Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category

The Kurganing of Tim Urban

Western civilisation destroying vermin must be outed, and on my recent short post where I mentioned my disgust at/of Tim Urban of the blog Wait but Why, I received the following comments on SG:

Thanks for posting and pointing out the evil. Used to follow this guy a couple of years ago when I was more naive. Without this post I would have still believed him to be a normal.

This was from extraoliveoil, who is so awesome he has literally made all my videos into podcasts for ease of listening, which you can find here.

While another denizen of SG said:

Reading your short blog, expecting it to be some expertly brutal kurganesque dramatisation; then skimmed through the linked blog post — it’s all false, lies, disgusting, misleading, gross, and lying. The disgust expressed in your own blog post is actually uncharacteristically mild, compared to the filthy OP.

It is a harsh, but fair, rebuke. I let small things like family time, work, trying to single-handedly build a small channel to save the road from the next flood on my property, clearing the forest for the truffle areas, getting the grass cut before we are overtaken by the vegetation, fixing the new cupboards to the wall and so on, from appropriately taking another heretic’s head. Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa.

Furthermore, my recent post on the importance of proper reason and its use in human affairs, laid the groundwork for a proper look at Tim Urban using those very same catholic principles of discernment.

Forthwith, let the vermin that is Tim Urban, be exposed for the Western Civilisation destroyer and deceiver that he is. This is his disgusting blog post on “parenthood” that I will now dissect, point for point, for your entertainment. Tim’s vileness in vomit-colour green, mine in normal text.

1. A newborn is not a baby

He even has a disgusting graphic:

The intent here is clear. Sticking to his religion of birth, I assume, which is Judaism, he is trying to run with that professed tenet of Judaism: baby murder, and going along too with the idea of Australian professor Peter Singer that babies can be murdered even some time after birth.

It is really quite clear that this is the intent, even if thinly masquerading as “humour”. Yeah, this is supposed to be “funny”. When written from a supposed father about his own first-born baby daughter. Right. Yeah. I don’t know a single man who has had a daughter (or son for that matter) born to him that would even come up with such abject and disgusting nonsense. The only emotion that a normal father has towards any of his children is that he would happily axe murder 10,000 Tim Urbans before letting any kind of harm come to his newborn baby.

Hey, Tim, don’t worry; it’s just some humour. Of the funny kind, you know, the one you know nothing about.

2) It is insane that there’s not some required training for new-parents-to-be

Well, it’s not so much training that is required, but some people might agree that some kind of licensing is required. Mostly so that people like you, Tim, are not allowed to reproduce.

That aside, the point here, which most would miss, is that Tim is advocating for even more regulation in people’s lives. Right down to having to go through some government approved course with an exam in order to pass and be allowed to be a parent. No doubt, when one of the requirements on the test is something like answering the question: “Do you agree that all vaccines (genetic serums) are good and should be given to your child?” makes its way on the test it will only be a “natural progression”. For your own good, according to Tim.

3) Babies have giant heads

He walks this one back trying to be funny. It’s a non point. Fluff to camouflage the rest of his disgusting attempts to influence the zeitgeist.

4) Babies are incredibly overdramatic

This is another somewhat subtle but really disgusting point. He essentially is advocating for the ignoring of a baby’s discomfort. Babies only cry for a reason. They are either in pain, hungry or otherwise uncomfortable. Whether from colics or something irritating or hurting them in their clothing, or them being hungry or requiring a cuddle, necessary human contact that provides them with neurological changes required for healthy humans. On top of which Tim outright lies and pretends that the old canard about babies not being able to see or be conscious or normal (which he made in point 1 above) is true. When it is an absolute lie, and this point is supposed to subtly reinforce that, while also adding the lie that babies have no positive emotions. All babies do, and my children all could see and even smile from day one. And no, it’s not “wind” it’s a smile. And anyone that can’t tell the difference is either a retard that should never be allowed to reproduce, or intentionally evil and trying to relegate babies to some sub-class of living beings that is somehow not human. Either way, such people really should not reproduce.

5) The parent-newborn relationship is super one-sided

Here Tim exhibits that narcissist streak his people are very famous for. It’s all about him and his needs. The idea that it is perfectly normal that you should be willing to die for your children without so much as a “by your leave”, much less a thank you, is absolutely foreign to him.

6) Babies shit all over your schedule

More of the same. The idea that your baby may be more important than lazying around with a mocha-latte from SatanBucks NOT writing your book that took you 2 years for some reason, because the lazying around was easier, is simply foreign to narcissist Tim.

7) It’s mathematically impossible to know if your baby is cute or not

Here Tim (always under the guise of really unfunny “humour”) is trying to imply that some superficial attribute of “beauty” can be assigned to a baby that will only develop features you can begin to note as being in the finished state a year or more after birth. Because that matters. Somehow. Possibly to Hollywood influenced and influencing members of a tribe of superficial caricatures of humans, but certainly not to any actual functioning human being looking at a newborn baby.

I’m guessing that the phrase “the miracle of life”, as far as Tim is concerned, only applies to himself.

