Blackpilling deceivers, gnostics, and sophists need to be ignored. At least until we can change the laws back to outlawing them, ostracising them from civilised society, and in the worst cases make their nightmares come true by burning them at the stake.
My friend Adam posted a very nice, polite, well-reasoned missive for the indefatigable Ann Bernhardt, basically asking her a slightly different take on the question I have been asking her for years now.
My version: Ann, show me where in Canon Law it states there is a limit of duration to an interregnum.
Adam’s take: Ann, ALL of these “Cardinals” are demonstrable demon worshippers. And when Bergoglio kicks the bucket THEY will be “electing” the next “Pope”. Can you see why I am using inverted commas and why we 1958 Sedevacantists are correct and not you, laughably wrong 2023 sedevacantist?
But Ann will not respond to either of us, I am certain.
I know, I know, to you non-Catholics, and therefore non-Christians, this all sounds like the Baptist joke about the guy who’s gonna jump from a bridge.
But that’s only because you’re an ignorant heathen, a pretend-Christian of some rebellious Protestant denomination, or you simply never got round to reading the Patristic fathers, the history of Christianity, or the Bible. Take your pick, it doesn’t matter, because the point of this post is simply to show in the clear light of day, what a sophist, deceiver, and mollusc Bruce Charlton is, and why anyone sane will ignore pretty much anything he has to say.
I first came across Bruce because of an admittedly brilliant little pamphlet he wrote (free on the internet) called Addicted to Distraction. It really is good and you don’t need to be in any way religious to enjoy it.
That said, pretty much everything else after that has been a steaming pile of Gnosticism, spiritual deviancy, and sophistry.
For reasons only known to himself, (or perhaps the demons riding him) Bruce decided that the best thing he could do to Adam’s post was discourage anyone from being a proper Catholic. i.e. a Sedevacantist.
Interesting; since Bruce has professed for some time that he feels the closest thing he is Christianity-wise, is to a Mormon.
I thought he’d misspelt Moron (as I think Mormons have too) but he repeated it quite a lot a while back. Now, far be it from me to criticise anyone who believes Joseph Smith wasn’t a complete sex perverted charlatan who made the whole idiotic thing up, including there being golden sheets of words written by an Angel called Moroni (there’s a hint here, honest!) that he put inside a box and that only he, and he alone, could read, and then only with a seer stone inside his tuba hat, but no one else was allowed to see the sheets and the “translated” Angelic words were noted down by a scribe on the other side of a screen from Smith who “read them” using his special tuba hat. And that was how the Book of Mormon, and his fucking everyone’s wife, and the entire Moronic/Mormonic religion came about.
If you think I am having a fever-dream-hallucination, you are wrong, that insanity is literally how Mormonism came about. Yes. I know, it makes the Scientologists with their Xemu seem a LOT more plausible.
But yeah, when THAT guy starts telling people to NOT be proper Catholics… well… light him up is what I’m gonna do, so here it is. And here is Bruce’s first Gnostic comment.
bruce g charlton 1 day ago
@Adam – One difficulty of going back to Vatican II is logistical, given the importance given to a valid apostolic succession. Because most of what has happened in the RC church all over the world over the past half-century would be utterly invalidated.
Indeed, so large and complex is this problem, that it seems (obviously!) utterly impossible to unpick the valid from the invalid – and spiritually almost lethal even to try.
In other words, I am sure that a strict and logical legalism – even if completely honest and rigorously applied – cannot extricate the RCC from the mess that it now inhabits. Therefore, that legalistic approach to the problem is doomed to fail, and therefore should not be embarked-upon.
But that does Not mean the task is impossible, merely that a legalistic approach cannot accomplish the task.
I am sure that insofar as Roman Catholics are motivated to live in accordance with God’s will; then ways will be found in practice to “short circuit” these problems – and these ways will be clear and simple, and known in their hearts to be valid, by those Roman Catholics of genuine good will.
Thus will a part of the Roman Catholic survive and thrive – to the benefit of all.
But the strictly legalistic approach would (will) need to be let-go at some point; or else it will block what is necessary and good.
I wasn’t the first one to get a shot back at him…
Reply to bruce g charlton 1 day ago
That’s not the way this works. All that happened over the last several decades is in fact invalid and it can and must be recognized as such. Catholicism is not Romantic Christianity.
But I think mine was more balanced, fair and complete:
Reply to bruce g charlton 1 day ago
Bruce, you whiny, gnostic, coward.
Crawl back under the retarded rock of Moroni you climbed out from under.
You literally stated that the absurd cult of Mormonism is the closest you come to Christianity, and here you are, once again, trying to dissuade anyone from even thinking about sedevacantism; aka actual Catholicism, which is thriving and expanding daily and makes perfect sense since what happened with V2 is really simple enough an honest ten year old can understand it. But not deceivers like you. Just like you ran away from the truth I forced your nose into at my blog (you deleted my replies on yours) run along now, sede blogs are not places for spineless Brits like you.
If you think that didn’t explain too much, you’re right, but that’s because me and Bruce have had this out before, so if you need more information, you might start here for generics on Sedevacantism, or buy one of my books Believe! (short) or Reclaiming the Catholic Church (long).
If instead you want to read up on Bruce and me, knock yourself out, here. I started to call him out over a year ago.
Bruce ignored my comment, of course, but felt the need to keep making random sophistry up. Which is such bullshit I just need to break it up and comment on it.
Problems don’t go away just because they are unacknowledged; and the worst real problems are those due to unacknowledged metaphysical assumptions.
No, Bruce, the worst problem is intentional, lying deceivers like you trying to lead souls to Hell by lying to them.
One such is that the bottom line essence of Roman Catholicism is legalistic in nature – i.e. that the legal aspects trump all other considerations.
No Bruce. The Bottom Line of Catholicism is that it is the TRUTH. And the Truth cannot be lied about, changed, made different or perverted. Legalism, as YOU use it is simply subterfuge, lies, and twisting the truth. What the Church does is not “legalism” Bruce, it’s defending the factual, inerrant, infallible, eternal TRUTH. Yes, your very Nemesis, the thing that sends you scurrying like a cockroach for shadows and sophistry. You would not know this, being what you are, but you see Bruce, honest men will NEVER flex or bend or break before creatures of shadow like you. Nope. We will look at the truth and point it out, and call you out for the deceiving liar you are.
Until That is recognized as an assumption, and that assumption compared with other possible assumptions, then discussion cannot proceed beyond primary school playground verbal scraps (yawn…).
Yawn away you little runt. There is nothing assumed in Catholicism. It is reasoned, thought out, proven, checked against scripture and tradition and divine dogma, and reality. And because Jesus instituted the Church on Earth, and he is not a liar, the Church too, despite being filled with flawed men, remains infallible in its Magisterial teachings. Yes, even after there has been no valid Pope since 1958. Because Jesus promised he would be with us until the end times, and so it is. Real Priests and real Bishops continue to exist. Just nowhere in the Vatican. None within the Novus Ordo Satanic impostor religion pretending to be Catholicism. But as it always did, the Church continues to exist.
If discussion gets trapped by unexamined legalistic assumptions that contain necessarilydestructive consequences, then it will be Roman Catholicism that suffers.
There is no legalistic assumption, only undeniable fact and reality. There is nothing destructive in Catholicism. And in case you are wondering, yes, burning heretics at the stake is salutary and civilisational, as history has proven time and again, not destructive. Not even for the heretic, since contemplating his own burning flesh gives him time to ponder his errors and possibly repent, thus entering Purgatory and eventually Salvation too.
This is why fifth columnists within all churches have so often hidden their real (and anti-Christian – often personal, or ideological) agendas behind a façade of strict legalism. Such agents destroy and personally profit (or simply enjoy the process of destruction), while pretending to protect.
Nope. You’re now trying to conflate sophists and liars like yourself with being strict. The truth IS strict, Bruce. Reality IS strict. That’s just how it is. And so, liars like you are called out for the liars they are.
And the same can happen unconsciously, delusionally, or from a desire for “certainty” – in order, to “settle the question” once and for all. Many motives are possible.
Look at all the nonsense you’re throwing at Sedes, hoping something will stick. Amazing. Well, I know you’re not doing this “unconsciously” Bruce, it’s very intentional and conscious on your part. Nor is it delusional. Underhanded, subversive, deceitful, false, and cowardly, yes, it’s all of those, but not delusional. Well, except if you think your ploy will work on actual Catholics, then yes, you would be delusional. But that’s not your target, is it Bruce, no, like all the gatekeeping Satanists, your target is the newly interested neophyte. You aim to prevent anyone from even looking at sedevacantism. Because you know if they do they will see the perfect reasoning of it and become proper, actual, Christians. And that would leave you out in the cold. Well… for. bit, you’ll get to a real warm place in due course.
The point is that In These Times we can be sure that (later if not sooner) our fundamental assumptions will be exposed, and tested to breaking point. The question is: what then breaks?
You. Bruce. You break. And all those like you. You know what doesn’t break? Catholicism. Or Catholics. At most we die. And either as martyrs (the best of us) or as warriors, taking as many of you scum as possible down with us, except your ride will be a lot lower down and more permanent than ours.
It was good to see I was not the only one that recognised Bruce for what he is. CT had some pertinent thoughts on the matter.
C T Reply to bruce g charlton 15 hours ago
What a steaming heap of bafflegarble. When the new Inquisition is put into place, you are not going to make it.
As is known now, the Secret King Bruce had to continue to try to have the last word
bruce g charlton Reply to bruce g charlton 9 hours ago
I should add that I regard the basic “sede” stance – i.e. that the RCC was poisoned by Vatican II – as obviously correct.
Here he uses one of the tried and tested methods of the deceiver: “Oh but I agree with you, see? Now come walk with me down this yellow-bricked road…”
But I suggest that this position can and should be reached without recourse to legalism, and the solutions to Vatican II should not be legalistic either.
Transaltion: But I suggest that this position can and should be reached without recourse to TRUTH, and the solutions to Vatican II should not be TRUE either.
I would have thought it obvious that the Holy Ghost can and will (as I said) “short circuit” the impossibly complex legal problems to provide direct answers that can be agreed by all Catholics of good (i.e. genuinely Christian) motivation.
See? You are a “good” Catholic, if you listen to old uncle Bruce here who has genuine “Christian” motivation. And we’ll skip right over the simple fact that Catholicism IS Christianity. That the ONLY Christianity that has ever existed IS Catholicism, and all else is heresy, nonsense, lies and deceit.
What a serpentine mollusc you are Bruce, you might as well write, All men of good brotherhood can agree that good brotherhood and equality and liberty is the true “catholicism”. You freemason brothers would be proud.
But this can only happen if other factor/s than legalism are regarded as primary and foundational to the Catholic faith. Legalism (aka Pharisees-ism) – if adopted – will empower the wrong people by focusing on the letter, will utterly fail to solve the real problems – and will prove utterly destructive of the Christian spirit (as it always has done and will continue to do). If any church survives, it will be an empty shell.
Translation: But this can only happen if other factor/s than TRUTH are regarded as primary and foundational to the Catholic faith.
See Bruce, you have a bit of a hurdle here, in the sense that K2 or Mount Olympos is a “bit of a hill”. Catholicism has always stayed very clearly that it is the ONLY, ONE, TRUE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, RELIGION. You really can’t get away from that. Now, you can agree or not. Don’t agree, then you’re not Catholic. Buh-Bye. Off you go, piss off and don’t bother us again. No Catholic cares about your opinions of Catholicism, you are not one of us, you don’t count. End of. Or you agree, in which case, you can’t water down the truth Bruce. You can’t twist it. You can’t change it. You can’t ignore it. Which is what you are advocating for. Precisely what you’d like Catholics to do is completely anathema to us. Oh, does it hurt you feel that we plainly say, we are right and yes, all of you who are not with us are wrong? Hmmm…I wonder who else said if you are not with me you’r against me. Anyone? Anyone? Guy in Galilee? Answered to the name of Jesus? Ever heard of Him, Bruce? Guess what, we Catholics ARE with him. People like you, I’m fairly sure He’s gonna say “I never knew you.” Go look it up. You might as well read that Bible one day eh?
CT too also fired back. More gentlemanly than I, as is often the case. But then I am not going for polite. I want to obliterate any shred of credibility these charlatanic gnostic deceivers have, forever. So Orbital Nukes is more my speed.
C T Reply to bruce g charlton 3 hours ago
You often make these weird mistakes — e.g. “pharisees-ism” — that make me wonder sometimes what language you actually speak.
No, God won’t “short-circuit” His own law. That’s a stupidity that only a maleducated, non-Christian midwit could envisage. The plain truth is that outside of the Church there is no salvation, therefore all who wish to be saved must be brought into It, legally and publicly because there is no other way. Baptisms and other sacraments must be performed properly, evil must be publicly renounced, penance must be visibly performed before the apostates can be accepted as Catholic.
You are not even a member of the Church. You are so far from being a well trained and educated cleric that you can only aspire to be a layman. You have no say, are entitled to no opinion, can offer no relevant advice on the matter.
Quite. And on that note, we once more, turn the page on the non-Christian, liar, deceiver and intentional sophist Bruce Charlton.
Sex and Relationship Lies
The largest battleground for human happiness and misery is in the field of romantic relationship between a man and woman.
UPDATE: you can now read how to make the best of the current situation in my book Caveman Theory. Available ONLY at my E-Store as it is too politically incorrect for Amazon. But read the post below to get a general sense of things first. As the book in large part is written to help you navigate the current situation and achieve success in the kind of relationship you want to have.
If you just listen to the first 7 minutes of this podcast on it, the lady in it identifies really quite well the basic issues facing young people today and what I found particularly useful is that she indicates, as does the guy doing the podcast, the specific fact that it is the general zeitgeist of the world to present things as if love itself is not part of the equation any longer. They refer to recent movies, Barbie and apparently Snow White and how the main woke actress in Snow White, Rachel Ziegler, says:
“She’s not going to be saved by the Prince, she’s not going to be dreaming about true love, she’s dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be. The Prince in the original movie stalked her.”
Imagine, someone from the hypokrite class thinking this way about the classic story of Snow White. The word hypokrite of course, was the original term for actors in Ancient Greece. You can see why it’s relevant to study the classic, and etymology, yes? Actors in classical times were essentially thought of as basically prostitutes. And while the glorification of whores is also nothing new (The temple prostitutes used to get paid to have sex with any man that donated to the temple and were held in high esteem by mostly Babylonian/Sumerian people, while the Greek Herodotus, in his Histories referred to the practice of forced prostitition at least once as “foul”.
The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger at least once in her life.
As pretty much the entire #metoo movement proved, thinking most actors and actresses are essentially highly paid prostitutes is really about the size of it. And in fact, having met a few actresses and also a few prostitutes in my life, generally, a highly paid whore who makes no pretence of being anything other than what she is, in my experience of conversing with such people, are far more honest and interesting than those who fancy themselves as artists that should be venerated. And if you doubt, me look up the term “yachting” when used in the context of famous actresses, fashion models and so on. Having worked as close protection for some wealthy people from all around the world, I can tell you that some world-recognised names of women that literally everyone knows, have, in fact, been bought an paid for to have sex with, like any common prostitute. It just cost more. And while I have no personal experience in the matter, if I had to bet on it I would bet that the more expensive famous whores probably performed worse than the cheaper unknown ones.
But I digress. The point is that the famous people a lot of young people look up to are essentially spouting the narrative they are paid to vomit out of the orifices they use to make their money.
And that narrative, as the man and woman in the podcast state, is that love makes you weak, is some kind of outdated, or outmoded way of being, removes choice and fun from your life, causes unnecessary suffering and is no good at all. And it is a narrative being pushed, as the lady correctly identifies, primarily by people who are undesirable to the opposite sex.
I have been saying for years that I have yet to meet a beautiful woman that is reasonably normal (i.e. hasn’t suffered some genuinely dramatically traumatising event) that is in any way a feminist. Pretty women pretty much can get a LOT of what they want primarily by playing to their straights and those are the feminine qualities. And if they are really smart, they will use those to snatch a quality man who has masculine qualities.
The blue-haired manatees that scream feminism, and the incel-gargoyles that become MGTOW types, along with a few others that are internally as repulsive as the aforementioned generally are externally, are essentially deeply miserable human wreckage and as they say, misery loves company, so they try to drag everyone else down to their level of despair.
The narrative is so pervasive and so prevalent in literally every aspect of life that you don’t even realise in how many multitudes of ways it is pushed on you and at you throughout every single day. If you read my last blog post before this one, perhaps, you might begin to become more aware of how insidiously the lies about reality and ESPECIALLY about relations between men and women are inculcated in you by subterfuge, stealth, unstated assumptions (one of the biggest culprits and methods), and so on.
Reality all around you is narrated and presented in a twisted manner in order to make you think that the current narrative of feminism-über-alles and being a strongly independent woman and an asexual automaton male, are the pinnacle one should strive for. That is, when they are not pushing the idea you should sexually mutilate yourself in order to become a tragic parody of the opposite sex.
So you bet, there are a lot of unhappy young men and women, unfulfilled in any relationship they attempt to get into and so on. Even if one of them has actually seen through most of the fog, finding a partner that has too, or that at least is amenable to being shown the way through the lies is difficult. It requires patience, skill, intelligence, and genuine research that does not collapse into embittered despair.
I have mentioned these type of things over the years a lot, both on this blog and on my Youtube channel, so search through it and see the videos on the topic too, and pluck what you can from it, but in just a few key sentences, as a starting point, please try to keep this in mind:
Above all, a lifelong marriage for the purpose of raising multiple children in a loving, strong, family, with emphasis on overcoming hardship and sticking by your blood whenever you can, with the ethics that Catholicism has, —that is, the original real Catholicism (sedevacantism now), which includes Just War and the Death Penalty, as well as the DUTY to defend innocents, yes even with violence, yes even with pre-emptive violence— produces the genuinely happiest life you can possibly imagine.
I stumbled into it by never giving up my fight against perceived nonsense from childhood until my late 30s. the Boomer zeitgeist did a lot of damage to my generation (and your too), but I sincerely hope you throw off the mental shackles I got rid of mostly by brutish (yet correct) animal instinct (at least at first) by conscious understanding and reasoned contemplation of reality and truth.
March on brothers and sisters; and win.
UPDATE:
Lest you think I am unkind… let me be clear, that even though you may be a gargoyle, it’s up to you what TYPE of Gargoyle you make yourself into.
The Loser, Omega, Poor-me, Gargoyle-Incel:
The “Red-Pilled” All-women-are-bitches, MGTOW Incel-Gargoyle:
Or… The…
I’m a Gargoyle! And I kick all the ass! NON-Incel Gargoyle:
PS: Please ignore the demonic undertones, Gargoyles are traditionally representative of demonic beings, while the unfortunates that look like them are not necessarily evil any more than anyone else is. I hope the images illustrate the point I am trying to make in a sufficiently obvious manner. You can’t help some of the cards you are dealt. But you have absolute authority in how you play them.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 18 November 2023 | Posted in Actual Science, Brain-Mind Functionality, Freemasons, Impostors and Frauds, Increasing Happiness, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within, The Jews