Present day “wisdom” which is essentially the fumblings of retards with pretensions of adequacy, has it that the so-called primitive part of us is a brutish thug with little in the way of redeeming qualities.
The truth is quite different.
Aside the fact that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Japanese and so on had advanced functioning cultures, though only the Roman one lasted some 800 years before collapsing, the longest empire beside that of the Catholic Church, which has so far lasted two millennia (and counting, if in a much reduced form), the truth is that they had great thinkers too, the like of which on modern times seems to be lacking.
But I am now referring to an even more ancient aspect of our nature. The one of the time of Cro-Magnum and the Neanderthals. The one of sabre tooth tigers and mammoths, and even older.
The side of us that can kill on a whim, have sex to reproduce as a biological imperative free of any logic or reason.
In its basic form, this aspect of humanity has been painted as the eternal boogy man to hide, destroy and stamp out.
But if you have noticed all the lies you have been told to date, is this any different?
Allow me to pose a few premises or syllogisms for a thought experiment.
1. God is real and good
2. God makes humans
3. The purpose must be good and as such at least some humans or perhaps even some part of all humans, must, necessarily, be good.
In ancient times the instinctive beast-like natures were activated due to being in survival mode. And as such helped propagate such instincts thanks to those who survived.
Time and biology marched on, and people die and people tell that dead person’s story. So over time we got stories of what became heroic personages and by the middle ages, the very concept of courage, honesty, chivalry, justice, and so on were an intrinsic part of the fabric of Christendom. Exemplified by the Catholic West to a quality and quantity never before or since seen.
The point is that in that period, the beast-like nature was tempered and honed into the pinnacle of an instinct that had now been imbibed with Catholic principles of virtue.
One only needs to review the historical record of how the crusaders behaved in 1095 to see that there was a sense of justice, charity, self-sacrifice and devotion that was absolutely real, expected and demonstrated that today is essentially mythology that is not present in any facet of life, but rather in only a few and select individuals that by a mixture of genetics, happenstance, and personal discipline, have moulded themselves into such men.
And they are in almost every way vilified by the modern world and every attempt is made to label them as toxic, violent, aggressive, misogynistic, brutish, troglodytes to be caged.
Almost every instinctual response they may have, including those absolutely forged in divine Justice, is today labelled as somehow scandalously brutal and unacceptable.
While the opposite is the case.
A case in point, not to aggrandise myself, but to elucidate the point from real, lived, experience may better express what I mean in a relatable way.
Ona trip by train in London once, a black man with a bicycle boarded the train and then stood next to a white woman of middle age, who looked like a perfectly normal lady going about her day.
He started swearing at her for no discernible reason. They had not boarded together, she had not spoken to him at all. He started of with comments of the sort:
“Hey bitch, what you gonna do, huh?”
“Bitches like you, I know, you’re a whore. Fucking bitch. I will fuck you.”
He would go quiet for a second or five then start again. The train compartment I was in was full, and I was sitting at the opposite end. I watched this for at least a minute or two, not a soul in that compartment reacted. All in perfect British unison, they seemed to all be deaf-mutes. The lady kept her head slightly bowed looking straight ahead in obvious distress. Having made my calm observations for long enough, I felt first of all disgust at every member of the (supposedly) male species in that whole compartment. Then, pity for the woman, and finally, the slight beginning of anger at the stupid monkey, harassing her. His confidence in his ability to behave that way clearly tied to his belief —probably through experience— that most white people in the UK are afraid to confront a belligerent African.
Having lived 25 years in Africa, I am well aware of the chips on various people’s shoulders. None of which are ever justified. Even when there is a trend. Is there a trend of Afrikaaners thinking badly of Italians? Sure. Of Germans doing it too? Sure. Do I care? No. Never have. Why? Becaise it doesn’t matter at all. It is not my job to know nor care what anyone else thinks about what they assume I am or might be like. The only thing I need to do is act or react as appropriate to any given situation, person or moment in line with MY code of ethics. Mine. Which is absolute and absolutely clear and equal for all people. Even in my unfairness (for example, I will choose my child’s life over the life of ten children I don’t know) I also accept that another person is entitled to the same unfairness if they are in that position.
And MY code of ethics has little to do with the laws of any country on Earth, because my code is primarily if not entirely based on the concept of justice. While all systems of human laws are primarily (at best) based on preserving “social order” which generally also means one set of rules for each strata of society depending on power and money available to them. Justice cares not at all for either aspect.
