So, it has come to my attention that yet another deceitful gatekeeper, by the name of Teresa Stanfill Benns, who runs a website called Betrayed Catholics, has been making complete fabrications concerning Catholicism in general. And to what end, you may ask? Well, the usual one: Trying to make sure that nominal (already deceived) Catholics, who are merely ignorant of the lies that have been forced upon them since birth, do not get wind of the actual Catholicism which is today held ONLY by 1958 Sedevacantists.
In short, this deceitful shrew lies about a great number of things, but all of them come to the same conclusion: You must follow the fake “Pope” Bergoglio who is just a “bad Pope” and not the gay handmaiden to Satan that he actually is.
It is complete nonsense of course, but then another moron who should also hold her tongue (and typing fingers) as per 1 Corinthians 34-35 and even more clearly 1 Timothy 2: 12-13:
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Hilariously calling herself “The Thinking Housewife”. But also tragically, because she gives actual housewives with a brain a bad name. Her piece is here, and it is very simple to refute… IF you actually understand the basics of canon law and Catholicism. But she is merely quoting Benns and Benns style, is very much like the one of John Salza, a supposed “ex” self-confessed freemason who pretends to teach people how the Novus Orco Church is the Catholic Church.
Well, it isn’t it is the result of usurpation by Stanists and it is a full inversion of Catholicism of course, as readers here will know by just looking for the words “Vatican II” or “Canon Law 118.4” or “188 part 4” and reading the relevant posts. And John Salza, having been a Freemason even though a layman is absolutely forbidden from teaching anyone anything about Catholicism. In fact, even if his repentance were real (it is not, by all measures one can reasonably observe) this would still be the case, since, once a heretic, even clergy who repent are to have authority over precisely no one, and spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance. That is the dogmatic law. Imaginbe how much less authority a heretic layman has then to tell anyone anything. About anything.
So let’s dispense with the unthinking and at best illiterate “housewife”, which is really a dismissing of Benns, since all the “housewife” does is parrot the same lies Benns does.
Benns assertion is quoted in full by the Housewife and we will do the same here and also take it apart piece by piece in the usual Kurgan style.
Her lies in filthy bold, my pristine truth in normal text.
“TRADITIONALISTS argue that necessity knows no law and they can resort to epikeia to justify their ordinations and consecrations.
She begins in the usual freemasons fashion, intentionally trying to obfuscate simple concepts by use of jargon and unnecessarily “scholarly” wording. I say “scholarly” because it is of course a lie, a deceit and an attempt to wrap oneself in the in any case logical fallacy of argument from authority. Using the Greek word for “reasonableness” is simply obfuscation in the first place (most people have no idea what Epikea means and the slight confusion the causes to them puts them in the immediate mental state of assuming the writer must be very “scholarly” indeed). Well, she is not, and in fact this transparent deception shows she is not even mildly intelligent. Just vicious and nasty from the start. The deception is that there is no need to use the word “reasonableness”. There is a very sound and logical concept at play here, which is simply this: ROMAN LAW. Which Canon Law and the Church has always used. The point of Roman Law is that it is based in absolutely sound yet humane logic. So, for example, unlike the mechanistic and inhuman British Laws, or worse the American ones, in the context of a criminal act, in Roman Law, there is no specific prescribed action other than generally. Each case is evaluated on its merits. The murder of a pedophile is not the same as the murder of an innocent shop owner, and so on. But more importantly, Roman Law is soundly based in logic. So for example it follows the rule of silent assent and the reasonable and logical concept of the negative application of a rule being valid when such situations are fulfilled for it. Two relevant examples will suffice: There is NO prescribed maximum duration of an Interregnum (time between when one Pope dies and another valid one is elected). Therefore, no specific limit can ever be prescribed for it. We could go 1,000 years before a new and actually valid Pope is finally voted in after the usurpers have been done away with it and this would in no way mean the Church has defected, otherwise it would mean the church had defected as soon as St. Peter died. or when for almost 3 years there was literally no one at all even pretending to be Pope a few Centuries ago. In short, you cannot assume things that don’t make sense.
But furthermore, the sentence above is a lie. NO ONE has ever said “reasonableness” is why ordinations by Bishops of other Bishops is why Sedevacantist Bishops can ordain new Bishops.
Whenever a Pope dies Bishops have no jurisdictional authority, and neither do Priests. In essence all a Bishop can do and priests too is issue the sacraments to the faithful, which of course includes doing Holy Mass and doing so WITHOUT the name of any Pope joined to the prayers, since no pope exists presently. Because the Pope is the one that has final say in if ANYONE is actually allowed to become a Bishop, what the liar Benns is pretending to say is that: “Only the Pope can validly make someone a Bishop, so Sedevacantist ordinations are invalid and a sham.” this is a filthy lie and the entire history of the Church proves it. Whenever Popes died and before another was elected Bishops were ordained, the eventual new Pope had absolute authority to veto any of those ordinations that happened before he came to the throne. And in the era of the Borgia and Medici, this veto power was used a lot. But even then, Popes would generally not make any comment of people who had been ordained as Bishops who were not some kind of threat or power-play. In fact, throughout its history, most Bishops are ordained and the Pope says not a thing about it. And because it’s Roman Law and the rule of silent assent is a given, it means that if the Pope says nothing, the ordination is assumed valid. And that is how it has ALWAYS been. So she lies straight out the gate. And then she gallops on to the next lie.
The link leads to a screed of John Salza-like absurdities, obfuscations, lies and so on. It really is the Freemasonic way. She invokes the Papal writings of Pope Pious X and Pious XII Vacante Sede Apostolica and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, as if they agreed with the lies she is saying. they do no such thing of course. And it goes on to several lengthy pages of lies and obfuscations. it is the Argument ad infinitum Salza also uses. Writing page sand pages of lies so enmeshed and so twisted with the facts that one’s brain gazes over and once again they do this to give the impression that they are great and wise scholars that have “done their homework” but of course, it’s all nonsense, because we have already seen that the ordinations are simply assumed valid and always have been, until a new and VALID Pope says specifically otherwise.
And as explained at length in a separate work, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS) — which infallibly decrees what can and cannot be done during an interregnum — forbids any correction or change in the law during an interregnum. ‘The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.’
Note again the strawman. She is trying to imply that VAS says “You guys can’t ordain Bishops when a Pope is dead or not valid!” But that is not what it says at all. All it says is what has already been known from the very first Pope on. When a Pope dies or is not present on the throne, no one has authority to do anything other than give the sacraments. We already know that. and we already know that Bishops and priests were ordained throughout the history of the Church without a Pope necessarily being validly on the throne. And after one did come validly to the throne, unless they specifically stated so-and-so was actually NOT accepted as a valid Bishop or priest, it was assumed by all, positively, definitively and permanently that they in fact were validly elected.
“Here we are talking both papal laws and Canon Law, which is largely taken from papal and conciliar law.
Again an obfuscation of nonsense. There are only two kinds of Laws in the Church. Divine Laws and Church or Ecclesiatical laws. Divine Laws are immutable and eternal. For example, a public defection from the faith makes you a heretic without anyone needing to say or do anything, regardless of your status, which includes even a previously valid Pope. Another divine Law is that no one can be forced to become Catholic or get married say, again their will.
Ecclesiastical rules on the other hand are generally for the smoother running of the Church as it got larger. For example, the requirement of 70 Cardinals to vote in a Pope. this is merely a human rule that was not followed in the past, and therefore need not be followed in the future if circumstances make it obsolete or irrelevant. For example, in the current state of things there is not even 70 valid Cardinals. but then, neither were there ANY Cardinals at all int he year 400. And yet we had the Church and Popes were getting elected, by non-cardinals every one. So all that one requires to know is if a rule is of Divine Law, in which case it is absolute and eternal, or if it is of ecclesiastical law, in which case the specifics and the reasons for it need to be looked at and logically understood so that if things have changed to the point that the rule no longer makes sense, this is understood and acted upon intelligently.
Some may object that Can. 20 advises the use of epikeia, and to invoke it would not be a violation of the law. But Can. 20 specifically states there must be no other provision in the case considered, and such provision was already laid down in VAS.
We have already covered this above. She is just lying.
It also recommends consulting the laws given in similar cases and the common and constant teaching of approved authors.
Here there is the hint that she is well aware that ecclesiastical rules are not immutable, because Divine laws don’t change, and there is no such thing as “similar cases”. Either a law is divine or it is not. So in this case, it is a divine law that the Pope (if he exists and is valid) is the ultimate, supreme authority of the Church on Earth, as representative of Jesus Christ. It is also the case that JESUS is the ultimate head of the Church and NOT the Pope, and that any infallibility a Pope has is limited to when he makes official pronouncements on faith and morals, which in essence, for 2,000 years have almost entirely been composed of refining of divine law; required usually because gnostics, statists and protestants started to teach false doctrines in precisely this fashion, so what was always a law and a rule known by all now needed to be spelt out in detail to avoid the sophists and deceivers to confuse the faithful.
It is also a law that if a Pope does not exist, then any ordination performed in accordance with the rules of ordination is automatically assumed to be valid and this becomes NOT the case ONLY after a valid Pope IS elected and said valid Pope for whatever reason deems that an ordination was in fact not valid.
Also, the “teachings of approved authors” is yet another bit of nonsensical theatre thrown in to confound things and make it seem as if you need to consult 12 tomes from the archives to know if a “pope” putting demonic effigies on the altar is sacrilegious or not. But you do NOT need to do that. Because Canon Law is the distillation of every behaviour and rule a Catholic should follow. And because it was put together by a group of cardinals expressly for the purpose of ensuring that there was no contradiction in the 40,000 or so documents that the team of Cardinals looked at to compile the CoCof 1917, it is also part of the infallible magisterium of the Church, which is why in over 100 years, NO ONE has been able to find defect with ANY of its rules or laws. Instead the New Orcs (Novus Orco) simply said in 1983 that a new code was required and they made up a document that literally contradicts itself several times over and is just a typical mis-match of gnostic stuff blend with some roadkill.
What even St. Thomas Aquinas may have to say on a topic is irrelevant if you have Canon Law of 1917, because it is the final judge of how behaviour should be undertaken for a Catholic, Be they clergy or lay people. So it is totally pointless to refer to “esteemed authors”. It’s like saying you need to go have a coffee with the guy who wrote the book you need to study to pass your driving test, in order to be able to do the exam. It’s nonsense. There is no instance in which Canon Law does not supersede the thoughts, opinions, or writings of any Catholic
Laws given in similar cases point to the summoning of the bishops to elect a pope (Council of Constance) and a good number of authors agree on this, namely St. Robert Bellarmine and those supporting his teaching.
Once again, arguing for a straw man. Under normal circumstances, sure… but when your “Pope” is a henchman of Beelzebub, and so are his “cardinals” you don’t call these indemoniated freaks together to elect the baddest of them to be a horned minor demon. And St. Bellarmine simply laid out the procedure that should be followed when/if things are X. Which no one is arguing. But things are now Z and X is really not that relevant now.
St. Bellarmine also recommends the calling of an imperfect council in the absence of a pope if the cardinals cannot elect.
Oh…so…we CAN deviate from the ecclesiastical rules when it makes sense. Just as I said and she has been denying from the start until… now. Freemasons are not smart. Aside picking evil, which is dumb, they also can’t think on their feet. But the problem is not this, the issue is that fake Cardinals who are also fake Catholics, heretic every one of them, have no business electing anyone, much less one of their number to be “Pope”.
Finally, Can. 20 cannot be used in anything involving penalties. And VAS is a document levying several penalties.”
Again irrelevant. Because VAS says nothing about Bishops being elected when there is not a valid Pope being somehow illegitimate.
And there you have it. Just another gnostic/heretic trying to get you to be “in communion” with Satan’s henchman instead of with the infallible magisterium of the Church.
Now, a man’s line may vary somewhat over time, as life and experience gradually (or occasionally suddenly) make him aware of things he did not know, errors of judgement, or lies he has unwittingly believed.
But in essence, a man that has a line will hold the line regardless of where and when he is.
It’s the difference between someone willing to die for an ideal and those who are not.
While neither type of man is guaranteed to be ethical, there is a difference between them in that even if amoral, those who have a line are reliable at least as it concerns that line, while the others are not.
Historically such men, with a line, will tend to become the leaders of disaffected groups in any unjust society, and organise other men of this same type into an irregular “army” to take care of the many injustices and the corrupt, supposedly “elected”, leaders, and their nefarious minimums.
In many cases, such men started what later became known as criminal organisations, be it the mafia, triads, or yakuza, but in origin, starting from the “bandits” of Southern Italy, these were local men with the capacity, acumen and courage to do violence upon their and their people’s enemies, in direct response to injustices perpetrated on them.
