A recent conversation with a guy I have a lot of time and respect for took me a little by surprise, since it appeared that somewhat out of the blue he went a little anti-Catholic.
It’s not that in itself that was the surprise, but rather that he seemed to have made some assumptions about my perspective which frankly, I am at a loss as to how he did that, since my views are pretty clearly identified both her and on my YouTube channel, on pretty much everything I care to discuss.
In order to make it even clearer, I thought it best to identify perhaps more clearly, if somewhat succinctly (for me anyway) some of my positions.
The use of generalities will be very common, and if you’re too stupid to understand that “in general” does not mean “every single time”, well, I can’t help you.
On Catholic crimes of conquest
Perhaps the most touted is the one concerning South America. Did Catholics do som bad shit there? Sure. Did they destroy Mayan codexes and such? Sure. Although if my memory serves one of the few salvaged was by a monk (I may be wrong). Did this somehow lower human knowledge of human history in some important ways? Perhaps. Am I really torn up about it?
No. No I am not. And keep in mind I was big on trying to figure out stuff about that culture for years. But the reality is that ultimately it was an extremely cruel and vicious culture, and there is more than a little evidence that some of the symbols used in it are reflective of some used in Freemasonry, and there is a guy who has written at least one book on the topic of Satanic cultures having such common threads. In case tearing open 20,000 living men, women and children to rip their hearts out to appease their gods wasn’t evidence enough.
On the Catholic practice of building Churches on top of Pagan shrines they had destroyed, so that the Pagans would still show up, and over time be converted, once again, I am not going to shed any tears of it. Might this have possibly reduced human knowledge with regard to lay lines and potentially some astronomical correlations and aspects? Possibly. But even if that were the case, what are the societies that were replaced by Catholicism like? Almost without exception (certainly none I am aware of) they were more brutal, violent, oppressive and vicious than Catholicism.
And as for the Inquisition supposedly being this bloodbath of thousands of innocent women being burnt at the stake, it is perhaps one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated by the Satanists of the so-called French “enlightenment” and revolution. Did you ever ask yourself why it is called the “enlightenment” and Lucifer is known as the light bringer? Or the fact that the American revolution was financed by Freemasons with French money to create the first country that actually operated from the start on the basis of Freemasonic principles barely covered over by a veneer of Protestant puritanism?
The grand total of “witches” killed by the Inquisition over more than 100 years is 12.
And they also killed only 163 pedophiles in the same period. I could top that in a week-end just by clearing out the Vatican.
So, overall, in general, no, I don’t care about the “atrocities” that Catholics may have committed against some supposedly innocent group of heart-eating, child-raping, goat-fuckers.
And while I am sure some innocents somewhere, invariably get killed in any kind of war or uprising and so on, by and large Catholicism has only improved life for all people under it when compared to what it replaced.
The simple proof of it is that no one can point to any other civilisation under which human beings have flourished and generally had as good a time than under Catholicism. Similarly, the greatest number of works of unparalleled beauty have happened under Catholicism. And please note that I am not saying beauty is a uniquely Catholic perspective, for example, I have always found Japanese aesthetics to be appealing too, I said the “greatest number” of beautiful works of art.
The de-chattalisation of women, children and the abolition of slavery all also followed.
Not to mention the literal invention of the scientific method.
So, overall, despite the inevitable collateral damage, conquering Catholics inevitably brought a better life than the alternative. And let’s not forget that while we as Catholics will convert and then happily mix with whatever we conquered (see South America) the Protties tend to exterminate (see North America).
On Race and Culture
It would be hard for anyone to really accuse me of racism if they have even the tiniest glimmer of insight into my personal history, but let me be clear that I absolutely am aware and notice and see and consider race. Because my brain functions normally. Just like I notice sunshine, rain, and any other number of things.
