voluminous works, so I can only attest to those things I have linked or quoted in the past (always giving attribution).

Peter Dimond is a heretic by fault of wanting to be too zealous and thus rejecting a truth that the church has always held, that Baptism of desire and of blood are valid baptisms (rare though they are). But he is otherwise correct on most positions I have seen him take regarding Catholicism. If Dimond corrects this one error he would likely be a model Catholic.

Trent Horn is not correct on anything and he’d have to overhaul his entire thought process to even begin to become a Catholic.

And lastly, on a personal note of pride, while I am certainly not Tony’s dad, I am old enough to be, and I have seen him grow as a Catholic and a man in the few years I have known him. He has helped me very much here on the farm, at personal cost to himself, while being generous and constant in his support of both myself and my family as well as the church. He is a better Catholic than I am in many ways and he continues to improve as he ages, and he is not yet 30. It does make me proud to see how far he has come in such a short time, and I am excited to see what he will create of his life in the years to come.

His takedown of this deceiver is personally satisfying as I can see our conversations have matured and now, he is striking out on his own, taking heretic scalps as he goes, it’s enough to make a man proud. Godspeed Tony.

The Importance of Intellectual Rigour in Human Affairs

It has not gone unnoticed that I tend to be “unmerciful” in my descriptions of the liars, deceivers, and general gatekeepers we find ourselves surrounded by. Those who read my comments, after all, named me The Kurgan, precisely because of my happy-go-lucky attitude, mixed with a talent for taking heads, just like the maligned (real) hero of Highlander.

Those who pay attention however have noted a subtle but important difference between my criticisms and those of your average thunder and fire and brimstone “preacher” or critic.

That difference, difficult though it might be to see for those unfamiliar with truth, logic, reason and correct charity, is due to my subscribing, and submitting, to Catholicism. That is, in short, submitting not just to God, but to the rules of the Catholic Church. And, of course, as always, when I say The Catholic Church, I mean exactly that, not the current usurping impostors sitting in the Vatican or anything related to Vatican II and their false Popes, false clergy, false mass, false ordinations, false faith and literally satanic practices. As always, remember that Sedevacantism is the ONLY Catholicism left and Sedevacantists the ONLY Catholics left. It doesn’t matter if you like it, if you believe it, if you understand it or not. Just like the sun rising in the East, it is a fact of reality and one that can be verified fairly easily by anyone honest enough to investigate it, whether briefly as I did in BELIEVE! or thoroughly as I did in Reclaiming The Catholic Church. So, for the remainder of this post, this “aside” —which I have to keep hammering on because of the level of deception fostered on the average person— is simply deemed axiomatically accepted.

Rigidity of mind without divine grace becomes Calvinism. And Calvinism is not just retarded, illogical and demonstrably false, but it results in the kind of twisted puritanical nonsense that runs totally counter to human natures not just in the negative aspect of those natures, but in the positive aspects too. The kind of mental rigidity that supposedly “follows Jesus”, in typical Protestant fashion, is binary, black and white in nature not just in baseline principles, but in every aspect of its limited imagination, meaning that beauty, charity, compassion and so on, simply become casualties of the (limited) intellectual strife that such attitudes foster internally on people.

There are always two classes of theological concepts one can look at: The high-minded, detailed, intended aspects of a religion or faith, and the actual general effects it has on a population.

Now examine the high-minded versions of Calvinism… well… ok, what passes for high-minded in those mental cripples. Ultimately, it reduces to a sort of Islam. God already knows everything and already determined everything, so you are either one of the elect or not. You have to do everything exactly right as one of the elect, otherwise you are not one of them, but you can’t really know which one you are because only God knows for sure.

It is literally a lose-lose, retarded way to go through life. The “opposite” of Calvinism, the “Jesus is my boyfriend” TV-Evangelist style of “faith” is just as retarded, if in the opposite direction “Well, I follow Jesus, so I am saved”. The Once Saved Always Saved (TM) Franchise is just as moronic, in fact, perhaps more so than puritanical Calvinism. While Calvinism is the metal equivalent of living in a constant mental prison of guilt, shame, inflexibility and (essentially) existential terror, the libertine version of “christianity” fostered on people by the once saved always saved crowd is essentially total debauchery with a religious stamp of approval. And between these two extremes you get all sorts of colourful (as in rainbow striped) nonsense.