And that is why I decided there and then to educate the stupid monkey pretending to be a human insofar as such a creature cam be educated. So I shouted:
“Hey!” Which made every sphincter in that compartment suddenly clench.
“You are going to shut the fuck up or I am going to get out of this seat and every fucking bone in your body.” It was said at a volume that no doubt could be heard in the next compartment over too.
And all of a sudden, there was not so much as a paper rustling. Perfect stillness and silence. It’s amazing how the impending prospect of sudden violence makes everyone suddenly focus and be aware. The stillness is calming to me. It is nerve-wracking to most and sends some into an almost hysterical state of silent panic. But for me it is calming, because it is the prelude to finally releasing all the stupid tensions and stresses I have to hold in daily when surrounded by the unconscious. The zombies that go about like the undead. The monkey like this fucker, flinging shit every day of his life simply because mo one ever took the time to break his nose every time he behaved like a monkey instead of a human being.
Eventually he spoke up, only confirming exactly what I had judged him to be.
“Is it because I am black?”
That’s all he had. That was his shield.
“Keep talking and if I get up from this seat by the time I am finished you will also be blue, red and a bit white too if some bones break well enough.”
The train had pulled in to the next station and the African was now rather panicked. His race card had been checked and ignored.
“Well, anyway, you can’t assault me, because there is an undercover police here, and he’ll arrest you.”
At first I thought he was just making it up but I glanced at the man he had indicated and I saw fear and shame in his eyes. The disgust I felt was palpable.
“No. He won’t do anything. And this is the last time I tell you. Speak again and I will get up. And once I am up I will come over there and break every bone you have in you. And I will stop only when I am good and done. Then, after, if I feel like it I might let that faggot cop arrest me. But you won’t know either way. You’re not going to be conscious by then.”
There was silence as the train doors opened.
The African took his bicycle, swung it round and as he quickly exited said:
“Anyway, this is my stop.”
At that point the whole compartment actually burst into laughter. No violence was going to happen, the threat for it had evaporated and the last comment was so fake and ridiculous it just resulted in everyone releasing their tension with laughter.
A stop or two later I reached my destination and I made a point to cross the car and step past the plainclothes cop. Looking him square in the eyes I told him:
“You consider yourself a policeman? You are a disgrace.”
He kept quiet and didn’t respond at all.
The point is that even if I had got up and beat the shit out of that guy with the bicycle, that would have been nothing but good. It would have made him hesitate to ever behave that way again, and that would only be a net good. But in modern society, they want to stop any semblance of justice from happening. In fact, in the UK right now, they want to make injustice the rule. You can kill, rape or do all sorts of things and get away with it, depending on the colour of your skin. And since those reading are almost invariably assuming that my reaction was also based on skin colour, the use of the word “monkey” supposedly proving it in their own (actually racist) minds, they would be at a loss to explain how a very nearly identical scenario I was also involved in involved a small Indian man as the victim and a white, definitely English man as the offensive monkey. In fact there were two such incidents. One in which I actually did have to intervene. So on the race basis I am 2 for 1 against the whites.
Because that’s just how things played out. I also had other situations happen with people with dark skin and people with white skin. But the one thinking about such things is you. Not me. I know you think about them so I point things out here, and yes, there ARE differences in culture, behaviour, religion between different ethnicities. And no, they are not often compatible. But that is not the issue being discussed here.
The issue being discussed here is that thanks to reason, logic, and through it the virtues that Catholicism has stated are virtues, that have since permeated almost all Western society as now being considered generic virtues, it has been possible to tame the beast-nature to have a divinely tinged response.
I am not certain if such a quality can be purely trained or taught. I feel a component of it is almost certainly genetic. Logic dictates this is most likely the case, although, of course, proper understanding of the faith, training, learning mental and emotional discipline, and a strong desire to become a certain way, all help in making this way of being a reality.
The point is that it has been shown historically through the ages to be a possibility, various societies had warrior castes that achieved a similar level of divinely inspired reactions.
So; if you are that way inclined, begin to explore your own inner world and motives, and see if you can’t learn to lean more towards a more natural, tempered, honest and true aspect of your true nature. And remember that every man is different. My “sliders” (for you Gen Z and younger computer gamers) or “stats” (for pen and paper roleplayers of Gen X) are almost entirely shifter on the character trait: Seeking Justice (stolen from the old and not very successful Role playing hame called DC Heroes, based on the characters from the DC comic books.)