My position is again, very Catholic. But this probably needs further explanation, because the overwhelming zeitgeist of “Christianity” is really Churchianity and not actual belief. Protestantism has made it so a “Christian” is anyone that says he is. The reality is that unless you are literally willing to die rather than denounce Christ, you are simply NOT an actual believer. You’re a pretender.
So:
IF you are an actual believer,
AND you actually understand agree with and do your best to follow Catholic dogma,
THEN, your race, culture, etc matter less to me. That said, I am not blind to either race or culture, and 25 plus years in Africa has made it abundantly clear to me that the average African is not suited to live in the average Traditional Catholic European country any more than the average Catholic European is suited to live in the average Traditional African Village. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I am absolutely for the Africans to have their own ways and cultures and nations and for every people to have theirs. I for one would very much like my nation to return: The Most Serene Republic of Venice.
Since that is not really how things are, I am absolutely for having very clear and strong borders and repatriating any illegals by the most expedient, efficient ways and I don’t care if they are a bit brutal too. Nor am I in favour of second or third generation people of a completely different religion and culture pretending to be natives of a country their ancestors came to.
It’s really not hard to understand. My father has lived in Africa over 40 years but he will never act, think, or behave like an African any more than a Zulu who has lived in Venice for 40 years can be a Venetian. And I absolutely wish to preserve every culture possible. The Zulus in Zululand and with their rules and ways to be respected by any visiting foreigner or foreign resident, and Venice for Venetians, with our rules and ways.
That is real diversity. I can then experience Japan in Japan and Botswana in Botswana and Venice in Venice.
And if your claim is that some people (say white Europeans) are far more technologically advanced than some other people (like say black Africans or Brown Indians) well, sure, I also agree there are differences between races and cultures. These are simple facts to observe. And the best thing one can do is to simply allow each culture and ethnicity to grow on their own terms.
There really is nothing any more “unfair” about it than saying a humming bird has an unfair advantage in flight over a lion. So what? They are different and let them carry on in their own way.
Not all cultures are equal. Some are objectively better than others. And Catholicism is unquestionably the best culture Humanity has ever seen. It doesn’t matter if it upsets you. It’s just as true that Japanese Katanas are the best kind of sword ever built for the purposes they fulfilled.
As for the outliers… sure… they exist in all aspects of life. Generally speaking I have been one myself in multiple aspects of life and have I been discriminated against for it? Sure. So what? The outlier will find a way. And again, my approach here is perfectly Catholic. Just like nothing could prevent Joan of Arc from being Joan of Arc, if God wills it, nothing is impossible. The priest Joan initially told her visions to told her to shut up and stop being crazy. Because he knew, most likely she’s just crazy, but if not… God will find a way. And even when I was not Catholic I always understood this very simple principle: life is not fair. So what? Buckle up sunshine!
On the LGBT-Pedos
Just like it is a fact that generally the IQ of caucasians is higher than that of Africans, no matter how many people it upsets, the fact also remains that the incidence of child sexual abuse committed by homosexuals is over ten times that committed by non homosexuals. And that’s on reported cases, which we all know are a fraction of the real number. So, at a bare minimum, no child should be given into “adoption” to homosexuals. And that is far from the only argument against it, by the way.
Secondly, from a purely natural perspective, it is absolutely clear that homosexuality is a deviancy, a clear defect, regardless of your opinion of how it comes about. Because if we all went homosexual, the human race would disappear and be unrecoverable after about 4 decades. And by the way, the only study I am aware of on it, which I read over 30 years ago, concluded that in about 90% of cases homosexuality in men was a result of either a choice, or sexual trauma and was reversible, while only about 10% of cases seemed to be a birth defect.
That said, I am no more for burning homosexuals at the stake than I am for doing so for people born with six fingers or missing a leg. I certainly will be absolutely wary around them, as I would be around anyone with proclivities that might play out as harmful towards my children, but ultimately my position is indeed that what they do behind closed doors, with other consenting adults, can and should remain behind such closed doors. Proselytising your deviancy as normal is not, and should not be permitted. And if you disagree, I would like you to now defend my personal preference for hunting pedophiles down on horseback with lances and making a corrida of it through all towns around the world.