Catholicism has a difference from all of these intellectually unsatisfying (because ultimately false and falsifiable) positions. What you will notice in Protestantism, from Calvinism all the way to Jesus is my boyfriend, is that for all its supposedly vaunted “individualism” —after all, it’s all: interpreth as thou will— the aim is always to homogenise the masses. The individual, despite the lip-service paid to him or her, is really never actually considered. Nor can be. Since, by its very core, Protestantism is “unique” to every single person reading it, the illogical nonsense of Sola Scriptura being the mind-warping stick by which they live.

This “Sola Scriptura” nonsensical position is actually a very clever total inversion of individualism. Since every Protestant is theoretically capable of interpreting scripture all by himself (yes, it is as absurd as it sounds, given that the average person can’t even read two paragraphs of an article and rewrite it in their own words without crippling the message) you can’t possibly have a doctrine for it, which means that ultimately it all reduces to one grey oozing mass of “I am a Jesus follower!” with some within it, sticking absolutely inflexibly to some supposed “tenet” that they personally ascribe to, or that their sub-cult has brainwashed them into accepting as such.

Catholicism, instead, has always had the individual human person at its core. The core of Catholicism —as perfectly described even by the last valid Pope we had, Pope Pius XII, in his Mystici Corporis— is the lay family man or woman. The husband or wife that compose a family that makes children. The little guy is the guy in Catholicism. Yes, of course we have priests, and bishops, and a Pope, and it is a hierarchy, and there are also temporal secular leaders (emperors and kings and barons in times past) because even Heaven has a hierarchy, but the entire edifice is there for the purpose of serving the common man.

Catholicism has very clearly defined dogmas and rules, in fact they are all written down in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917. So it certainly doesn’t lack intellectual rigour. But correct intellectual rigour deals with reality, not a fantastic lie of how man beings “should” be (but never have been). Puritanical Protestantism tries to force human beings to act, behave and think like automatons. Perfect machines that should never stray from the correct path. Or, alternatively, imperfect humans who will do all sorts of sin, so there is nothing to do other than say you follow Jesus and you’re saved anyway, so, you know…try to be “good” whatever “good” means to you specifically.

Catholicism is very clear on what is good and what is not good. It does not deviate from this. What it does is also recognise that as flawed humans, we are going to fail in some measure in trying to be perfect. In fact, it is practically guaranteed, since we are told none of us are perfect. This is why we have confession. The act of telling your priest your errors, weaknesses and bad deeds, within a context where the confessional seal will not be broken by the priest even on pain of death (which has been sadly tested throughout history and found to hold true) forces you to confront yourself weekly. To consider your actions before you do them in light of the having to confess them later. And gradually helps you become a better human being. Your sins are forgiven because you accept you have done them and try to not to them again or at least in the same way or to improve the length between your lapses, and your intent to do this is, must be, honest, lest your own self-deception begins to eat away at you.

And if you are of the high-minded variety and want to know the detailed ins and outs of Catholicism, well, you have entire libraries full of historical details of how this or that dogma and doctrine was interpreted, clarified and finally summarised in Canon Law. If you are legalistically, logically minded, Catholic dogma (and Roman Law) are an autist’s delight, because they are rules that follow a clear, bright, logical path, and that path is also humane. The more you investigate why this or that rule exists, the more the wisdom and charity and logic of the rule come to the fore, and slowly, you begin to realise that such perfect ruling does not derive from any human being, but can only be the purview of divinity. And that, as the Church teaches, the Church is merely the handmaiden of the Divine Grace that God gives us.

All the flawed humans that comprise and have comprised the Church have not been able to pervert or corrupt the truth, because the Church is indeed supernaturally protected from error. The Magisterium of the Church, int he form of Canon Law, is infallible because God has protected it from corruption. Even as the church was infiltrated and usurping freemasons satanists took over the Vatican, the Code of Canon Law was created and is the most vetted document in human history. Even as the Papacy was overrun by impostors, the truth of Catholicism was forever enshrined in writing. And even, as prophesied, Satan entered the Vatican, actual Catholics remain and continue to practice the same religion with the same Mass and the same ordinations and rituals as has been done for nearly two millennia. Yes Sedevacantists are the only remnant of Catholicism left, but this is not a shock, or even a surprise. If you read your Bible, it literally states this will be the case.