Over time, such men, absent a moral imperative that they must believe in themselves at a profound level, will eventually, and inevitably, become corrupted, and if not them, their sons and grandsons will. Because once you cross the line of being willing to go against the “law” (however unjust it may be) in order to serve the greater good of “justice” from a human perspective, you will quickly realise that the “law” of the/any government, is no more and no less than the imposition of whatever rules by the use or threat of physical force. And who of us can’t do better than government work? So if you were to succeed at imposing your will on (initially) the government, how long would it be before you decide that you can impose it on whoever/everyone?
Did you know that Pablo Escobar had tried to become part of the government of Colombia? And while his “business” was brutal, and it is not politically viable to say so, are you certain that had he succeeded his rule would have been worse for the locals than the current government of Colombia? Because I for one don’t have enough relevant and verified information to be sure either way.
I do know, however, that someone like Pinochet was (and continued to be) vilified for having taken over Chile by force, and having stopped communism there by making some 3,000 people disappear, and having some other 30,000 or so escape that country. Bad guy right?
Except that in every single example we have from history of communist regimes coming to power, not only are millions of people displaced, but often millions are murdered, and certainly NEVER less than many tens of thousands.
Given these two alternatives, it seems obvious that Pinochet should be considered a heroic figure. But that does not suit the narrative of the people that run this planet.
Just like it does not suit their narrative for you to know a few choice bits of information, such as:
How fiat money actually works
How fiat money actually came about
Why usury used to be completely illegal in Catholic (and other countries)
How and why usury is not required at all for a functioning society and is in fact detrimental to it
How and why the royal houses of Europe were systematically destroyed over time
What is the real story behind Vatican II and who instigated and implemented it and how long they took to get there
What is actual Catholic dogma compared to what they tell you it is in the Novus Ordo, post Vatican II fake and impostor “Church”
Why it matters, and why as a result we can honestly say the only Catholics left are 1958 sedevacantists
What the dogmatic rules of Judaism are
Who is pushing the globohomo agenda of homosexuality being taught in primary schools, transgenderism and all manner of sexual “education” at ever younger ages, and how it is being financed
What the Universal Commercial Code countries are “required” to have and why and how it came about
What the real reasons that WWI was started and fought, who the instigators of it were and how they did it and why.
As above for World War II
As above for the “Enlightenment” and the French revolution
As above for the funding and real reasons behind the American revolution and later the American civil war
Who runs the largest operations of child rape, trafficking, murder cannibalism and literal harvesting of adrenochrome from these children
How the above child raping and murdering people also run and blackmail various participants and install them into positions of power around the world
The real origins of things like the World Economic Forum, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberger group, the various secret societies from the Freemasons, skull and crossbones, the Carbonari, Rosicrucians, Golden Dawn and on and on, and how they are all connected by a thread leading invariably to a specific group of people
Why and how all of these things are connected
Because once you find out all of the above and connect them, you will realise at minimum two things:
1. This planet is run and operates on basically lies, at almost all levels of functionality. The entire thing is so absurdly run on false premises that are built on nothing but lies to an extent that most human beings simply are not mentally equipped to handle without feeling absolutely overwhelmed by despair.
2. The actual real history of Catholicism and its real actual dogmatic teachings is the one story about how and why this planet works as it does that not only makes sense, but fits all the available evidence we have, AND models reality so well it can be used to predict how certain things will go both in the small and individual scale as well as the large and global one, to a degree that no other theory or ideology comes even close.
I lived with realisation n. 1 above from the age of 26 to 43 without having realisation n. 2. And yet, I did not despair at all. That alone makes me rather uncommon. Then from age 43 to 47 I investigated realisation n. 2 obsessively to make sure that, absurd as it had seemed to me for my whole life, this realisation n. 2 was in fact true.
If you do this, you also become aware that Catholicism is the only philosophy and religion that has warned us about all the evil people involved in the lies and demonic shit mentioned in that partial bullet-point list above. Which tends to perk your ears up.
Then you realise it is also the only religion that upheld the required use of violence against evil which is innate and intrinsic to every even partially decent human being that ever lived.
That is, in Catholicism, the use of violence to protect yourself or others (and especially innocents) from evil is not just permitted, it is in fact considered the duty of every lay Catholic. The only other alternative is to choose martyrdom for yourself; that is, the consciously allowing yourself to be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed in the name of justice and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Those are the only two acceptable ways to deal with evil for a Catholic.
At which point you realise why the same people that perpetrate all the evil on this Earth spent literally centuries to infiltrate and subvert Catholicism, culminating in the creation of the fake “Catholic Church” that has had only fake “Popes” promoting its destruction since 28th October 1958.
Catholics, Catholicism and the Catholic Church have and has been the ONLY effective force on Earth that has ever managed to resist the evil that occurs on this planet and for a time at least reduce it enough to create the best living conditions humanity has ever had in its entire history.
And the means of victory remain fully at our disposal, despite the massive blow that Vatican II was.
There remain more real Catholics today on Earth (Sedevacantists) than were ever present in Rome and our planet during the persecutions of Emperor Nero. And we have far better communication lines open and far more valid priests and Bishops than used to be around back then. As well as fully functional Church services.
Most important of all, because our battle is NOT primarily fought in the physical plane, our numbers are NOT a deciding factor in the fight. Rather our convictions, prayer and internal emotional and spiritual state is far more relevant.
Of course this does not invalidate the physical, which remains an undeniable, real, and important part of life (and as long as we inhabit the material world will remain so), but it does invert the order of importance:
The spiritual/mental/faith based part of the fight is in my estimation at least 80% of the fight, with the physical being 20% at most. And most of that 20% is in things like simply putting in the physical effort to do what is required, be it showing up at work, doing what needs doing, learning what needs learning and taking effective, regular, constant action towards the goals that will result in the maximum human freedom and good, which ultimately comes down to:
1. Creating communities of people that understand all of the above, and decide to band together to:
A) become self-sufficient in all things, from clean water and food to medical, energy and defence.
B) take over local government and instilling actual Catholicism at all levels
2. Defending 1. above against all enemies by all means available
3. If and when it becomes necessary to do so, use force to defend yourself and your community from evil doers who would use force on you and yours.
If you do a really good job of 1 and 2 by non-violent means, 3 may never be required, but in any case, it is best to have the capacity for 3, because on this Earth, the only real rights you have, are the ones you have sufficient force to be able to protect.
If you have read and digested all of this post correctly, you may now have come to an overall conclusion, which is that there are three types of men, rather than only two:
1. Those who do not have a line and hold it.
2. Those who do and have no ethical basis that is based in justice and goodness.
3. Those who do and do.
And if you have been paying attention, the first on that list are not men who count, at least not in my eyes and I think, not so much in the eyes of God either.
So what you have left are men who are Catholic, and men who are not. So… just two types of men.
Not all Catholics are always good and not all non-Catholics are bad, but broadly speaking one type will create societies that are wholesome, honest, safe and good, and the other type will inevitably, eventually, descend into degeneracy.
You might not see it now. I certainly didn’t see it for decades even after I figured out the first half of it, which for most people is actually the hardest one to see, so I understand if you think I am just yet another confused zealot screaming “Jeeeeaaasssuss is da waaaay!” Like some Bible-thumping retard, of which, unfortunately, this planet if absolutely filled. Such creatures are a mixture of frauds, con-men, cowards, heretics, intentional deceivers, liars, Satanists and a large number of powerfully ignorant and lazy masses too brainwashed, stunned, stupefied and inflamed with bad health to be able to reason their way out of a parking lot.
I, dear reader, am none of those things, and yet I was deceived and as a result remained ignorant of the truth for at least nearly 2 decades more than necessary. But I had not the benefit of anyone doing what I am doing here now, which is to lay out in plain and straightforward fashion, all the pieces of the puzzle before you. Your only task at this point is to decide if you will at minimum take the time to see if these pieces I present to you are valid or not. I certainly am not asking you to “just believe me”. Quite the contrary. I have always advocated (even when I did not know that it was a dogmatic Catholic principle) that every man must absolutely know and make up his mind for himself.
But even that requires you at least investigate the concepts and bullet points I laid out before you, and while yes, some of those points can potentially take months of study to figure out, I assure you it is but a small fraction of the time it takes you to figure them all out without anyone pointing them out as the essential pieces of the puzzle that they are.
So, all that is left for you to do now is decide how lazy or not you are, and hence decide if to look into the pieces or not.
That is, assuming you’re not already brainwashed enough to not even consider doing so because you have already been predisposed to assume some part, or most of what I say is itself a lie, and if that is the case, I can easily guess which part you have been “inoculated” against: Catholicism.
At any rate, it is what it is, and you will do as you will. My task here —insofar as any can be construed in the form of a blog post— is done.
The more you discover the truth, however partial, about pretty much any event in history, the more you become simultaneously disillusioned with humanity at large as well as astonished at how thoroughly you were fooled by the lies.
Even the best of us bought wholesale into narratives that are not just complete fabrications, but actually the opposite of the truth.
So disorienting are these discoveries that they make you question the very foundation of belief itself. And when you begin to do that, paradoxically, you become more susceptible to other lies.
You discover some aspect of the narrative about physics is quite different than has been presented, along with, for example, the fact that Einstein was a plagiarist, an incestuous sex pervert and that he abandoned his first wife and son to utter misery, and it shakes you. And the subsequent discoveries about the level of deception and lies surrounding the origins of the Apollo program, the fake and impossible images of the Moon landings, and things like what went on in Carlos the Bariloche, or Operation Highjump, or the nuking of Antarctica in the 1950s and before you know it, if you are not mentally strong and careful and intelligent enough to figure things out from baseline principles of irrefutable math and observation, you’re going to find yourself believing absolutely ridiculous nonsense like the Earth being flat, or “postmodernist art” actually being art instead of the CIA funded psyops it has always been.
You realise that 9/11 was not done by a poor bunch of Arabs with boxcutters, and that the USS Liberty was sunk and the servicemen on it strafed by the same people that were dancing on a nearby rooftop while 9/11 was happening, and again, before you know it, you lose the ability to process the world around you objectively. The sense of betrayal or even collapse of a sense of self-assurance and confidence os traumatic, and our response is often an over correction of some kind.
And this is how you fall into yet more lies. More traps, placed there intentionally by those who would very much prefer all of us were kept in absolute ignorance and deception.
The belief you have to trade your very life for the mere ability to continue existing and being able to purchase food and clothing for yourself and your family, often doing things that are unnatural for your body, mind, and spirit, and trading massive amounts of time that should be spent with your family instead, is pervasive.
Mention the very idea that we should be striving NOT to abolish the concept of work itself, but the concept of FIAT money, and 95% people will look at you with glazed eyes if at all. The other 5% will assume you belong in a mental asylum.
And yet, the absolute fact is that fiat money is a complete fraud. An illusion we have all been forced i to accepting as some fundamental fact of life, as of it were as real and solid as the sun, and as real intrinsically as mathematics.
Fiat money is generated out of literally nothing other than the wishes of those who have created the system for it. It can be created out of nothing other than their endless greedy desire for dominion over you, issued to all governments on Earth at face value and at interest. They can bestow infinite quantities of it to those who push and protect their lies and dominating agenda, and removed totally along with imprisonment, death and ruin on those who challenge their rule in any way.
But tell people that Fiat money is a lie, an illusion, and that a different system could be implemented very quickly, if only enough of us took the hour or so it takes to educate yourself at least at a basic level and then organised peacefully to do so, and people will think you are far crazier than those who (with mostly good reasons) believe the moon landings never happened.
And yet, not only is it true, but it occasionally, if briefly, been demonstrated empirically through human history. Briefly because anyone that had any success with it was soon destroyed for it, and his people often along with him.
Bit to know this, you need to learn some of the hidden truths about historical events that have been buried under lies, and levels of lies, of a fantastically spectacular, grandiose, elaborate and interconnected web of deceit.
There are very few places that you can find the truth of things, and even those will tend to also over-emphasise this or that fact, perhaps, and understandably, as reaction to the pervasive lies.
At any rate, here is a very, very, very, short list of things and places you may find some of those hidden truths, with a brief note after each.
Kurgan TV – 155 videos on everything from the face on mars to the lies of history, the trivium, the Catholic Church and other concepts. We will be adding more videos in 2025. Your support on this helps us maintain the site and grow it too.
The Crusades – Iron Men and Saints – Put the lie to the entire narrative of Islam/Catholicism and the Eastern Schismatics, Providing incontestable historical fact to an event that even if almost a thousand years in our past remains absolutely relevant today.
The Face on Mars – To date, I still believe this is probably the single volume that most comprehensibly addresses the entire general lie(s) we all are raised in. Starting with the real origins of Humanity, all the way to the kind of technology being hidden from us, ancient technology that has been suppressed, modern one that is being hidden, the apparent paradoxes between religion and historical facts, astronomical realities of our solar system and so on. I get emails regularly that tell me how a reader’s mind has been cleared of a lot of the fog we are all living in just as the result of reading this one volume.
The Origins of WWII – The Greatest Story Never Told – is a series of short videos that all-together is some 6 hours long, but you can watch it in various little episodes at a time. It may not be representing ALL the facts, but what it does, is certainly present some of the undeniable reasons of why the Second World War Happened, as well as why certain things happened that we are simply NOT told in school at all. Germany didn’t just invade Poland for no reason at all. the Poles had slaughtered 58,000 ethnic Germans before that took place. Di you even know that? Many such pieces of information are presented in this series of short videos that will give a far more balanced perspective than the simplistic and totally absurd one we have all marinated in for almost 80 years of: The Nazis were just the most evil people ever and Adolph Hitler just came to power as the antichrist for no reason at all, and really all Germans are kind of evil anyway.
If you only consume those four things, your total investment is about 60 bucks total for a month (assuming you only get a month long membership to Kurgan TV instead of a yearly one), and reading two books.
The benefit of it is that you will have a MUCH better grasp of how things really work on this planet and it will be a LOT harder to fool you into buying into whatever new lies they will come up with to feed us all.
It certainly is a worthwhile investment when you compare it to the decades that discovering just a fraction of this information in one place usually takes people who are extremely tenacious and curious throughout their life, who get interested in one or two of the topics covered above, never mind several.
So, I hope this helps show you some of the truth behind the lies, and that it helps you free yourself from the worst of them.
So, in the early hours of this morning the site was completely corrupted and left open to anyone that simply navigate to the blog.
We quickly realised this had happened, along with receiving various email by concerned readers (thank you) so if you tried to navigate to the site today and just had a weird view of it or it was just a blank empty screen, now you know why.
The attack was definitely not the work of script-kiddies or even just your basic Russian hackers I had to deal with years ago, that were mostly busy trying to sell viagra and porn.
This was a multi-pronged attack that was several months in the planning and execution. And frankly, it may be that we discovered the hack more due to a user error of the guy doing it, than anything else.
So, CIA/NSA/FBI/Pedovore in charge, you really need to disembowel the agent that failed and make him eat his own entrails. It’s the freemason thing to do, and I fully support you doing it.
The attack was also purely malicious, and had no intent we could see beyond that, and it would not make sense for a random malicious hacker to plan this over months just for the sake of causing damage to the site without so much as a hackboi666 wuz here tag.
We knew this would happen eventually, even if for the moment we seem to have resolved the situation. It was definitely a very complex attack with multiple backdoors, and while we think we have plugged them all in, it’s hard to be sure given that this site now has 15 years of data on it.
Time will tell I suppose.
In the meantime comments have been disabled as that was at least one of the attack vectors. The Categories links also are disabled now work at the moment but I can’t yet add categories to posts currently. These will be up in due course and we will announce it when fixed. It also appears users of Firefox may not be able to get the site but that may be fixed now; other browsers seem fine.
We’d appreciate any error reports you may find or issues you come across. Please email me with any of these.
In the meantime, it is rather interesting to see what some of the attacks were.
As I say they were multiple and the damage and files changed huge, but one of the interesting things is that they took the trouble to ensure that the “Related Posts” function would NOT list anything related to the categories of Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism and Sedevacantism, and it would also not share anything with those tags or the tags of Antipope, Bergoglio.
In any event, as a response to the scum that is clearly disturbed by what I post enough to have caught their attention despite my not using SEO and having a relatively small readership when compared to bigger sites, I would sure appreciate it if you all use the share button at the bottom on all the posts (uh…actually that’s disabled too right now, but you can still send links I guess, we will fix this ASAP) you like and send them on to your friends and family.
I know I am not everyone’s cup of tea, but since being shot at means you’re over the target, I’d say my posts are definitely upsetting the right “people”.
I think more specifically, my posts exposing the usual suspects/tribe, as, if you recall, one such post was mysteriously “disappeared” a while back.
but also all the TMOS posts, taken in order, are, I think proving a real counter to Clown World in more ways than they like and in a subtler and I think more effective fashion.
So… once more friends, help share this blog with as many people as you can. It might be a small thing, but many such small actions over time create a big effect.
This should be absolutely obvious even to small children, but since apparently, Professor Cipolla’s First Law is an immutable iron law of humanity for all time, I guess it needs spelling out. In short words and possibly crayon-like drawings.
Let’s try to follow the logic:
Q1: Does the meaning of words matter?
A: Yes
Proof: What is a woman?
Can a Man get Pregnant?
How many sexes are there?
You either know how to answer those three follow-up questions as follows:
An adult human female.
No.
Two.
Or…. You are either an intentional liar and deceiver, or a mentally ill person. Either way, liar or insane, neither type is anyone with whom it is worthwhile to try to have any sort of rational or normal conversation or communication.
Q2: Is objective reality a thing?
A: Yes
The fact you may not always be able to understand what you are observing, does not mean reality is subjective. Even things like the two-slit experiment are reducible to objective facts, which are that when observed the particles predictably behave differently from when they are not observed.
Q3: Is truth relative?
A: No
Just like math, the ultimate truth of any specific thing, at any specific time and place, will have a precise answer. The fact you may not be capable of working out exactly what that is, also has no bearing on the reality that such a precise answer exists. Just like the fact you can’t do advanced calculus does not mean such a calculation will not have a precise answer.
In short, if words, facts and truth matter, then, what version of God you believe in, absolutely matters.
It can in fact be postulated that it matters more than any other question, especially if you already believe that:
God is good, infallible and loves you.
If God is both Good and also Loves you, as well as Infallible, then, a necessary conclusion must also be that Free Will and Justice both MUST also follow.
Consider that, since He is infallible, whatever His rules are, must be the best and true ones. And since He loves us there MUST be a way for us to discover what they are. Along with the possibility to reject them (because free will). But… if we do seek, and we do find, then… well, we should find a set of rules that is infallible. And since He loves us, it must also be possible for us to figure out which set of rules that is amongst all the lies and nonsense human beings produce constantly.
In fact, given all humans are flawed, it is quite obvious that such an infallible set of rules, must exist purely because of God’s Will and Love for us, and despite all human attempts at perverting said rules, again, due to His Love these attempts will ultimately as well as constantly fail, regardless of any temporary “success” they may seem to have from time to time. Thus, what can only be described as by a Supernatural protection, said rules must not only exist and be discoverable, but would also continue to exist to the End of Times, again, regardless of human attempts to corrupt them, which would essentially be continuous and endless.
In fact, this aspect of the rules alone would be proof that God exists, loves us, is infallible AND will protect His rules from the constant predation of flawed human beings.
The only religion that has ever made such a claim is the Catholic Church.
Prior to 28th October 1958 this was unique to the Catholic Church, which also set down these rules in one book: The Code of Canon Law of 1917.
Broadly speaking, the rules of the Catholic Church is how decent Christians comported themselves throughout the centuries, which is why Catholicism spread throughout the world more than any other false claimant to “Christianity”.
And why it achieved the heights of human well-being, and humane progress and civilisation that is a genuine betterment of the human condition instead of a mere mechanisation of them, as evidenced, for example by the industrial revolution, which is touted as “progress” when really it was the technological advancement of machinery and the mechanisation of human being in order to make those machines work more efficiently.
Anyone stupid enough to postulate that the “denomination” of your version of “Christianity” doesn’t matter as long as you’re a “follower of Christ” is a functional idiot. There really is no escaping that conclusion, and it is, indeed, perfectly in line with professor Cipolla’s assessment of the first law; that is, even people you may have deemed intelligent and rational, at some point, will reveal themselves to be irredeemably stupid.
Now, the natural human tendency to want to give people the benefit of the doubt, creeps in here and makes even intelligent people make reasonable sounding statements, such as, for example, Vox, on this post a while back:
One of the reasons I refuse to tolerate the never-ending internecine Christian civil wars is that I see no point in paying attention to labels and dogma when the spiritual version of WWIII is currently in full effect. If, at this point, you can’t recognize the difference between those who are actively and knowingly serving Clown World and those who are doing their best, however misguided they might be, to serve Jesus Christ, your opinion is irrelevant.
Sounds reasonable right?
Except it makes no sense at all.
In the body of Vox’s post the fake Novus Ordo Church is described as funding mass migration, which is true and is what it does. But the fake Novus Ordo church is also described as being the Catholic Church. Which it is not.
I’m fairly sure that Vox does not view someone like Ben Shapiro as being a legitimate American. And for good reason. Ben may be born in the USA, he may say he is American, he may have the papers to prove it, and in fact his claim to being American is at least legally valid. Anyone who bothered to observe his behaviour though, would quickly realise Ben Shapiro would happily burn America to the ground in order to make Israel better off. It is obvious that Ben does not value America anywhere near as much as he does Israel.
Now, the Novus Ordo fake Church in fact, does NOT have the legitimate legal “papers”. Ben Shapiro is far more validly American than the Novus Ordo Church is in any way validly Catholic.
In fact, if anyone bothers to check the fake Novus Ordo Church “papers” they will find that Canon 188 part 4 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, whose entire purpose is precisely to lay down the rules of the Church in simple, legal, Roman Law, makes it absolutely clear the every fake “Pope” from Angelo Roncalli on is, in fact, legally, an impostor. A fake. At best a heretic or apostate, and more probably an infiltrating Satanist that never was a Catholic at any point.
This is clear, it is obvious, and, of course, it matters far more than Ben Shapiro’s loyalties to his supposed nation of birth instead of the one he identifies with.
Of course, if one starts out from the completely flawed perspective that just a generic “Jesus saves” intimation is enough to qualify one as a Christian, clearly, they are hardly going to investigate the details of the legitimacy or otherwise of what most of the planet (composed mostly of stupid people, let’s not forget) thinks is the “Catholic Church”.
But that doesn’t in any way make it acceptable or correct.
Because, as explained right at the start: the Truth, the facts of objective reality, matter.
And if that is true, then, what the TRUE rules that God wants us to follow are, absolutely matters.
And they sure can’t be the ones you in your arrogant, prideful, dumb, little brain, decide they are, all on your own. Which is precisely what every single version of Protestantism ultimately boils down to. There simply aren’t any prescribed rules to follow at all, except whatever ones suit you specifically.
Now, any child above the age of 5 or so, can clearly see that there is no game that makes any sense whatsoever, where you just pick the rules you want and ignore the ones you don’t like, and in fact can switch the rules you like too at will. Protestantism is essentially theological Calvinball.
But this train of thought is apparently a step too far for every single Protestant.
The reason, the only reason, we are currently living in the Clown World era, is precisely because actual Catholics degraded and fell quietly by the wayside, while never-where Catholic pretenders, from the sexual perverts of Luther and Henry the VIII, all the way to the various nobles that were more concerned with land, money and glory than the truth, advanced on the truth with their lies, deceit, and error, all in the service of their own twisted desires in the temporal, and Satan’s plan in the eternal.
When you know that 2 and 2 is 4, yet you allow the retards around you to say everything from 2 and 2 is 7 to 2 and 2 is purple, and you don’t call them out for the liars, satanists, or utter morons they are, you are, in fact, helping to degrade the entire human race.
Sure, Vox, trying to look at the big picture, thinks that the solution is that, hey, as long as these guys are more or less shooting towards the enemy, that’s all that counts.
He literally says if you don’t recognise the difference between a dedicated Clown Worlder and someone that may be in error but is mostly fighting Clown World, then your opinion is irrelevant, which is fair enough, but the strawman implication there is that someone pointing out the errors, lies, deceit and ruination of literally all of Protestantism or the fake Novus Ordo Church is somehow someone that can’t tell the difference between a dedicated Clown Worlder and a Churchian that means well.
That strawman is, of course, nonsense.
And Churchianity does, irrevocably lead to Hell, paved with good intentions as it inevitably is.
It is literally the reason Clown World even exists.
Because Churchianity “sounds” good, right? We are all equal; save the poor refugees; be politically correct, you don’t want to offend anyone, right?
Except it’s all a deceit. It’s all a lie, and it starts precisely by permitting people, whether intentional liars or misguided fools, to pervert the truth by their pretence that they are “Christians” when in fact they are nothing of the sort. Because they have zero legitimacy to the claim, lack the valid requirements, both spiritually (which God only can judge) but also legally (which can be clearly identified externally by anyone who cares to look) to make that claim.
If you are not a Catholic, you simply are NOT a Christian. You may wish to be. You may believe you are. You may really, really, really, want to be one, but you are not. At the very, very, very, best, most optimistic of views possible, you are in deep, deep, deep, error, that is entirely your fault, through the sin of sloth. Literally being too lazy to educate yourself about God and His Church.
This applies to most lay “Catholics” who are in the Novus Ordo fake Church and truly believe themselves to be Catholic, but have never bothered to investigate what Catholicism is, was and how it has been infiltrated and perverted by its enemies, culminating in Vatican II and the utter inversion and heresy it represents.
To a MUCH lesser extent it applies to anyone of literally any other denomination that truly believes they really are a “Christian” (presumably “generic” with a trademark stamp on the back of their head). These are people that not only have not bothered to study the details of Catholic dogma and compare them with post Vatican II heresy; which is bad enough. No, these are people who have not bothered to spend five minutes thinking about the broad history of the Church and contextualising it within the broad history of the infinite permutations of Protestantism since its inception 500 years ago.
In math terms, Protestants are the ten year olds who still count using made up numbers like eleventeen and fantillion. The rest of us, whether bad at math, like the average Novus Ordo layman that thinks he is Catholic, or the Eastern “Orthodox” that thinks he is a proper Christian, or actual Christians (i.e. Sedevacantist Catholic), look on at the retard and shake their heads.
But only those who care have the courage to go up to that ten year old potential retard, give him a smack in the face to stop his incessant babbling, then get him to sit down, shut up, and pay attention, so we can determine is he really is that retarded, in which case there is no helping him. Eventually he will run in the road and play in traffic and get run over. Best we can do in that case is to keep him in his own safe space, far away from us.
Or… we realise he was just lied to, or prideful, and wanted to feel special, in which case he might be salvaged by first showing him how to count to ten.
You cannot build anything worthwhile or durable if you build on sand without any precautions.
And that is exactly what you are doing when you think that paying attention to the fundamental truths of math, engineering and history is not relevant.
The truth matters. Protecting it from corruption matters. Your feelings about it don’t.
Protestants are not Christians. And it matters they are made aware of it. Novus Ordo “Catholics” are lazy ignorants. And it matters they are made aware of it. The Eastern “Orthodox” are not Orthodox and are schismatics. And it matters they are made aware of it.
It’s really not hard to understand. A child really does get it. Before you can fix a problem, you need to be aware of what the problem is.
And in the case of most people reading this, the problem is you are not a Christian at all.
And while your fake uniform, and fake badge, and fake belief might fool YOU, or maybe even a friend or two, it sure will not fool either our Lord, nor His enemy.
The Truth matters. And there is only one version of it that applies to all of us at all times. Only one.
In the previous Theoretical Models of Society posts (Search for TMOS) parts 1 to 3 and 3a, I covered generally “big picture” concepts, and in part 4, tied together how these apply and what they produce when seen in relation to the individual man. Here we will look at the context of marriage, while keeping all the previous points made in mind.
And for the offended feminists, yes, wait; there will be a part 6, and it will be all about the individual woman. The reason this will be done after this post that focuses on marriage, rather than before it, will become obvious by then. So much so, that astute readers will already have concluded many of the things I will write in Part 6 even before I spell them out.
Let’s get to it then.
The first thing to understand is that the only valid perspective from which to view marriage is the spiritual one from which it originated. As many already know, in modern parlance, this leads to the Catholic perspective. That is, the only valid form of marriage that is genuinely a marriage, has the following attributes:
* It is, and can only be, between ONE man and ONE woman.
* Once validly entered into by both parties’ free will, it is indissoluble and for life. It can only end when one or both parties die.
* Its primary (but not exclusive) purpose is to make children and raise them within a safe, loving, respectful, honest, brave, orderly, pious and kind family.
* The body of one now belongs to the other, and vice-versa.
* You are to treat each other with love and respect in accordance with the analogous relationship between Jesus and His Church (humanity).
* It is a sacrament, that is, a spiritually holy thing, that bonds the man and woman in it before God, as a lifelong promise.
Anything other than the above is simply NOT an actual marriage, regardless of any secular laws made or names it supposedly goes by. People can say that a homosexual “marriage” now exists, but it has the same relationship to reality as me, a 6’2” Venetian saying I am a 4’ Pigmy. Just because you call yourself a flying monkey, doesn’t mean you are one either, tempting as it might be to want to push you off a roof to prove the point with a certain finality.
And for those of you squealing about what a “bigot” I am, because I ignore “marriages” from other religions, no, I am not ignoring them. I am just categorically saying they are of an inferior type of “bond” and do not qualify as being a proper and true marriage. Regardless of if any specific such “marriages” work or are happy or not, the contention is that as a matter of principle, they are merely a set of pagan rules, designed to formalise the general ownership of the woman. Which differs considerably from a Catholic marriage. This will become obvious later in this post as you work your way through the concepts.
But let’s look now, in the context of all the previous TMOS posts, why marriage is as defined above only, and why anything else simply isn’t marriage. After which we will also look at what marriage actually is and what it does, within the larger social context that this series of posts concerns itself with.
The Why
For most of human existence, a few things have always been true, and most still remain true. These are:
* Men are generally physically stronger and thus automatically become the protectors of their individual family unit as well as their greater social tribe (which for many millennia was limited to a few hundred people at most).
* Due to the point above, men necessarily form natural hierarchies between themselves, originally placing the most physically and intellectually powerful, willing, and capable men of leadership at the top of the hierarchy. Lesser capable men, or men with specialised skill would tend to naturally fall into a hierarchy that formed below that, based on various factors, their agreeability, willingness to be in their generally correct place in the hierarchy, relevance of skill to the tribe, and willingness to lead. It is important to understand that willingness to lead, in an actual leader that was lacking capability to do so, would tend to result in either autocratic tyrants, or, “leaders” that would be short lived. And, of course, also both. Autocratic tyrants often tend to be short-lived, after all.
* Because ultimately the ability to en-force rules within the tribe was ultimately limited to men in general, and men capable of organising, and following the hierarchical structure and keep it coherent more specifically, the natural order of things is that those higher in the hierarchy of leadership traditionally most often had their pick of the most attractive and desirable females. And because females are physically weaker, at a practical level, for millennia, they probably had relatively little say in which man they ended up “belonging to”.
Absent other men who cared about her to en-force either her wishes or a good situation for her, she may well have been mostly at the mercy of the greater hierarchy within the tribe. This is relatively easy to understand when you consider that if you were a mid-level man within the tribe wanting to get together with the daughter of the tribe chief, who also has various lieutenants loyal to him ready to bash the head of anyone that doesn’t fall in line with the chief’s wishes, your approach to that would be vastly different than if you wanted to approach orphan Annie who has no brothers. And again different if orphan Annie also captured the eye of the chief rather than the eye of just another mid-level male or perhaps even a lower-level male in the tribe.
* Because of the above, women, while not usually able to en-force their wishes physically, nevertheless found ways to influence outcomes. Mostly by using their feminine charms to influence some man, to do her bidding (if the chief who forced himself on her as her husband/owner really repels her, she may try to suggest to one of the more appealing lieutenants that he should be rightful chief… and he could be… if only he got rid of the chief…). Similarly, by being able to influence other women, she could potentially influence a bunch of men. If she managed to be seen as the most influential woman in the tribe by the other women, those other women would all be both simultaneously trying to be in her “good books” while also becoming as influential as possible themselves in order to replace her.
This explains why women will quite effortlessly compliment each other when face to face, even if they hate each other’s guts, while subtly undermining them behind their back.
It may not be a very flattering analogy, but if you think of men as people who generally speaking respond to efficiency, you can see how that hierarchy would tend to form and what it would look like. While a female hierarchy would tend to resemble more what a gaggle of thieves may organise themselves as. Sure… the thief that is most successful at gathering “ill gotten goods” (usually by being the consort of whoever is the wealthiest man in the tribe) may generally be thought of as the “leader” of the thieves, but it is an ever-shifting and temporary status as easily lost as the attention of that same wealthiest man in the tribe may shift from the current thief leader, to a potentially more attractive or better manipulator-level thief. And as the saying goes: There is no honour among thieves.
Now that we have a better understanding of the general pressures of society on both men and women, it should be obvious that in each case, biology dictates the situation. And so far we only really looked at the ability to enforce one’s wishes, which for many millennia essentially relied mostly on the physical strength of a man do do so, and then on the cohesion and organisational ability of groups of men to do so.
This being the most important thing in human affairs. That is, the ability to project your force into the world so as to shape it to your desires. For most of mankind’s existence this has hinged on the physical attributes of brute strength first, and ability to organise in coherent and durable hierarchies second. Over time this second ability became superior to the individual and formed the basis of society in general. Whatever rules the people most capable of organising the force-projection of men as a whole wanted to have, became the laws of the land.
Of course, if these rules were too harsh, or, conversely, too weak, other men, just as capable of leadership, could organise and plan a take-over of the leadership and power-projection structures.
It is little wonder then, that in these larger contexts, the role of women was relegated in many cases to the level of possession. Prized and cared for possessions in the best of cases, but still, in general terms, possessions.
Nor, despite the squeals of the fat, ugly, and unpleasant women, was this really necessarily a bad thing for women. If you were a prize worth having and the envy of the other men and women in the tribe, being treated well by the most capable man was generally speaking not a bad deal. As his woman you had more influence in the tribe than pretty much anyone else except the man that “owned” you, and your children with him too would be safe and well cared for. This also explains why women, in general, can more easily hop from one king’s bed, to the bed of the next guy who killed that particular king. Or at least do so with less trouble than most men would prefer, or feel comfortable contemplating.
Over millennia of such genetic selection for reproduction, women would tend to be most attracted to a man’s qualities that marked him as a potentially capable leader of men and protector of her and her offspring, than his specific looks.
While from a man’s perspective, the most physically attractive woman would tend to be the most desirable, because, generally speaking, unless her personality was especially toxic, she was bound to usually fall in line with whatever the man wanted or said. Her specific personality was less important. It would generally affect the man’s life usually less significantly than a man’s personality might affect a woman’s.
All of the above stems primarily and simply from one biological attribute above all others: the ability to project force effectively; and thus impose one’s will on others, and, simultaneously, preventing others from forcing their will upon you.
This, in essence, is the ability which shapes the hierarchies of men and the behaviour of women more than any other biological aspect of humanity.
One other important factor to keep in mind is also that women are always absolutely certain that any baby they give birth to is certainly theirs; even if the paternity might be dubious, depending on how easily she gave access to her womb to multiple men within a short span of time.
Which brings us to the next point of biology.
Because maternity is always certain, but paternity is not, for the longest time, because a woman could essentially be forced into sex by most men who had unfettered access to her, that act, of forcing yourself on a woman, was seen in generally homicidal tendency by any man that was responsible for her, be it her husband/owner or her father or say brothers (who generally can be assumed wanted to preserve her chastity in order to give her the best opportunity to pair with a man capable of protecting her and caring well for her).
That all said, a woman that was unhappy with her husband/owner, prey to her own wishes and desires, may well “stray” with a man that she was more attracted to if the opportunity presented itself, but only in secret, because the alternative could result in her own punishment, ostracism or even death, alongside that of the man in question.
So once again, this too, only reinforces the overall general sense that women were to a certain extent, possessions that were to be provided for and protected from other men; especially if you wanted to be sure that any children that came out of her were actually yours.
Run this subroutine for a couple million years and you get the concepts of honour (which is ultimately linked to effectiveness) of men, and the sneakiness of women (do what you must to survive and/or get your way).
Which is why ultimately it is foolish for a man to expect a woman to subscribe to the same concept of “honour” a man does.
Honour for a man means you keep your word even if your life depends on it.
Honour for a woman may be at most limited to ensuring your children are actually yours if she actually loves you, (as men are most likely to understand love anyway, which is rather different than how women may process it) regardless of what other indiscretions she may have got up to. But most times her concept of “honour” would be limited to ensuring she does whatever she thinks will provide her and her children with the best possible situation in terms of resources, comfort and status.
Right then, so, after all that… why marriage?
Because it was a public way to ensure everyone knew what was what.
If everyone knows that Jane belongs to Tarzan, any other monkey that comes sniffing around Jane will get their head bashed in by Tarzan, and everyone will know why, and accept that’s how things go.
And of course, back in the day, if Tarzan was actually Genghis Khan, he could have as many “wives” or “property” as he was able to keep as “his” and guard them from other men sneakily introducing their DNA in his family line.
This explains pretty much ALL the various forms of rituals that were invented to “solidify” this ownership of the woman by a specific man. Whether it was Islam’s multiple wife culture, Hindu marriage, Ancient Roman marriage, where the man had power of life and death over his wife and children, or any number of other systems, the purpose was essentially always the same, and not too different from the basics of property rights.
For all versions except one.
Enter Catholicism
That was how humanity, across pretty much all cultures and beliefs did things, until the Catholic Church came about, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself upon this Earth.
Now, the model of relations between Jesus Christ and Humanity (represented by the Church), gave a very different perspective on the situation that had existed between men and women since sabre-tooth tigers. And that was this:
Jesus was the indisputable leader of mankind and to be obeyed, yet, He also sacrificed Himself totally for us. And this model suggested the model of marriage that actually produced the most productive, fair, capable, and beautiful societies that have ever existed in the entire history of the human race. Why?
Because while not denying or ignoring ANY of the biological realities human males and females are both subjected to, Catholicism introduced the True and Loving approach to the pairing of men and women.
Go back to the start and notice what I had up there as the defining characteristics of marriage.
See that part there that says it’s only valid if entered into by the free will of all parties concerned? That’s a pretty big deal for humanity when you consider the 2 million years prior.
So, right away, Catholicism gave women the freedom and agency to be able to choose their husbands. Furthermore, it defined marriage as having specific duties for both sides, as well as an overall purpose.
The overall purpose was the creation and raising of children in order to create a nuclear family, as, again, identified right at the start of this long post. Of course, not all couples can have children, due to whatever unfortunate medical or physical condition, so although this was the primary purpose, a secondary and also important point was lifelong companionship, love and intimacy. However, the very fact that it is for ONE woman and ONE man, for life and for creating children, elevated the position of women from basically possessions to people with agency that once married had to be looked after and cared for life, as well as all the children she made with you. It is absolutely revolutionary in terms of how things had always been (and will go there agin absent Catholicism).Yur108s
In order to uphold this purpose, it is only logical and reasonable that both the husband and wife, by entering marriage of their own free will, are also taking on some specific and irrevocable duties specific to marriage.
Both have the duties of:
* Remaining in the marriage for the rest of their life.
* Forsaking all others for the purposes of sexual, romantic and emotional intimacy related to it.
* Gifting their physical body for physical use sexually to the other, and thus, not be able to refuse sex to each other. This ensuring neither party is subject to sexual frustration.
* Not abuse of the gift of the other’s body by pretending to use it sexually when the other is ill, or there is a valid reason not to, including possible spiritual ones, but in any case, this is not a condition that should exist beyond a temporary time. “Not feeling like it” is not in itself a valid reason for either side. If there is an issue, the duty for both is to face it, address it together, including by prayer and basically to help each other through whatever the issue is and return to being able to have sexual access to each other’s bodies at will. This point is important because it fosters balance and kindness in that neither a general unspecified reluctance to engage sexually, nor an unreasonable request for it if one party is injured, ill or otherwise indisposed, is considered the norm or acceptable. The norm is perpetual and easy sexual access at all times that it is generally possible, and comprehension and discussion with a view to resolving any issue that from time to time may arise that impedes that, for what should in any case only be a temporary period required to resolve the issue.
* Raising their children within the same set of rules that their marriage is based on; that is, the Catholic faith. And since this is the primary purpose of marriage, not use contraceptive methods that would impede reproduction and thus make the sex act not a creative one, but essentially a masturbatory or intentionally sterile one, which ultimately promotes lust, or hedonistic selfish pleasure, at the expense of life and duty to it.
* Remain faithful to each other and the Catholic faith regardless of whatever unfortunate event, tragedy or circumstance befalls either or both of them.
* Present a united front against all enemies “foreign and domestic” so, both against people and events outside the family, as well as people and events within it, be they relatives or even the children. As a marriage is said to form “one flesh” it makes sense that a such a “body” cannot be in conflict with itself, and especially not when facing outside challenges or pressures.
Furthermore, each sex has specific duties that apply only to them. The main ones tend to be as follows:
For men (husbands)
* To provide and protect for their families and especially their wives and children.
* To lead their wife and children theologically and generally in life, not in what best suits the man specifically, but rather, what is in line with Catholic teaching and also best suits his family as a whole. The benefit to his wife, children, and family as a whole takes precedence over his own desires, well-being, or even survival. Of course, this principle being followed also means that in general terms, excepting some drastic circumstance, his continued survival and existence, as well as a general well-being is important too, because his absence, or continued lack of basic care, would ultimately impact on his duty of caring and leading his family in accordance with this principle.
* To love and cherish his wife, and in so doing, a woman, well led, well cared for, Catholic in belief, becomes her best self and becomes generally more loving, kind, selfless and less prone to sinning (behaving in ways that undermine the marriage and life in general too).
* To protect, including by pre-emptive action, as much as possible, the weak or innocent from predation, injustice, and evil actions in general. While this applies generally as a Catholic man not just within marriage but as a whole, it is worth mentioning here too. Because it is a quality expected of all Catholic men at all times, and as such must exist within a marriage, as it is also a sign of the quality of man and thus leader of a household that a man should aspire to be. It’s absence in general terms can be seen as a red flag prior to entering into marriage with such a man.
For Women (Wives)
* To obey their husbands as men obey God.
This point alone sends feminists into an incandescent rage, and because secular degeneracy permeates everything today, even a good portion of women that say they are not feminists, and even supposedly “religious” and “christian” women. So it deserves a little explanation. The relationship between a husband and wife is parallel to, or analogous to, that between Jesus Christ and humanity. Through love of us, flawed humans, He sacrificed Himself even as He attempted to teach and save us when alive. Similarly, a man that is acting correctly, is sacrificing himself and his desires daily for his wife and family. A woman, because she is biologically far less capable of being as “altruistic” as men (as we have seen in the previous explanations above) are prone to acting based on their emotions and solipsistic desires, instead of the greater good of their children and husband, that is, their immediate family, much less of the greater community or humanity at large.
You may feel this is unfair or not true, but the reality borne out by the facts is overwhelming. Which is why we now have tons and tons and tons of data that prove without doubt that women are less capable and nurturing than men even at what many assume is their best ability: raising children.
Single parent households of single mothers have children that are far more prone to delinquency, using drugs, having teen pregnancies, be subjected to abuse by their own mother (than by their father in single parent homes were the children are raised by the father alone), including more likely to be killed by their mother than by their father in single parent households, be more prone to be sexually abused by strangers, have generally lower academic results, less well-paying jobs, are more prone to suicide, and mental illness, and are more likely to become divorced themselves later in life. This could not be the case if women actually were more nurturing and generally better at raising children than men are. Similarly, even if the commonly accepted narrative is that men are more violent, this too does not bear out when it comes to domestic violence. The highest incidence of domestic violence is between lesbian couples, and the lowest between gay male couples.
The point here therefore is not that men are perfect (godly), and women are incorrigible trash that should just shut up and do as they are told; but rather, that since it is simply a fact that men are generally, objectively, and empirically, better than women at making long term decisions that affect their entire families, women should simply accept this and try their best to support the decisions their husband makes without being a nagging shrew that makes every choice a tribulation and strife the man needs to overcome before any useful action can be taken.
A simpler way to explain it is that on a ship, including a relation-ship, there can only be one captain, and when all is said and done, his word is law.
While the executive officer (XO) first in command after the captain, can chime in (usually only and specifically if asked, bar rare exceptions when the XO may make a welcome positive addition or respectfully make an observation the captain may have missed) they do so respectfully, carefully, and only after first having given due and proper consideration to the captain’s orders, which 99 times out of a hundred need absolutely zero input from the XO, because the captain is aware and considering usually more things that the XO is even aware exist, never mind has noticed.
Lastly, on this point, it is not perfection that is expected; for, just like men fail daily to obey God and be perfect husbands in all things, so will women fail at being perfect wives, but the point is to genuinely strive to be the best you can be and also to gradually improve at least a little day by day.
* To love and cherish her husband. So, be kind, loving, loyal and affectionate as well as respectful to their husband. In this way, just as a man makes a woman want to express her best self through his loving protection, providence and guidance, so a woman makes a man want to be his best self for the woman that treats him respectfully and lovingly. This is generally what is meant by a husband or wife “sanctifying” the other. In more secular terminology, treat a woman properly (while never permitting your authority to be questioned, it needs to be said) and she blooms, and similarly, a woman that treats a man properly will see him move mountains for her.
* To raise the children in accordance with the general rules set down by the husband, while also allowing herself to be somewhat of a buffer between the children and their father, since necessarily his rules need to be generally enforced more strictly than her rules, as a husband’s rules are for the most part to safeguard his family from all the dangers posed by those people and events outside of the family home, and thus more important to follow. While the rules of a mother tend to be for the general smooth and pleasant running of the home within the family, thus more geared for a harmonious home than outright survival, or at least things that can impact the whole family in very serious ways.
Now that we have seen both the why of marriages came about, and also the details and differences of how pagan “marriages” work, in their infinite manifestations, when compared to a Catholic marriage, and have far better understanding of what a Catholic marriage looks like in its specific internal dynamics, we are finally ready to understand the larger concept of what a Catholic marriage is and does in larger society.
I need to, once again, remind you and be clear that when I refer to a marriage, I really mean, specifically and only a Catholic Marriage. Because every other perversion of the concept, be it some pagan version from some heathen religion, or worse, a heretic one like Protestantism or even a schismatic one like Eastern Orthodoxy, not to even mention the absolute abominations of the concepts that homosexual “marriages” represent, they all, without exception, fall short of the primary purpose of the existence of marriage in the first place, and secondly, fall far short of the ideal relationship within marriage.
They fail at its primary purpose (making and raising children to form a nuclear family) because:
* We can immediately exclude all homosexual partnerships since they are biologically incapable of it.
* Secondly, we can immediately exclude all relationships where reproduction is artificially prevented, since it is clear that if the very purpose of marriage is being prevented intentionally from happening, then the real purpose of that “marriage” is something else (usually hedonistic pleasure).
* Thirdly, we can exclude all those “marriages” where the possibility of leaving the partnership is not absolutely excluded, since this means that there is no intentionality to remain a coherent family unit for the purpose of raising children as well as mutual growth and companionship until the end of life. And we can also surmise that any relationship where this is not a definite pre-requisite for entering into the relationship in the first place, is likely to make the choice of being in such a relationship quite light-heartedly and not very seriously. After all, if it doesn’t work out you can just bail out and try again. More the recipe for buying an inexpensive household appliance than selecting a life-partner.
On the above basis alone, we are left with very few possibilities, since only the (real i.e. Sedevacantist) Catholic Church still and always, insists in marriage being indissoluble other than by death.
But even if we were to find some sect, or a pair of individuals that whilst not Catholic still subscribed to the other three basic components identified above, we still have the issue that their children would be unlikely to follow in their parents’ footsteps in this regard, since they do not have 2,000 years of tradition, but more importantly, empirical evidence, that this way of doing things produces the absolute best societies that humanity has ever been able to create throughout its total existence.
And that aside, we are also left with the absence of the duties being specifically different for men than for women in the marriage.
In short, only a Catholic marriage fulfils all the above parameters and in doing so creates a whole that is demonstrably more than the sum of its parts.
The situation is fractal and the good present at the smallest scale, that is, the individual Catholic man or Catholic woman (yes, I know, the post on the individual woman will be next), is magnified within a marriage of a Catholic man and woman that go on to create Catholic children. And the good that such a Catholic family exhibits internally, is once again magnified when taken in the context of many such families forming a Catholic community.
The works that Catholics have done in the ages are unparalleled by any other religion.
Catholic monks literally invented the scientific method. They had much to do with astronomy, math and science in all its forms in general, especially natural science.
The works of intellectual reasoning of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and the other illustrious doctors of the Church are a testament to both science (logic) and art (the beauty of the truth they expose is undeniable as it is in a sunset, a dawn, or a flower). The increase in justice that was brought to human beings in general, both by the new relation that men had with women as well as each other, resulted in the abolition of slavery and the treating of women and children almost entirely as property.
The communal aspects of Catholicism, while never being so overbearing to squash individual expression, nevertheless fostered the virtues that dogmatic Catholicism espouses, namely the four cardinal virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Courage, which if applied daily produce a society of people that act prudently, calmly, honestly and bravely, and the three theological virtues, of Faith, Hope and Charity, which as the overarching zeitgeist of a community or people, produce pious, hopeful (so generally optimistic and positive) people that are generous and kind.
It is not hard to see why within Catholic communities crime is practically non-existent, especially when you consider that Catholicism also rejects the dogmatic seven sins: Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Wrath, Envy, and Greed.
There are also less pivotal but still important virtues and sins that are also promoted or rejected, such as beauty in the positive sense, or gossip in the negative, respectively.
The overall result is that communities made up of people in Catholic marriages are genuine societies where people generally and naturally help each other and look after one another, despite all the usual human flaws we are all subject to.
A last important point I would very much like you to note, especially if you got this far and yet harbour the idea on some level that all this post is, is really just a contrived strategy to make Catholicism appear as better than it really is, I would like you to please re-read this, and note a few things:
1. I merely presented the objective facts of the case from first principles. You are free to present alternative answers that satisfy all the effects of a Catholic marriage. Provide examples of your theory that we can see having produced that very result you hypothesise for two millennia. (Pro-Tip: You can’t.)
2. While it is true that absent belief in God and His Trinity means it doesn’t necessarily follow that one would reach the same conclusions of Catholic Marriage, if you bother to run the thought experiment in the other direction, that is, trying to see what purely secular values would come up with, and on what basis their foundation would rest (realise that “oh well people just are generally good, so they would all agree to do X” is nonsense and is actually resting on the ruins of degraded Catholicism, and nothing else), you will find that we would reach the current, Rome in its last gasps, or Weimar Germany with its sex shows of transexuals peeing on people’s faces in the cabarets, pretty sharpish. Alternatively, if you try to envision a secular society that would stick to the same morals that Catholic marriage espouses, you will find it impossible to have a reason why they should, if not for the very real and deep belief in God and Catholic Dogma and all that goes with it.
3. Regardless of your personal belief system, which is unlikely to be Sedevacantist Catholic, the simple reality is that if a model produces good results, it is best to use it; at least until you find a better model that consistently produces better and reproducible results.
And if you remove your personal emotions from the equation, you will find it pretty much impossible to find a system that produces equivalent results, never mind better ones than Catholic marriage and Catholicism in general.
I can say that with confidence because I did not start out as a Catholic, and I have exceedingly good powers of objective reality observation that are far above the normal average. In fact I started out with the view that Catholicism must be one of the worst possible models (mostly due to being fooled —as most are— into the belief that the Novus Orco Vatican II heresy is actually Catholicism, instead of what it really is: Satanism with a Catholic mask on). It was only by purely objective measures that I concluded Catholicism as a model of reality was superior; and eventually actual Catholicism, that is, pre-Vatican II and all its heresies and heretics.
On that last point, the only even remotely passable society I considered at least palatable was the one prevalent in Feudal Japan, but even then, it was hardly fair, just, or particularly humane. The main attraction point was that if you were lucky enough to be of the samurai caste, you did at least have the option of behaving in a way that could uphold justice, even if at the cost of your life in many cases. It certainly does not even begin to be equivalent to a Catholic society, but it would at least be generally tolerable to me, given that I am essentially quite able to deal with direct confrontation quite comfortably. But even so, feudal Japan’s social rules have long ago been eclipsed, and going around slicing people’s heads off for rude behaviour is somewhat frowned upon in our day and age, so it’s not as if it was a viable alternative anyway.
Conclusions
We can see that “marriage” in all its various forms was mostly a way to retain control of a man’s lineage and progeny by identifying a specific woman (or women in the case of certain societies) as being his exclusive property.
This state of affairs is inevitable given men have a monopoly on the use of force when compared to women.
The modernisation of treating women as human beings to be cherished, loved and protected, and married and committed to for life (and only one of them at the time) is relatively new and the sole province of Catholicism. The fact it was later “adopted” by corrupted versions of Catholicism (Churchianity in all its legions of names) does not change the fact that it is an institution first created by Catholicism.
Catholicism does not ignore any of the biological realities of male and female bodies, roles and psychologies, but allows both to support, complement, and take care of each other each according to their abilities and specific duties, all within a greater context that permits good flexibility in the individual specifics of each marriage or individuals involved.
Such a marriage leads to coherent and positive communities that in turn create great advances in art, science, architecture, technology and really every endeavour of mankind; but all within a context of loving beauty and hopeful positivity. No other system of pairing of people produces this effect to anywhere near the same level of positive outcome.
Therefore, unless you wish to be in an actual marriage, with all its benefits and also all required duties, there is absolutely no need for you to ever enter into one of the pretend “marriages” that people indulge in, be it civil (government approved) contracts, pagan “marriages”, or worse of all, brutalist perversions of actual marriage, such as those performed by the fully heretical Protestant endless denominations that allow (and have no authority to deny) all sorts of degeneracy and destruction, such as divorce, abortion, contraception, gay “marriages” and so on.
As a man, given the current climate of secular society, why would you ever enter into a contract that can be broken at any time for any or even no reason whatsoever, while almost certainly ensuring you lose access to your children and also have to give half of all your created assets and wealth to the now divorced ex-wife?
And as a woman, why would you ever commit to care for a household and raise the children of a man that may abandon you as soon as you get too many wrinkles and his younger and sluttier secretary flashes a bit of leg at him after you gave decades of your life to your family only to be cast aside?
Quite simply, there is no valid reason why people who are secular should ever enter into a “marriage”. Doing so is really just a cargo cultist action. Following through with an action whose purposes and realities you understand not any better than aborigines in the pacific did that building an effige of a plane would not bring them containers full of goods either.
Marriage is only required of people who are interested in building civilisation, instead of dancing with abandon on its rotting corpse.
It is a serious and lifelong commitment with no way out; done with a clear understanding of all it entails, not simply because you really like and have great sex with the girl or guy in question.
And since only Catholics envisioned marriage in a way that was both functional and effective for humanity at every level, be it individual, family, or community level, but is also loving, made only by the free will of the participants, and is held as sacred in their most core and fundamental belief system they have: Catholic Christianity, it makes sense that you should enter into marriage only if it is an actual marriage.
In short, if you want to be married, you really should become a proper Catholic first.
Regular readers will be familiar with my having exposed Milo Yank-my-Pole-us for being an absolute and definite Freemason on a sequence of blogposts showing that he is absolute fake, and was funded by the usual suspects while pretending to be a “Catholic” (well, Freemason light, anyway, because Novus Orco). Milo of course bravely ran for the hills when presented with the opportunity to respond to the expose and his star has waned a little ever since. And his telegram chat is wholly dead with only just under 19.5k “followers” left which as I explained before, appear to be composed entirely of bots now since there is no engagement from neither him nor anyone when he very occasionally posts once every few weeks or months. Of course, he’s back on X with supposedly 280k followers, so that will be his excuse, though it seems to mostly be attacks on what I can only presume is the definitely homosexual Nick Fuentes, who I can also only presume must have rejected Milo’s advances, probably in preference for yet another definitely gay Indian-Pakistani looking guy who was a gay predator of Fuentes’ Groyper followers whose name escapes me right now, Alexander Akbar, or something, he looks like a brown barracuda.
AAANYWAY….
Moving away from gay freemasons, let’s look at more heterosexual ones, because it looks like Andrew Wilson is also a Freemason.
And if that’s the case, which the email I received with captured tweets and various commentary around the web (including reddit, which I admit is mostly a gag-worthy corner of the internet) I can absolutely guarantee that Andrew will do just as Milo did and make sure he will NEVER debate me anywhere. But my general shadow-banning may well increase. Which in fairness, I don’t care about too much. This blog doesn’t even have SEO work on it done, the only way it spreads is organically by readers pushing the share button and sending it on to friends or family I guess. Still, readership is slowly but steadily increasing.
But back to Andrew…
The thing about being an ex-satanist is that… well… just like an ex-heretic, there is no real way you can possibly ever trust them again, because they did work for the prince of lies. And while occasional genuine change of heart is definitely possible, it can never be 100% confirmed, which is why ex-heretics, quite reasonably in Catholic Dogma, will NEVER be accepted as having authority over anyone, and will NEVER be looked at as anyone that anyone should pay attention to. And further, that they should spend the rest of their days in penance for their sin of heresy.
Ditto ex-Satanists (assuming they even are “Ex”) like Andrew Wilson.
In fact, if the reports are correct, we have several red flags already:
Apparently Andrew is buddies with pathological liar, non-christian of any kind, fame-whore and intellectual retarded autist Vajay Dried (Jay Dyer) who genuinely can’t speak three sentences without saying four lies, as has been amply demonstrated for 3 hours in a row here, with excruciatingly weaponised autism on literally every lie he speaks, and a shorter version here. this does not bode well for any veracity he may have concerning his supposed religious beliefs.
Andrew has admitted his Ex-Freemason status himself.
And he was defending Freemasonry against someone who apparently wrote a book about having infiltrated the freemason for the purpose of exposing them (I am not sure who the author is supposed to be or what his name is). He apparently also got in touch with his ex-lodge master to confirm if the author was ever in the lodge. Which would indicate he is still at minimum in good rapport with them, which would NOT be the case, if he were an actual Christian. I suppose you could argue being as he is not a Sedevacantist Catholic he is NOT an actual Christian anyway, so the Freemasons may well go ahead and keep promoting him, because why not? Anything that deviates from the truth ultimately will end up serving them, on a shorter or longer timeline. But not that in any case Andrew was trying to DEFEND Freemasonry.
Not knowing what the Hagia Sophia is, is kind of… well… telling, to put it mildly.
So, in conclusion, don’t expect Andrew to ever show up for a debate against me.
If you are new here, the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (which only applies to men) explained by Vox Day has had a lot of controversy around it and has been criticised, lauded and everything in between.
To be fair to Vox, he was always clear that his SSH was essentially a tool for generally understanding and predicting male behaviour in a social context and that it was fractal; which I think is a word that confuses most people and he might have got the point across somewhat better if perhaps less accurately by saying that it was contextual.
The point is that a guy who is generally an Alpha in most social situations might become a Delta in a situation that is totally unfamiliar to him.
The designation of Sigma has also gone viral to the point of almost absurdity, right up to people trying to ban the use of the word in schools.
There is a fairly exhaustive overview of the whole concept done by Sigma Frame that has some overall decent points to make, even if in some respect they miss the point, due to trying to retain a strictly “Christian” (still heretically Churchian to people like me) perspective, when in reality, the SSH is essentially silent on the topic of religion. The archetypes exist in any religious denomination of any religion under the sun you might care to imagine.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make here is that although it has already been noted that completely “pure” versions of each archetype don’t exist, because humans are messy, there is one aspect of the supposed would-be Alphas/Sigmas that I have noted over the years that is essentially the “chink” in their self-deluded armour.
What I mean here is that genuine Alphas, can and do have various weaknesses, and this is not news, everyone does, but there are certain types of “Alphas” that although would indeed be deemed to be alphas by most people, are in fact, mostly playing a role. A role they have convinced themselves of too mind you, to the point where they may even react unconsciously as the supposed Alpha they are; nevertheless, there remains an undercurrent of self-doubt.
I was recently asked by my friend Tony why I had referred to various people as Sigma-Gamma, Alpha-Gamma, or Omega-Gamma, and so on.
It is a difficult concept to get across, but he understood my attempts and defined it beautifully. Referring to two of these people, who may as well be polar opposites in many ways, yet also share some similarities he said:
It’s like they are both somehow performative caricatures of something… like their own, idealized versions of great men
And that hit the nail on the head.
Now, it was not performative in the rather obvious ways that someone trying to impersonate what they think is an Alpha, or whatever, can be. It was a subtler thing, like for example having a rule about never smiling in photographs taken in public. Or, on a recent podcast I saw, a rather well-known podcaster that seems relatively unassuming and calm, as he espouses relatively hardcore traditional values for men and women, stated he simply does not cry pretty much, ever, even when someone close to him dies. And yes, of course, that is generally true of men, but something about the way he said it set off my “this guy is forcing himself to try and be what he thinks the peak manly-man acts like” radar. I am sure he wasn’t lying, that he does not in fact cry, almost ever. Partly it can also be cultural, but there was an element there of insincerity. Some lack of real connection with his deeper self.
Of course, you can just think I am full of shit and just making assumptions without evidence, but that is not what I am doing. I come to these conclusions only after years of observation and confirming my observations to the point I can predict how these people will react, and do so in a way that goes “off-script” for their supposed archetype (which they tend to be very invested in.)
So, while I may not be able to give you a concise explanation with all the evidence, if you had 30 hours to review events that a specific person took over years of time, and then I can predict for you how they would react to X, Y, and Z in ways that contradict what most people would assume would be their reaction based on all the observations, and if I can do that repeatedly with different people claiming Alpha, Sigma (or more rarely Omega status) Or even who have just been labelled as such by others, then I would say that would be some solid evidence. Of course, I can hardly demonstrate that to you in a blog post, but I live that experience, and have been able to transmit it to others who bothered to try to confirm my observation, and they noted my predictions as correct too, so I know it is valid.
The difference, between what I would call a more genuine, or perhaps more “total” Alpha or Sigma, is a deep level of self-knowledge.
You know how Gammas inevitably recon they are anything BUT Gammas? That’s because at heart, the Gamma is the very antithesis of self-knowledge. These are men who avoid the truth about themselves the way most people would avoid pools filled only with radioactive, rabid, giant eels.
Picture of an actual Sigma, facing one of the minor ugly sides of his real nature.
Sigmas in general are the ones with the most self-knowledge, which is why the opinions of others generally do not affect them very much, if at all. However, when you note a Sigma that repeatedly tells you how much the opinions of other people don’t affect him (and they generally don’t) but then has an obvious reaction when a specific point of fact about him is pointed out, accurately, mind you, not merely accusatorially, well… he may still, generally speaking be a Sigma, but let’s say he’s not a 100% DOC (Di Origine Controllata – That is, of the true 100% quality). And the same goes if he also pretends to not be affected by anything at all, ever, because pretty much everyone has something that pisses them off.
For me, especially 30 years ago, it was mostly being accused of holding views, or internal concepts that I absolutely did not, by people I generally viewed as at least moderately intelligent and/or capable. Today, 30 years later… eh, I realise the stupidity factor of even moderately intelligent and capable people is still waaaaay higher than my young and optimistic self used to hope for. And then Covid, and then the Ukraine war, and the Gaza genocide, and, and, and… has just made it very clear that the fault in my getting upset at their tragic misjudgment of my character or intentions, was the fault of my very own rose-tinted glasses, wild, wild, optimism about humanity as a whole, and some misguided desire of wanting to believe that, surely, if only I could lay out the facts before them… they too would be able to see…
So, today, if they are too stupid to figure out the basics, I will not waste any time trying to correct them or “help” them. But that is not to say I am unreactive to almost everything.
My daughter tells me enthusiastically about some absolutely trivial thing she did, or found out, or thought of at school, or some observation she makes that is probably obvious to bacteria on Mars on some level, and it could be easy to simply let it wash over me and not respond or react to any of it.
However, doing so would crush her enthusiasm for life, and as such would be a bad thing. I try to put myself in her young mind and think, why would she find this fascinating or interesting, and how did I think about it at her age? And as she is on the cusp of becoming a young woman, the pattern it paints is mostly still rather… well, as man, imagine being in a giant shopping centre of just women’s shoes. And having to follow your female relative around as she waxed poetic about every pair she wanted to try on, and did. It’s kind of like that. About 3rd level of Hell in Dante’s Inferno.
So I amuse myself by seeing if I can at all nudge her train of thought into something mildly more interesting.
“Oh you like the lacquer on those? I see… I think lacquer used to be made from tree sap. And possibly bug paste to give it colour.”
“What?!??!”
“Yeah, shiny bug guts under polished resin. Phenomenal stuff.”
“Wait… I don’t believe you, I’m googling it!”
“You know google is just a CIA Psyops to keep the truth from you, right? The truth is not in google. You need to find a book on lacquer printed before 1842. Original only, because they corrupt the digital and new print versions. Like Roald Dahl’s books.”
“I Don’t care about lacquer that much dad, and I don’t care who Rodney Doug was, or whatever.”
“Roald Dahl. He wrote Little Red Riding Hood, the story. You know, where she has a pistol in her knickers.”
“Oh DAD! Little Red Riding Hood didn’t have a pistol in her knickers! I know that story, remember, I used to tell you about it, when I was little.”
“Google it.”
“Oh come on, I…”
“Google it.”
(huffs, types in phone… reads…) “Wait… what?”
“See? Now what pistol do you think it was? Probably a low calibre, right?”
And so you see, terminal brain death narrowly avoided once more.
Of course, that’s my daughter and I love her. 99.99999% of the rest of the planet that tried to subject me to that, I would find an excuse to get away, or possibly murder them and get rid of the body, if they insist.
But my point is that Self-Knowledge is ultimately the total measure of a man. A man that truly, deeply, knows himself for example to be a coward, and say, accepts it, is someone that I have more respect for than one who fancies himself a hero, maybe even acts as one in many situations, but in reality, perhaps even not fully known to what extent even to himself, he is, in fact, a coward.
It’s not that I necessarily think of him as evil, or intentionally deceitful (though some are) it’s just that I can’t take him all that seriously when he clearly is not even familiar with himself at any real depth.
So, when considering the SSH and what generic category a man may fall in more than another, remember that not only is that archetype at least partially and sometimes almost wholly, contextual, but just like there are always more stupid people than you can possibly imagine, there is also just a lot more Gamma fragments in far more people than you imagine. Including… terrifyingly… possibly… yourself.
But the only way to know for sure, friend, is to actually look under the proverbial bed.
Then get under there, armed with a sharp knife in your teeth, swim down to the monsters under there, and face them.
In case you are new here, allow me to first of all present the sides of the WWIII conflict that started in early 2020.
On the side of Satan:
Israel (leading the charge both openly as the genociding power it is, as well as covertly through it’s displaced Diaspora and Owners of the Bank for International Settlement (the Rothschilds) and their sort – bankers that are literally above the law and create the world’s money supply out of thin air)
The USA (A vassal superstate of both Israel and Freemasonry, being the first Freemasonic country on Earth)
Western Europe (Composed of various vassal state to the USA)
Other general Vassal states (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) or original Satanic houses (the United Kingdom).
Against Satan (but not necessarily angels either)
Russia (Nominally Eastern Orthodox, so schismatics, but at least making a nod to the side of God)
China (Not actively directly involved yet, but this dragon is patient. The final living standards under a global China would possibly be marginally better than under a global Satanist leadership, but as I say, probably only marginally so)
India (Kind of like Italy in WWII, they will go wherever the side that wins seems to be at any given time)
Melange of the Mostly Irrelevant
These are essentially smaller countries that will not affect the outcome one way or the other. Pretty much what most of the Western European countries would be if their despotic, corrupt, for sale, traitorous, pedophile, blackmailable, fraudsters pretending to be their legitimate governments would be removed tomorrow and replaced with the average person in each of these countries that actually cares about the welfare of their people and nation.
This includes most of Africa and South America, all the little weird places like Micronesia, and also side-show pieces like Taiwan, which are geopolitically important, just by a number of factors that make them so, but are, militarily and in terms of affecting the path of the global war taking place, essentially also irrelevant. Japan is another such place. they may have valuable items that would help one side or the other, so become contentious places, but directly, they are essentially hostages, like the rest of Western Europe, just more obviously and dangerously so.
Where it Started
The Side of Satan, used to ruling the world by subterfuge, fear, and financial terrorism and enslavement, having succeeded at achieving pretty much whatever it wanted since 1945, decided to take the gloves off and start the process of changing the whole of planet Earth into the thing they really have been aiming consciously for since at minimum 1776, but really, that has been planned from the very start of mankind. The underlying power behind it all is indeed an immortal spirit of evil, we sometimes refer to by various names, but in any event, it utterly hates humanity and wants them crushed and humiliated in their totality. It does this by elevating various figures in the human world to do its bidding. The upper echelons of this essentially nested hive of secret societies, subterfuge, secret deals and hierarchies and inter-competitive backstabbing are indeed aware of who they serve, and do so consciously. Others may be operating under the guise that they know best, but really, they know, and they are feeling so confident now, they are not even hiding it any more. Listen to this guy, Graff at the World Economic Forum (see the whole long post Simplicious made that also covered this but is too long and autistic for most people)
Klaus Schwab of course has been boasting to the world that their WEF graduates have been infiltrating every Western government for decades. Literally almost every leader in Europe and abroad is a “graduate” of this process. Justin Trudeau being its most idiotic, obvious, annoying and completely controlled puppet, but so is the gay Macaroon of France and all the various others throughout Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and so on. There is also another disturbing trend that some, along with most of the freaky “elites” that wear animal masks, rape children and dance around Bohmain grove, and hang out with “spirit cooker” Marina Abramovich and the likes of the Clinton Foundation, which we all know is a child trafficking ring. And that is the deep undercurrent of Occult stuff going back centuries. Meloni, the PM of Italy is on record saying she had an occult master since her early 20s. And that’s to say nothing of the connections to child rape by gigantic blackmailers like Jeffrey Epstein, and now Sean Coombs or P. Diddy, as he liked to be called, which hardly masks the proclivities he enjoyed with certain potentially underage people, like Justin Bieber, who literally sang about a P. Diddy party and how it warped him.
If you dig even just a little bit, the literally demonic, down to literal child sacrifice and cannibalism, is there. You don’t want to see it full in the face, because it is monstrous, but you know. And you know you could find out more if only it would not haunt your nightmares forever after.
As to where it started? Well, worshipping the devil is the oldest religion in the world. I literally started after Lucifer and a third of the host were cast out of Heaven.
You might not believe it that literally, but honestly, start from a blank slate and what makes most sense?
Money and power alone don’t explain it. The ritual abuse, murder, organ harvesting and adrenochrome farms of little children goes well beyond mere greed and a wish for power. And when it is on the absolutely enormous scale it is, it being merely the really twisted perversions of a mere few freaks doesn’t explain it either.
You say you want more proof? There is mountains of it. you just have to look for it. Find out what some of the veterans of the Ukraine conflict see and have witnessed. Look up what the Franklin scandal was decades ago. Or the Belgian scandal that encompassed pretty much all of the Belgian government and judiciary and had to do with an vast pedophile network that to all intents and purposes was the government and the judiciary and law enforcement too. Look at the testimony of British highly ranked police officers that tried to blow the whistle on the depth and scope of the same thing in the UK government, law enforcement and judiciary too. Do you really think that sick fuck of Jimmy Saville who raped and abused kids dying of cancer, by the hundreds, was not known about? Do you not know the statue of a pedophile is proudly displayed outside the BBC studios? And the rampant similar stuff that goes on at all the higher echelons of power? All the pesos in the fake “Catholic Church” which has been headed by Satanists pretending to be “Popes” uninterruptedly since 1958?
You may pretend to yourself I am just some crazy “conspiracy theorist” ranting, but it’s undeniable that the so-called conspiracy theorists turned out to be right about pretty much all of it. JFK, 9/11, the faked part of the Moon Landings (though we did go to the Moon, but not the way they tell you), the whole Covid Mass-Murder event, and on, and on, and on.
Of course, the majority who took the genetic serums that are now killing little children from heart attacks and giving turbo-cancers and other life-crippling effects, don’t want to know.
Operating under the idea that if you don’t say it out loud, maybe, just like the Candyman, the evil shit will not happen to you even if you did take that fake Vaxx that has never worked in over 30 years and only ended up killing the animals that were repeatedly subjected to it.
So because of that, everyone just keeps their head down and keeps quiet and just gets squeezed more and more, by more woke insanity and pregnant “men” and furries and other mentally ill freaks pushed on us by… yup, the usual suspects. Except no one is allowed to say it. No one is allowed to name them. The fact they have been chased out of 108 countries some 1004 times is just everyone else’s fault. never had anything to do with them or how they behave.
And blowing up thousands of devices remotely indiscriminately among civilians is supposed to be great, and good and acceptable. Not a terrorist act at all.
How it’s Going
You KNOW that all the stuff I wrote above is true and just scratching the surface. The level of deception, horror, total degeneracy and vile evil that is really all around us is nauseating and not hard to see even for those who only have a room temperature IQ.
In short, there are enough people now that have understood this at least to the point that one hopes most of the time they watch the bullshit spewing out of their television sets they simply roll their eyes and say “Bitch, Please!”
You KNOW they are lying to you. You know they are evil. And you KNOW there is no standing on the sidelines any more. They will not let you. Either you are one of them (you are not. They are few, very few, and wealthy to a point you have no conception of), you are one of their pets/slaves/sex toys, as they decide and want you to be, or you are against them. There is no other position where you will go by unnoticed and unmolested.
In short, we should all pretty much be here by now:
And guess what. He doesn’t call it that. He doesn’t express a framework within which what he says can be made to happen, but it exists. It’s called Catholicism. Not the fake Vatican II TurboPederasty on crack, no.
The Catholicism of the Crusaders of 1095, who put on their armours and with heir entire fortunes and families went to fight an invader that had been attacking them and enslaving and murdering them for nearly 400 years. We have been brainwashed for some 80 years really intensively.
It’s enough now.
And no, Catholic, real ones, do not “turn the other cheek” to this level of evil. They march either to their martyrdom, or to push the demons back into Hell. An remember, even the Gates of Hell, will not prevail on us.
So, yes, enter WWIII correctly.
It’s a spiritual fight first and a worldly one only secondly. Get the first right and build up your people, your community, your family and friends. Be clear on who and where you are and who is and is not with you. Organise. Group. Resist all the lies in every way, every day, and build up your life, your inspiration, your children, and make new alternatives and create new realities of local government, of local academics, and so on.
Maybe you are Vaxxed and dying or ill. So what? You want the bastards that fooled you into that to win? You want to pretend that’s not what happened as you quietly slip away into the darkness?
Whatever your personal situation, whatever you believe, simply know this: There are only two sides. The side of Good or the side of Evil. And no man’s land does not exist anymore, it is rapidly becoming territory of the enemy too, except for those who see the truth and become part of our side.
The opening salvos have been done. Now we enter the start of the real war. And it will go on at least a few years. I would say it is unlikely to chance quickly. So build up your forces. Ten years from now no one knows what the landscape will look like, but those who prepare now will be far better able to create and navigate it.
Jay Dyer, once again makes things up, relating to the ecumenical council of Constance.
He contention is that the Council of Constance “ruled” who was the real Pope during the period in which there were three Popes (two of which were fake). This is absolute nonsense and of course, yet another lie.
He says this in this mostly boring and irrelevant podcast from about 2 hours and 10 or 11 minutes or so and carries on until about 2 hours and 30 minutes. He repeatedly says that the council of Constance resolved the issue.
This is absolutely and completely a lie.
What happened is that the three Popes were convened to this council originally by the fake Antipope John XXIII, who was pushed to do so by the Emperor. So nothing happening here except them basically saying: “We gotta sort this out.” As a result of this investigation John XXIII was going to be investigated for scandalous conduct so he ran away. In the meantime, the two remaining possible “Popes” Gregory XII and Benedict XIII came to an agreement which was that Gregory XII would be accepted as the one true Pope and instead of being deposed (as were the other two, for being antipopes) he would resign and a new and valid Pope (from the Roman see, would be elected). So that’s what happened.
In essence the one true Pope, Gregory XII resolved the issue. Not the Council.
This is typical of Jay, he just lies, makes straw man “arguments” and completely makes things up. As I demonstrated on my video of our debate, he literally makes quotes up from various documents they supposedly come from, and refers to others that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
As I said right from the start, the man is a liar and an intellectual pigmy. All you need to do is go read the documents he quotes and take them in proper context, because he of course will quote mine and try and twist black into being white and vice versa.
In short, it was NOT the council that decided anything, but Gregory XII, the one true pope that for the good of the Church proposed the solution that everyone agreed with and everyone agreed he had the full authority to make this decision and that all of his appointments were in fact the only ones that would be valid, since he was the real pope.
Gregory XII sent to Constance as his representatives his protector Carlo Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, and the Dominican cardinal, John Domenici—to Constance indeed, but not to the General Council assembled there by the authority, and in the name, of John XXIII. The envoys’ commission was to the emperor Sigismund, presiding over the various bishops and prelates whom his zeal to restore peace to the Church had brought together. To these envoys—and to Malatesta in the first place—Gregory gave authority to convoke as a General Council—to convoke and not to recognise—these assembled bishops and prelates ; [4] and by a second bull [5] he empowered Malatesta to resign to this General Council in his name.
The emperor, the bishops and prelates consented and accepted the role Gregory assigned. And so, on July 4, 1415. Sigismund, clad in the royal robes, left the throne he had occupied in the previous sessions for a throne placed before the altar, as for the president of the assembly. Gregory’s two legates sat by his side facing the bishops. The bull was read commissioning Malatesta and Domenici to convoke the council and to authorise whatever it should do for the restoration of unity and the extirpation of the schism—with Gregory’s explicit condition that there should be no mention of Baldassare Cossa, [6] with his reminder that from his very election he had pledged himself to resign if by so doing he could truly advance the good work of unity, and his assertion that the papal dignity is truly his as the canonically elected successor of Urban VI.
Malatesta then delegated his fellow envoy, the cardinal John Domenici, to pronounce the formal operative words of convocation [7] ; and the assembly—but in its own way—accepted to be thus convoked, authorised and confirmed in the name “of that lord who in his own obedience is called Gregory XII” [8]. The council next declared that all canonical censures imposed by reason of the schism were lifted, and the bull was read by which Gregory authorised Malatesta to make the act of abdication [9] and promised to consider as ratum gratum et firmum, and forever irrevocable, whatever Malatesta, as his proxy, should perform. The envoy asked the council whether they would prefer the resignation immediately, or that it should be delayed until Peter de Luna’s decision was known. The council preferred the present moment. It ratified all Gregory XII’s acts, received his cardinals as cardinals, promised that his officers should keep their posts and declared that if Gregory was barred from re-election as pope, this was only for the peace of the Church, and not from any personal unworthiness. Then the great renunciation was made [10], ” …. renuncio et cedo …. et resigno …. in hac sacrosancta synodo et universali concilio, sanctam Romanam et universalem eccleciam repraesentante” and the council accepted it [11], but again as made “on the part of that lord who in his own obedience was called Gregory XII”. The Te Deum was sung and a new summons drawn up calling upon Peter de Luna to yield to the council’s authority.
The work of Pisa was now almost undone, and by this council which, in origin, was a continuation of Pisa. It had suppressed the Pisan pope whom Pisa, with biting words, had rejected as a schismatic and no pope.”
Phillip Hughes, A History of the Church, p. 289-291
All it takes to catch Dyer out in his lies is to actually refer to the documents and events he intentionally lies about and misrepresents.
It’s just like all the fake nonsense “scientists” and “historians” do, when, like “journalists” they give a bunch of “references”. No one ever bothers to look them up. I you do, you will find they literally list the very proof of their own lies.
There are only two types of men
Those who have a line; and hold it.
And those who do not.
Now, a man’s line may vary somewhat over time, as life and experience gradually (or occasionally suddenly) make him aware of things he did not know, errors of judgement, or lies he has unwittingly believed.
But in essence, a man that has a line will hold the line regardless of where and when he is.
It’s the difference between someone willing to die for an ideal and those who are not.
While neither type of man is guaranteed to be ethical, there is a difference between them in that even if amoral, those who have a line are reliable at least as it concerns that line, while the others are not.
Historically such men, with a line, will tend to become the leaders of disaffected groups in any unjust society, and organise other men of this same type into an irregular “army” to take care of the many injustices and the corrupt, supposedly “elected”, leaders, and their nefarious minimums.
In many cases, such men started what later became known as criminal organisations, be it the mafia, triads, or yakuza, but in origin, starting from the “bandits” of Southern Italy, these were local men with the capacity, acumen and courage to do violence upon their and their people’s enemies, in direct response to injustices perpetrated on them.
Over time, such men, absent a moral imperative that they must believe in themselves at a profound level, will eventually, and inevitably, become corrupted, and if not them, their sons and grandsons will. Because once you cross the line of being willing to go against the “law” (however unjust it may be) in order to serve the greater good of “justice” from a human perspective, you will quickly realise that the “law” of the/any government, is no more and no less than the imposition of whatever rules by the use or threat of physical force. And who of us can’t do better than government work? So if you were to succeed at imposing your will on (initially) the government, how long would it be before you decide that you can impose it on whoever/everyone?
Did you know that Pablo Escobar had tried to become part of the government of Colombia? And while his “business” was brutal, and it is not politically viable to say so, are you certain that had he succeeded his rule would have been worse for the locals than the current government of Colombia? Because I for one don’t have enough relevant and verified information to be sure either way.
I do know, however, that someone like Pinochet was (and continued to be) vilified for having taken over Chile by force, and having stopped communism there by making some 3,000 people disappear, and having some other 30,000 or so escape that country. Bad guy right?
Except that in every single example we have from history of communist regimes coming to power, not only are millions of people displaced, but often millions are murdered, and certainly NEVER less than many tens of thousands.
Given these two alternatives, it seems obvious that Pinochet should be considered a heroic figure. But that does not suit the narrative of the people that run this planet.
Just like it does not suit their narrative for you to know a few choice bits of information, such as:
Because once you find out all of the above and connect them, you will realise at minimum two things:
1. This planet is run and operates on basically lies, at almost all levels of functionality. The entire thing is so absurdly run on false premises that are built on nothing but lies to an extent that most human beings simply are not mentally equipped to handle without feeling absolutely overwhelmed by despair.
2. The actual real history of Catholicism and its real actual dogmatic teachings is the one story about how and why this planet works as it does that not only makes sense, but fits all the available evidence we have, AND models reality so well it can be used to predict how certain things will go both in the small and individual scale as well as the large and global one, to a degree that no other theory or ideology comes even close.
I lived with realisation n. 1 above from the age of 26 to 43 without having realisation n. 2. And yet, I did not despair at all. That alone makes me rather uncommon. Then from age 43 to 47 I investigated realisation n. 2 obsessively to make sure that, absurd as it had seemed to me for my whole life, this realisation n. 2 was in fact true.
If you do this, you also become aware that Catholicism is the only philosophy and religion that has warned us about all the evil people involved in the lies and demonic shit mentioned in that partial bullet-point list above. Which tends to perk your ears up.
Then you realise it is also the only religion that upheld the required use of violence against evil which is innate and intrinsic to every even partially decent human being that ever lived.
That is, in Catholicism, the use of violence to protect yourself or others (and especially innocents) from evil is not just permitted, it is in fact considered the duty of every lay Catholic. The only other alternative is to choose martyrdom for yourself; that is, the consciously allowing yourself to be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed in the name of justice and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Those are the only two acceptable ways to deal with evil for a Catholic.
At which point you realise why the same people that perpetrate all the evil on this Earth spent literally centuries to infiltrate and subvert Catholicism, culminating in the creation of the fake “Catholic Church” that has had only fake “Popes” promoting its destruction since 28th October 1958.
Catholics, Catholicism and the Catholic Church have and has been the ONLY effective force on Earth that has ever managed to resist the evil that occurs on this planet and for a time at least reduce it enough to create the best living conditions humanity has ever had in its entire history.
And the means of victory remain fully at our disposal, despite the massive blow that Vatican II was.
There remain more real Catholics today on Earth (Sedevacantists) than were ever present in Rome and our planet during the persecutions of Emperor Nero. And we have far better communication lines open and far more valid priests and Bishops than used to be around back then. As well as fully functional Church services.
Most important of all, because our battle is NOT primarily fought in the physical plane, our numbers are NOT a deciding factor in the fight. Rather our convictions, prayer and internal emotional and spiritual state is far more relevant.
Of course this does not invalidate the physical, which remains an undeniable, real, and important part of life (and as long as we inhabit the material world will remain so), but it does invert the order of importance:
The spiritual/mental/faith based part of the fight is in my estimation at least 80% of the fight, with the physical being 20% at most. And most of that 20% is in things like simply putting in the physical effort to do what is required, be it showing up at work, doing what needs doing, learning what needs learning and taking effective, regular, constant action towards the goals that will result in the maximum human freedom and good, which ultimately comes down to:
1. Creating communities of people that understand all of the above, and decide to band together to:
A) become self-sufficient in all things, from clean water and food to medical, energy and defence.
B) take over local government and instilling actual Catholicism at all levels
2. Defending 1. above against all enemies by all means available
3. If and when it becomes necessary to do so, use force to defend yourself and your community from evil doers who would use force on you and yours.
If you do a really good job of 1 and 2 by non-violent means, 3 may never be required, but in any case, it is best to have the capacity for 3, because on this Earth, the only real rights you have, are the ones you have sufficient force to be able to protect.
If you have read and digested all of this post correctly, you may now have come to an overall conclusion, which is that there are three types of men, rather than only two:
1. Those who do not have a line and hold it.
2. Those who do and have no ethical basis that is based in justice and goodness.
3. Those who do and do.
And if you have been paying attention, the first on that list are not men who count, at least not in my eyes and I think, not so much in the eyes of God either.
So what you have left are men who are Catholic, and men who are not. So… just two types of men.
Not all Catholics are always good and not all non-Catholics are bad, but broadly speaking one type will create societies that are wholesome, honest, safe and good, and the other type will inevitably, eventually, descend into degeneracy.
You might not see it now. I certainly didn’t see it for decades even after I figured out the first half of it, which for most people is actually the hardest one to see, so I understand if you think I am just yet another confused zealot screaming “Jeeeeaaasssuss is da waaaay!” Like some Bible-thumping retard, of which, unfortunately, this planet if absolutely filled. Such creatures are a mixture of frauds, con-men, cowards, heretics, intentional deceivers, liars, Satanists and a large number of powerfully ignorant and lazy masses too brainwashed, stunned, stupefied and inflamed with bad health to be able to reason their way out of a parking lot.
I, dear reader, am none of those things, and yet I was deceived and as a result remained ignorant of the truth for at least nearly 2 decades more than necessary. But I had not the benefit of anyone doing what I am doing here now, which is to lay out in plain and straightforward fashion, all the pieces of the puzzle before you. Your only task at this point is to decide if you will at minimum take the time to see if these pieces I present to you are valid or not. I certainly am not asking you to “just believe me”. Quite the contrary. I have always advocated (even when I did not know that it was a dogmatic Catholic principle) that every man must absolutely know and make up his mind for himself.
But even that requires you at least investigate the concepts and bullet points I laid out before you, and while yes, some of those points can potentially take months of study to figure out, I assure you it is but a small fraction of the time it takes you to figure them all out without anyone pointing them out as the essential pieces of the puzzle that they are.
So, all that is left for you to do now is decide how lazy or not you are, and hence decide if to look into the pieces or not.
That is, assuming you’re not already brainwashed enough to not even consider doing so because you have already been predisposed to assume some part, or most of what I say is itself a lie, and if that is the case, I can easily guess which part you have been “inoculated” against: Catholicism.
At any rate, it is what it is, and you will do as you will. My task here —insofar as any can be construed in the form of a blog post— is done.
Godspeed and good fortune to you.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 30 December 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Clown World, Heretics, Impostors and Frauds, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within, The Jews, Zombie Apocalypse