If you are a pervert, you KNOW you are a pervert. So shut the fuck up, stay in your closet and lane, and don’t you dare try and normalise it.
Just like it would be absurd to tell golfers how it’s perfectly normal to shove a bucketful of golf balls up your arse every Friday night, it is absurd to teach that homosexuality is “normal”. It isn’t. And it never can be. Just like being born with only one leg is not normal. So as far as I am concerned, the rules Russia has imposed concerning the LGBT nonsense are perfectly fine. With one exception:
Pedophiles really should be burnt at the stake, and as my recent survey shows, (feel free to add your vote) most men really agree with me.
Conclusion
So, that covers the main topics. And feel free to try and critique my “bigoted” views but be mindful of the rules of this blog if you want to avoid an insta-ban.
On Success with Women, evaluating types of men and IQ
Vox made an interesting post on Chris Langan.
It’s definitely worth a read.
I find it interesting primarily for reasons of philosophical intellectual differences I note between people of high IQ.
It’s the one place where the uniqueness of a human mind can become really quite interesting; if you’re into noticing such things anyway, which I am. A little explanation of what I assume is Vox’s general perspective, as well as how mine differs follows, all of which is merely a preamble to explaining what I think are the differences in how Vox and myself rate Chris Langan; allegedly the smartest man on Earth.
Vox’s SSH is the result of his observations of men within various social settings. Whether he was influenced by the PUA nomenclature or even their theory or not is unknown to me and somewhat irrelevant. The process of evaluating other men en masse is a relatively natural one, at least for men who are essentially unconcerned with other humans for the most part, aside how to mostly be left alone by the vast majority of them. I.e. what Vox has labelled the Sigma.
His version is far more detailed and specific about the sexual aspect. My own version of the SSH is something I came up with long before Vox’s version or knowing anything about him or PUAs. I talked about it before, along with a version of the female SSH I came up with much later.
The point I find interesting is that Vox’s version of the SSH is indeed more detailed and more clear in defining large swathes of the male population, but I think his generic motivation for noticing is probably quite different from my own.
I can’t speak to his motives but I would assume they are rather rarefied and somewhat detached from any specific issue. It’s more the approach if a butterfly collector I would assume.
My own version was far more akin to the intent of a hunter, identifying potentially dangerous animals, generic ones that may be useful or irrelevant and other hunters, which likewise could be dangerous, useful or irrelevant.
As a result, my version of the SSH only had three types of men:
Alphas: The natural leaders in a group. Generally my perspective is taken mostly from a very primitive and physical aspect. My Alphas differ somewhat from Vox’s in that I was primarily concerned with the physical alphas. Some captains of industry that are Alphas in every other respect, become practically irrelevant when the SHTF in a physical confrontation. This was probably a combination of growing up mostly in rather primitive societies, doing martial arts pretty much from the time I could walk, and working in close protection in South Africa for some years. The Alphas in this world can literally lead gangs, have other men do violence on their behalf and so on.
Betas: pretty much everyone that wasn’t an alpha. A very few may be technically proficient in physical confrontations, but this generally limits itself to the individual level, and I became relatively proficient at not worrying too much about any confrontation one on one quite early in my life. I was, of course, aware of there being a large variety of sub-categories in this one, but my approach was to deal with each type as they came up. Some were useful, (bravos) some annoying, (gammas) some irrelevant (omegas) and most a mix of the above (deltas) that could be useful, annoying or irrelevant depending on the specific situation, but overall, as a class they were not dangerous in general terms.
Scouts: my own class. These could be unpredictable and dangerous if you got on their wrong side, for whatever reason, and if dangerous could be a far more formidable enemy than an alpha even if generally they would not have anything like the social resources of an Alpha. They also tend to be chamaleontic and able to infiltrate other cultures or societies more successfully than any other type.
The Chris Langan’s evaluation
Vox’s is in keeping with his way of seeing the world. He gives Langan his due stating it is clear that the man is smarter than he is, yet notes rhat Langan’s lack of success with women is also a fundamental aspect of his mostly Delta status. And I think this is entirely correct. Langan’s biggest chip on his shoulder is that no one is smart enough to evaluate his grand theory of everything, (CTMU) and paradoxically, that no one is giving him the accolades he deserves. Which is fully in keeping with a Delta’s concern for being respected for their work as well as having someone tell them what to do.
As for having the thought that most people are too dumb to follow my ideas, that’s nothing new to me either. I published my concepts on The Face on Mars, Systema, the Catholic Church and Catholicism, and relationships between men and women, and then, once done, I can’t even be bothered to self-promote enough to make even a modest living from it. Which is the difference between Langan and myself, regardless of IQ.
More importantly, from my perspective, I don’t rate Langan at all on any scale that I care about.
Whether he is more or less intelligent than I am is irrelevant from my perspective. What I look at is his effectiveness. And in this respect I believe he is essentially a non-entity. I don’t mean fame-wise or even society-wise. I mean on a personal level. And while I am not in Langan’s head, I think it’s fair to say that it is fairly obvious he is far from pleased with his achievements in life, by his own metrics, whatever those are.
And he certainly is less successful than I am by my own metrics.
* He does not seem to have fathered any children (at least not that I could find any evidence of it)
* He seems to have been unable to let go of the resentment built up over his hard childhood (something I managed though I think his situation was far harder than anything I had to endure)
* I believe he is not wealthy enough to have at least a comfortable life, I may be wrong on this, but given it’s just him and his wife it seems to me he is still chasing fame and fortune in his 70s.
He also had a very hard childhood, so I am not denigrating the man, I am merely stating what are objective facts as I see them.
I also read his CTMU and frankly, it is nothing revolutionary. First of all he uses a lot of unnecessarily convoluted self-defined language in a dense format. This is both unnecessary and a sign of some degree of showmanship.
While creating neologisms for efficiency can be useful, packing a half-dozen of then in every sentence or two is not the way to be efficient. Nor the way to be understood by people you deem to be a lot dumber than you are. My IQ was measured at 152 and 157, but none of my books are anything that is too complicated for a person of normal intelligence to follow.
Could I make the books shorter? Sure. Probably by 80%, but then the number of people that could appreciate them would be minimal. In fact, one of my better achievements is Believe! Which at only 98 pages has nevertheless resulted in over 100 people getting baptised into Sedevacantist Catholicism (aka actual Catholicism).
Vox also rated Jordan Peterson as smart (which he is technically, with an IQ in the 120-130 range) so he is entirely correct, but I have largely ignored the guy because he is clearly an only partly sane occultist, pathological liar and grifting conman.
Vox’s more highbrow perspective is certainly more in keeping with what society gauges as being success, intelligence, and achievement, but none of those social metrics are anything that I ever thought of as being particularly important in general, and certainly not for me specifically.
I find it interesting that given the difference in childhoods, Vox, Langan and myself also seem to have rather different ways of measuring success and effectiveness, even if broadly speaking we see the same things (covid scam, 9/11 inside job, chemtrails, etc).
It is sobering to see that emotional events that we go through in childhood may be significant for the rest of our lives, regardless of IQ. This is not news to me, as I have been intimately aware of this aspect of humanity for a long time and confirmed it many, many times thanks to the hypnosis work I do. But it is good to remind ourselves of the weaknesses we all carry around, even, or especially, the ones most hidden to ourselves.
No related posts.
By G | 11 August 2024 | Posted in Brain-Mind Functionality, Catholicism, Caveman Theory, Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, Human Performance, Hypnosis, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, Systema