If you look at the high-minded sample of Catholics, you will not find any lack of logic, reason and reality-based factual, objective practices.

If you look at the overall common man and the mass experience of Catholicism, today, you will not see much evidence of it because in order to become Sedevacantists, most have actually got good powers of reading comprehension and tendencies to high-minded aspects of truth and faith, but luckily we have an abundance of historical facts to draw from. Even when most Catholics may have been illiterate, Catholic communities were the ones that had the best systems of justice, and societies that were safe, produced happy children and happy life-long marriages. Catholicism literally created the modern Western world and invented the scientific method (which we now have mostly lost to politics and lies).

Your average illiterate catholic peasant was a happier, free-er and more serene than your average protestant peasant by far. And the societies they created reflect this. Even today, almost 70 years since we had a valid Pope and the Church was so deeply and widely infiltrated by Satanists, those countries that used to be Catholics still have remnants of behaviour, even in their legal systems, that tend to concern themselves more with the individual and his real, human nature, than with he legalistic loopholes best suited for robots that the protestant nations have mechanised into creation.

The “loopholes” of Catholicism, like Baptism of Desire, say, are not loopholes at all, but rather realities based in truth, justice and divine grace. Not created by human minds trying to escape reality, like the nonsensical concept of “once saved always saved”.

A rule or law that does not consider the reality of human beings, is not based in reality, and as such is either useless or tyrannical, but can never be just. Catholicism has always, and will always be for the death penalty. Because some crimes deserve it and require it. Similarly, Catholic believe that yes, God can forgive any truly repentant soul. Yes, including a child-rapid mass-murderer. It is possible that at the last minute such a soul truly repents and instead of eternal hell is relegated to a long time in purgatory and eventually will also be in heaven and share in the beatific vision. It is absolutely possible. But, in Catholic thought, such a person would still be burnt at the stake. For his crimes demand it. And of course, while he is burning to a crisp, he may, indeed have time to reflect and actually repent, and God may well save him from eternal hellfire for it. But we, as mere mortals, can only ensure he is put to the fire, here on Earth.

It is perfectly logical, even if to the average protestant it may seem illogical or hypocritical, because such is the perspective when you can only see things in two-dimensions. To a 2D thinker, a line on the floor is an impassable wall, but to a 3D thinker, it is merely alive and one that can easily be traversed without any fault.

Consider then, the intellectual rigour required, for logic to be done correctly in the human context.

It may be salutary to have an example of this, and I may do a blog post on it soon.

A bunch of ecumenical heretics dislikes me. Oh dear…

As I have explained before, I dislike cowards perhaps even more than outright evil doers.

I mean, the evil doers at least could be said to have some kind of “principles” even if it is just to serve Satan and cause harm. But cowards, well, cowards have none, they are the squishy molluscs of humanity, willing to fit in any crevice and mould themselves to any lie. And in all honesty, I apologise to molluscs for the comparison.

Intellectual cowards are no exception. They perform twists of strawman-logic that would make a crack addled prostitute blush for shame.

My post on the intellectual cowardice and general incompetent nihilism of Bruce Charlton brought yet another bunch of intellectual heretics and cowards out of the woodwork to “defend” him. They show themselves up as intellectually dishonest right in their about page of course:

Who We Are and What We Believe

Ortho:  Right, correct, straight. As in orthodoxy (right teaching), orthogonal (literally, right-sided; thus, right angled; so, perpendicular, independent) and orthognomon (right knowledge, right indicator (as of a carpenter’s square or a sundial)).

Sphere:  A domain, especially of influence. Thus,

Orthosphere: A domain of Christian orthodoxy independent of conventional conservatism.

We are Christians: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. We believe our religion is true, and we take the Bible and the Church Fathers as our guides to the faith. We do not innovate religiously, for that is folly.