8) I’m a motor skills virtuoso

Once again, Tim reveals how everything in his head is all about him all the time, incessantly. Not just that, but he is totally uninterested and oblivious to the rather fascinating concept of how a baby forms mind-maps of its own body and how it literally increases proprioception right in front of you. If you have read my book on Systema, you will also understand why babies can pretty much grab anything out of your hands, and/or smack your face, insert a finger directly in your eyeball and so on before you have a chance to react at all. Because they do not transmit information in their movement as they are at first absent of any intention. And the micro-cues that would let you unconsciously anticipate such intentions are absent given their unexpected and only semi-intentional movements. Observing this in real time is actually really interesting. But then, you’d have to actually care about your child. And that would mean having space in his head, heart and soul for someone other than himself; clearly an unthinkable proposition for him.

9) You don’t go from a non-parent to a parent overnight

Here Tim continues to promote the general zeitgeist that making children is a huge deal, that it’s difficult, that you’ll never be ready, that the learning curve is huge and forever and impossible to get right. Let’s see… is that geared to promoting having children or not? What do you think?

Sure, one never stops learning being a parent, but so fucking what? One never stops learning how to paint, or draw, or do martial arts, or skeet shooting for that matter. Should it stop you from having children? No. Because guess what, all the billions of people that were born and then went on to make children all had the same challenges in various degrees, and yet, here they all are. That’s life. Get over it, and make babies. Unless you’re Tim. Then please stop. Don’t do it again. No, seriously.

10) Having a baby really makes you think about the future

Incredibly, here Tim advocates for full-blown transhumanism, literally stating:

My baby might live a life a lot like mine, just a little more futuristic. Or she might live to 500. She might live most of her life with a brain-machine interface implanted in her head, thinking with her own superintelligent AI.

As if that is somehow a cool option for the future, instead of the dystopia, horror-show the Klaus Schwabs and they (literally) homosexual freaks like Yuval Harari, fantasise about for us. Really in this last point, his agenda is somewhat shown. As is the little known fact that Tim was contacted by Elon Musk a while back, because supposedly he’s an “influencer”. Which is why, this ticket-taker does what he does. Whether he got paid in money and power or not is irrelevant, he’s a ticket taker anyway, by sheer adherence to the baby-murdering transhumanism we have evidenced here and the fact that he is indeed, boosted as an “influencer”.

In Conclusion

Do not listen to, do not be influenced by, and see through the thin veneer of “humour” this transhumanist would-be abortionists tries to hide behind. When looked at in the correct, objective, view of reality, his nonsense is not just absurdist nonsense, it is identifiably evil. Which, of course, he would deny strenuously while pretending to just be a mere victim of my cruel Catholicism that has “hated” his people for almost two thousand years.

Hated, no. Seen for what they are, absolutely, yes.

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.

This is not hard

To all the squealing of those hurt and offended by my zealotry, all I have for you, is the silence of assent.

Of course their squeals are silent too, because they go directly to the permanent spam grave and I will never see one of their idiotic comments again, nor will anyone else, but the point is really not difficult.

There are only two kinds of people:

Those who love the truth, and those who do not.

While people can be in error and indeed we all are at some point on many things, those who are intellectually honest can and do correct their error when presented with objective facts that disprove their theories, beliefs and ideas. Of course, in areas where personal opinions of individuals, can sway large sections of the uneducated population, errors abound and many of these are fostered on the less knowing by those wishing to control them.

And wishing to control others for personal gain, makes you fall into the side of those people who do not love the truth.

There really is no other more meaningful distinction between human beings than this. Either you love the truth and prefer it to any lie, or you do not. And if you do not, I don’t really care about you, your feelings, and frankly, whether you continue to breathe oxygen or not.

I am not talking about people in error here, we all are to some degree or other. I am talking about people who knowingly chose a falsehood for personal gain over a truth that will benefit others but not gain them any advantage. Those people are my enemy. Directly, indirectly and perennially. There is no middle ground. I do not care for liars and their hatred for truth. I do not want them near me. I do not want to work with them, for them or have them work for me.

In fact, I don’t even understand how anyone can have anything to do with a knowing deceiver. Why would you even want that anywhere near you?

So, while I can stomach the deceived protestant that simply states that Church history, the patristic fathers and all the other evidence against protestantism being valid is not important to him and he just believes in a generic good God that loves us and the important thing is to do good and be good and treat people well, I will have nothing to do with a liar that states flatly that Popes did not exist in the year 900 AD and/or that the whole of Christendom was in fact Catholic up until 1050 or so.

One can be thought of as a simpleton, but a friend, the other as a flat out, knowing liar and deceiver and as such, nothing but an enemy.

With respect to people such as Bruce Charlton, as I explained, I do not think he is necessarily an intentional deceiver per se, in the sense that he’s financed by Soros to spread lies, or anything analogous to that. I think he is simply someone so invested in his own intellectual ego that he comes up with fancy —and perhaps superficially attractive to some— heresy.

Charitably, I do not ascribe to him the intent of wanting to lead souls to Hell, only the effect of it. He’s more drunk driver than intentional van-into-a-crowd driver.

And as such he requires calling out and exposing. Especially since quiet correction did not work and in these dire times, clarity of faith is the most important aspect of our existence, whether you realise it or not.

So yes.

I am an absolute zealot for truth. I will go to the wall for two plus two being four, now and forever. There has never been any question of that in my entire life. The real question here is:

Are you?

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