But your own true nature may be to achieve martyrdom, to sacrifice your time and efforts to God or those you love in a spirit of joyous giving.
It may be to seek material success (in which case you netter stay as conscious as possible, since your instinctual nature is probably closer to that of a feral rat).
Nor is the judgment of “society” necessarily any indication of what is good or evil. Especially lately. You are likely to be told that making a large family is “bad” when it has always been a blessing from God until the so-called “modern” age.
They will tell you absurd nonsense such as violence is never the answer, which is a lie so obvious that a child gets it, since the only reason they teach that is so that they have the monopoly on the use of violence.
So use your own mind, your own reason, to evaluate things. Ideally Catholicism first (meaning understanding that today the Vatican is not Catholic but Satanist) and then your own choice of who you are or want to be.
Godspeed to you if you take me up on this.
Once more on Adam
An interesting post by Adam again was this one, for which he apparently received some pushback.
Having read it, I would say he only made the window-dressing error of the title he chose, and this singular phrase:
You treat your daughters as property that must be protected
It is the natural poisoning of the mind that occurs in the predominantly Protestant zeitgeist of English-speaking countries, to reduce things to a simplified (and usually binary) mode of thinking. And such thinking is almost always a mistake. Few things in life are so black and white and when you apply an oversimplification to a complex situation, you are invariably in error to some degree or other.
Sometimes needs must: If I have only 2 weeks to train a battalion for war, some trainees will likely die in training, but the others will have a better chance to live through the war. But in matters of social engineering, it is worth taking careful observation of reality rather than play fast and loose with broad definitions that are going to fall short of the mark.
Adam’s piece is otherwise completely right, but those two unfortunate uses of the word “property” when applied to women in general, are an error.
In fairness to Adam, I think he quickly realised this and he wrote a follow-up that expanded on his thoughts.
I it he tries to better explain what he means by stating that “women are property” or should be treated as property, but the sneaky thread of sulphurous protestantism remains even in his expanded explanation. And this is important to note, because this is precisely how evil works. It infiltrates as tendril of mildly erroneous wordings or concepts and inevitably expands into a cancer on life in general.
Even in his expanded explanation, whether because of persistence in his error or perhaps some hint of pride in not wanting to admit it, Adam continues in his insistence of stating women as property. This is absolutely not a Catholic belief, but rather a purely Protestant one, and, tellingly, a Pagan one too.
Before I go on to correct the error and hence better represent Catholicism as it is, instead of how Protestants insist on trying to present it as (falsely, obviously) let me be clear that I am not taking shots at Adam. He is a friend, and a good man, (yes, even though he is Australian, proving we Catholics truly understand forgiveness!) and the point here is not to bash his good intent, or even his error, rather, I would say, the intent on my part is of iron sharpening iron. Adam is a good exponent of Catholicism in general and the more accurate he can become, the better the influence he will have on others who may be ignorant, fooled by the lies or confused in general.
Now back to the topic at hand.
In Catholic thought, women are not, and never have been, “property”, other than in (somewhat) one specific, and by the way equal, way: in marriage, they do not have authority over their body, their husbands do, and equally, the husband has no authority over his body, the wife does (1 Corinthians 7:4). And it is very much the case that this passage in the Bible refers pretty much only to the sexual congress that occurs between husband and wife. In other words, marriage constitutes a perpetual sexual access to your body by your spouse. Even then, this is not a mechanistic “sex doll” clause, as the immediately following passage in the same section makes clear (1 Corinthians 7:5).
Even then, the wife (or husband’s) body is not treated as “property” but rather as the spouse having authority over it. That is rights. Not ownership as such, but authority to use it sexually; a subtle but important difference.
In fact, Catholicism was precisely the very religion that freed women (and children) from being thought of as actual property.
Now, all that said, let me also be clear that Catholicism is also not the other side of the Protestant coin: the pedastilisation of women, where they can do no wrong, are spiritual saint purely by virtue of being female etcetera, etcetera. No. As always, Catholicism simply describes reality as it is, and recognises that women are the more fragile sex when it comes to dealing with the world. As such, they are to be protected from it and from their own, mostly unwise responses to it. Just as it is a parent’s duty to protect a child from his own unwise responses to a fallen and dangerous world.