We affirm our respective traditions where they disagree with the other branches of Christianity, but we do so respectfully, for we have much in common (catholic or mere Christianity) and our enterprise has as much to do with society as with religion.

 

Let us count the ways in which they lie:

1. We are Christians: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.

Yeah… so you are not Christian at all. You’re LARPing at it by being actually completely Protestant. Actual Catholics don’t recognise the schismatic Orthobros as validly Christians, much less the absurd 40,000 denominations and counting Protestants. Actual Orthobros also don’t see Catholics and certainly not Protestants as being valid Christians, and only the Protestants can hold the nonsensical position that anyone who says Jesus is Lord is a Christian. I mean, demons acknowledge that too… so yeah, they are just a bunch of happy clappy, kumbaya pretend “christians”. The correct word (at best) for these types is Churchians.

2. We believe our religion is true.

No, you don’t. You can’t say you believe X is true when you also assert Y and Z, neither of which is X and in fact are specifically NOT X are also true. Especially when Y has several competing versions of Y and Z has 40,000 competing versions. So you’re outright lying. What you really should say is that you will pretend to believe all sorts of conflicting and mutually exclusive nonsense in order to appear “tolerant” of the world and its lies. Because apparently, being tolerant of lies is a virtue. For you. Not for anyone intellectually honest, of course.

3. and we take the Bible and the Church Fathers as our guides

No, you don’t. If you did you would be actual Catholics.

4. We do not innovate religiously, for that is folly.

Ahahahhahahaha seriously, these people… I shake my head… how can anyone even remotely honest write this? Well they can’t. Because how can you, with a straight face, say you do not innovate religiously when you literally accept as “true” over 40,000 versions of your “truth”? And directly go completely against the Bible, tradition and the Church fathers all of which tell you to not deviate from the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church? Well you can’t. You have to be an absolutely shameless liar to do so, or a complete and utter drooling retard, and usually both.

5. We affirm our respective traditions where they disagree with the other branches of Christianity, but we do so respectfully, for we have much in common

Translation: We “respect” each other’s lies because being liars ourselves we can hardly point fingers. It has been and will always be a fact that actual Catholics affirm and believe, dogmatically, infallibly and forever that: There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Because Jesus, the Bible, the patristic fathers. So… if one actually was Catholic, one certainly cannot accept any other “branch” of “christianity” as being in any way valid. The same goes for the Orthobros schismatics. The only Churchians who could come up with this nonsense are the protestants, which is what this bunch of heretics are, regardless of what they pretend to be.

6. Mere Christianity

I have explained before my dissatisfaction with CS Lewis, which goes back to before I became a Christian, precisely because it is a mealy-mouthed “defence” of Churchianity and in typical British fashion, he skirts the main points, never actually facing them on, unlike, say, G.K. Chesterton.

7. and our enterprise has as much to do with society as with religion.

Translation: We are of the world as much as we are of “religion”. That’s really it.

That’s all we really need to know about them. And their incoherent squealing defence of Bruce is even worse. Yes that’s quite the achievement but it is. Honestly, I think “unhinged” is probably a better descriptor for them given the utter word salad they come up with.

They lament that one should simply “tell the truth” and support anyone who does, ever, when they do, even if they are demonic. Yes they literally say that.

Just speak the truth, then, and support all others who do … whether or not they do so consistently. Do this, even when they be demons; for, even, and perhaps especially, the demons cannot but testify to that truth which founds their very being.

So demons testify to the truth. That’s a novel one on me. But hey, I always said it: Protestants have the same method of measure for being a “christian” that demons do. At least these guys admit it, I suppose. And that’s literally the only truth they tell about themselves or anything else. Unwittingly, no doubt.

Oh and according to them, I criticised Bruce because of envy. Heh. That actually did get me to chuckle for real, as, I am sure, it would anyone that knows me in real life.

So yeah, thanks for confirming my points, that you gnostic, non-christian, heretic Churchians are a scourge on truth, and serve only to do the equivalent of adding large scoops of sewage to the ice cream of truth and then expect everyone to pretend it’s ice-cream.

No. It’s not. It’s sewage.

 

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