The complainers that this “negates the agency of women” are retards bleating in the wind of their own ineptitude. The simple reality is that yes, generally speaking, children have less agency than adult women, and adult women generally have less agency than adult men. This is simply reality. Just like the sky is mostly blue in daytime, or black at night-time. Neither state is rigidly absolute, but only a complete moron would argue against these facts as being the obvious reflection of reality that it is.
So, while it is absolutely correct that as a father of four daughters it is my duty to educate, protect and love them, it is not true that I ever have, or ever will, treat them as property. And ultimately, while it absolutely is my duty to instruct and teach them and do my absolute best to see they are prepared to deal with the hellscape of the world we find ourselves in, at some point, I will be dead, and they will need to rely on themselves to navigate the world well if they have not yet found a worthy husband.
While I am alive, I will certainly help them evaluate any prospective suitors, but while that is a fundamental part of being a father and parent, ultimately, as is also clear in Catholic dogma, marriage has to be a freely chosen sacrament by all parties involved. In short, a better analogy is that while you can teach someone to drive, you can never be actually controlling their every move by some remote system of control. They may crash. They may die or run someone over. All I can do is teach them all I know as best I can. After that, it’s up to them, the choices they make, hopefully the good husbands they pick, and finally, the Grace of God.
In Catholic belief, all things are ultimately subject to God’s Will. Which is not to say we sit on our arses like Hindus or Muslims because in any case, the wheel of reincarnation will evolve us or Allah will do whatever he wants anyway so why bother. No. Catholic belief is that you absolutely must get off your arse and work tirelessly and to the bone to be the best you can be, and even then that is only to TRY to secure a place in Purgatory, which is by no means guaranteed, so that you might, eventually get to Heaven, instead of Hell, where the path to it is “wide and well-travelled”.
In short, if and when you do work your arse right off, then, God, invariably does bestow His Grace upon you.
One of the filthiest of the many lies Protestants created about their fake Churchianity, is that no one is “saved by works”. A twisted half-truth designed to leads untold millions to Hell.
While it is true that a lot of busywork without any faith achieves not Heaven, it is equally true that a faith that does nothing practical is also just as fake, sterile, and useless. Teaching people that all you need to do to be saved is “accept to at Jesus Christ is King” is literally telling people to have the same “Christian” standards that Demons have.
Demons too know very well that Christ is King.
And that is really the only “prescribed” rule of Protestantism, not can it be any other way once you teach people that they are all entitled to interpret the Bible (and everything else) as they choose. Which is literally a Satanic law (the only Law is that there is no Law, so you can do whatever you want is entirely Satanic, and Protestantism can be absolutely defined as “interpreth as thou will”, just another version of the Satanic law “do as thou will”).
The squeals of Protestants to the contrary —sounding so much like the noises made by demon-infested pigs as they run towards the sea— the reality is that no two Protestants can even agree on what the definition of a Christian can or should be. Which is why they have reduced it to meaningless nonsense like “accepting Jesus in your heart”, “being a Jesus follower”, “knowing and accepting Christ is King” or “having a personal relationship with Jesus”.
All complete generalities with less consistency than a thin fart in a high tornado. Ask them to define with precision what the rules for being a Christian are, and they become babbling gibbering mouthers, more prone to speaking in tongues than make a coherent argument, much less a united one.
The situation is, of course, entirely different if you ask any two Catholics how to define what a Christian is, they will tell you the Credo for a start; and all that is implied in it can be found in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, plus the Papal encyclicals and documents referred to therein, as well as those produced between 1917 and up to 9th October 1958, when the last valid Pope died. That is it and can often be quickly received in summary format by the guidance of a good priest or Bishop, of which there are only a few left, but they do exist, and will continue to do so, as they have through all the dark times the Church has navigated through.
Returning to the errors of Protestant infused thinking with regard to women, their level of agency, and the duty of men to protect them from the world and their own emotionally driven unwise choices, once again, the Catholic perspective is based in reality and as such infinitely superior to all other attempts at “controlling” or even merely understanding women.
Women are less capable in the practical navigation of the fallen world we inhabit, and as such need to be protected, cherished and helped through it by men who correctly see the world as it is, and inevitably, the best of such men can only be properly Catholic (i.e. Sedevacantist) because Catholicism is the best method we have ever had of seeing reality as it is, with logic, reason, and Divine Grace all working in perfect unity.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 3 September 2024 | Posted in Believe, Catholicism, Caveman Theory, Caveman Theory, Christianity, Heretics, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary