For some years now, I have toyed with making some kind of list of the ten most important or enjoyable books I have read (different lists) but it has been very hard, mostly because I could easily extend both lists to 20 or 30, and partly because many books I (most) have been lost to moves and unfortunate storage choices by my relatives when I left them in their care.
Believe! On the other hand was a short book and to the point, with references, and relatively entertaining too, and it probably had far more of an impact than the detailed deep dive that Reclaiming had. Certainly I didn’t expect whole families to convert to Catholic Sedevacantism as regularly and as frequently as that little book seemed to have inspired. So one could say it was a useful book.
By the above metrics then, I hope to explain why I consider this book, freely available at the link, to be the most important I ever read.
Carlo Cipolla was obviously a brilliant man, but his book, THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY is truly ground-breaking.
He encapsulated in both hilarious yet perfectly accurate scientific notation, just how human stupidity presents itself in observable reality.
As he mentions in his own first edition of the book.
In fact, the publisher’s note alone is worth reproducing in full:
PUBLISHER’S NOTE
Originally written in English, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity was published for the first time in 1976 in a numbered and private edition bearing the unlikely imprint of “Mad Millers.”
The author believed that his short essay could be fully appreciated only in the language in which it had been written. He consequently long declined any proposal to have it translated. Only in 1988 did he accept the idea of its publication in an Italian version as part of the volume titled Allegro ma non troppo, together with the essay Pepper, Wine (and Wool) as the Dynamic Factors of the Social and Economic Development of the Middle Ages, also originally written in English and published privately by Mad Millers for Christmas 1973.
Allegro ma non troppo has been a bestseller both in Italy and in all the countries where translated versions have appeared. Yet, with an irony that the author of these laws would have appreciated, it has never been published in the language in which it was first written.
Thus, more than a quarter of a century since the publication of Allegro ma non troppo, this in fact is the first edition that makes The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity available in its original version.
The private edition of 1976 was preceded by the following publisher’s note written by the author himself:
The Mad Millers printed only a limited number of copies of this book, which addresses itself not to stupid people but to those who on occasion have to deal with such people. To add that none of those who will receive this book can possibly fall in area S of the basic graph (figure 1) is therefore a work of supererogation. Nevertheless, like most works of supererogation, it is better done than left undone. For, as the Chinese philosopher said: “Erudition is the source of universal wisdom: but that does not prevent it from being an occasional cause of misunderstanding between friends.”
Supererogation means to do more than is required (especially in a work). So Cipolla is saying that although it should be obvious that stupid people will not be the ones reading it or making use of it, it is best to state it, even if it should be obvious, and he (politely in my opinion) states that this is necessary even among “erudite” friends, in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Now you know why I have rather long-run-on sentences and verbose paragraphs to make relatively simple points. I could make them in a sentence, but then… the “erudites” who grasp the full meaning would be a tiny number indeed!
I also agree that though he was Italian, the work is really best appreciated in English, which is how he wrote it. I find the same is true of much of my own work. The English language is perfectly technical and lends itself far better to technical explanations, scientific work, and precise language. We Lagos tend to lose something in translation in the written word if we can’t add a look, a hand gesture, or both. And the number of people who can write in technically excellent Italian are probably down to a half dozen. those who can appreciate it may ten or so.
At any rate, you really need to read this short book the Professor left for the non-stupid.
The planet is fast approaching a critical mass of stupidity that may well result in the extinction of the human race, or at least, of that part of it that makes life on this planet marginally tolerable despite the teeming waves of idiots we are constantly surrounded by.
Mostly, this is because of a corollary I would like to add to his Fifth Law of Human Stupidity.
A STUPID PERSON IS THE MOST DANGEROUS TYPE OF PERSON. A STUPID PERSON IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN A BANDIT.
Professor Cipolla himself already understood the inevitable result of the relationship between stupid people and power (in the political and force-projection sense), as he wrote finally at the end of the fifth law:
In a country that is moving downhill, the fraction of stupid people is still equal to σ; however, in the remaining population one notices among those in power an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity (subarea BS of quadrant B in figure 3) and among those not in power an equally alarming growth in the number of helpless individuals (area H in the basic graph, figure 1). Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the σ fraction and makes decline a certainty. And the country goes to Hell.
Given the current state of affairs however, it is important to spell this out in even simpler terms:
The Bandits use the Stupid to weaponise them against any attempt (by the Intelligent) of removing them from power.
It may be the natural (or Divinely Ordained) order of things that humanity is indeed to go extinct, as some giant Universe 25 experiment with mice, be that as it may, surely, as a member of the Intelligent group, it behoves us to do whatever we can to ensure the continuation of at least our part of humanity, as best we can.
Aside the fact that humans are not mice, and that the Universe 25 narrative played very much in the depopulationist boomer agenda espoused by the culprits of the recent mass-murder event called COVID, with its related fake “vaccines” that are really murderous genetic serums, there is also the fact that if intelligent humans organise and come together, their effect on the planet is far more impactful than the masses of idiots that inevitably get in our way to derail plans and efforts, as they invariably do.
In short, the book Cipolla wrote is extremely important because it formally recognises a fundamental issue that humanity has to face in order to survive the next stage of human advancement: The increasing and intentional stupidification of the human race by a few bandits orchestrating it.
Only a concerted effort by organised intelligent people can counter this global phenomenon.
Which, of course, is why I started trying to build up a Sedevacantist Catholic Community in a remote village in Italy. While my wife and I, despite our rather advanced age for it, certainly did not shirking our duty of making a bunch of children.
It is heartening to see that other sedevacantist couples, younger and therefore likely to produce many more children, are trying to do the same in their own ways in various places around the world.
The independent cell-nature of the Sede Catholics, coupled with absolutely shared dogmatic values, is a strong combination for weathering all sorts of nefarious events and plots by the Bandits; and historically too, no one has been quite as successful at rising from the supposed ashes of their religion.
So we are on good ground.
Go read Professor Cipolla’s Magnum Opus. It is truly wonderful and important.
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.
and not to put too fine a point on it, we both agree it is ultimately demonic and cannot result in anything good.
The reason is simple.
Axiom 1: All Humans are flawed.
Axiom 2: Only the creator behind reality is a truly loving force (i.e. God, but the reality of intelligence behind creation is essentially provable now, so don’t let the word God with whatever negative associations it may have for you hamper you from being able to follow the reasoning).
Axiom 3: Humans are the only and necessary link between the loving intelligence of the creator and AI driven machines and software.
Given the above three facts, the only possible conclusion is that the inevitable iterations of Artificial Intelligence will increasingly be more and more flawed from the perspective of a Loving Creator. And thus descend into the very opposite of a Loving Creator, which is essentially a demonic outcome.
And it will do so at a super-efficient speed and efficacy. In short, the deleterious effects on humanity will rapidly accelerate.
We can already see this to a certain extent with AI replacing people in various industries:
Translation, art generation, mathematical calculations, even complex hard science problems of engineering, medicine and so on.
The future looks bleak and if you don’t want to take my word for it, take a look at this short video, it really is worth it (but don’t lose hope and read my take after the video).
As I said in the discussion with Tony, AI has been able to duplicate video for years already. It’s just now to the point that you and I will soon be able to do it from our own computers too.
So what can we do about it? The way I see it there are a few things that are working in our favour.
1. Resources are finite
Yes, a potential army of self-replicating terminators that can independently build bioweapons and deploy them globally could wipe us out, but… we are not yet there, and the resources required to create fully independent robots that can build all the required infrastructure to keep themselves repaired, going, and building up more of the weaponised drones and automated weapon posts and so on eventually requires huge power requirements. It’s just not sustainable at the current commonly understood level of power generation.
Counter: Anti-G tech is real and AI could develop it and since Anti-G tech is related to accessing zero point vacuum fluctuations, it could hypothetically create near infinite power generation.
Counter-Counter: Even so, the physical material is limited, and the autonomy required to build all the related infrastructure to monopolise access to it is still very large in scale, so not happening in the next few years at least.
2. Unintended Consequences of Evil
Ultimately the most efficient way to wipe out humanity is not with robot armies but biologically engineered contagious pathogens.
In fact, there is already ample evidence that the COVID mass-murder event orchestrated by the usual suspects and their ever-obedient puppets was already using certain genetic markers to be most deadly on humans with certain genetic traits (Vikings to be dramatic) and far less deadly on other people with different genetic markers (Ashkenazi Jews).
And if the more recent evidence that the nanobots in the serums are self replicating, and the spike-protein generating mutants that injected themselves with the genetic serum of the vaxx also continue to produce and shed the same spike-protein, then we may already be in the early stages of a human-guided AI take-over.
If that’s the case, we can at least reliably know that there will be unexpected consequences for those people who put this whole thing in motion.
Which is essentially that their stupid, arrogant, and small-minded, short-term, materialist way of thinking inevitably means they too will be wiped out by their own creations.
It’s cold comfort, but it’s something. Which tends to lead me think that there is also going to be some “fix” available. Recent examples have been how military robots were defeated by humans in various tests by really high-tech and difficult things like placing themselves in cardboard boxes and advancing on them a little at the time until they could be in close quarters with the robot. The machine did not perceive them as dangerous because they didn’t look like humans. In a series of tests, this was just one of the ways in which humans could fool the machines.
A recent video/report by quinta columna also indicated that a solution of distilled water and nicotine apparently wipes out the nanobots and may also be efficient against the spike protein, as was alcohol and smoking.
The point here being that the mass-murdering sons of bitches that are orchestrating all this are far from being geniuses.
What they have are infinite resources based on fiat money, because they have orchestrated the planet so that fiat money has become an effective substitute for power acquisition, and they also orchestrated it (especially over about the last 200 years or so, mainly as the Rothschilds family trajectory shows) so that they are also able to literally create the same fiat money out of thin air at will, while you and I have to trade our lifetimes (and for some their souls too) just to accumulate enough of it not to starve. So yes, they have that undeniable source of power acquisition and projection, which is absolutely massive, BUT, they have very little in the sense of imagination and intelligence.
Ultimately these people are evil, and for reasons that are obvious to someone NOT evil, but that are absolutely opaque to actual evil people, evil cannot genuinely create. It can only corrupt or destroy.
This is a very important point that can be demonstrated fairly easily by pure logic, absent the belief in any supernatural entities, at least to a point.
That is, eventually the logic inevitably leads you to the concept of supernatural entities because that is the only way the logic, including logic itself, can even exist. The very baseline concept of good and evil itself is meaningless absent an intelligent and benevolent creator. In short, the very fact good and evil actually exist for you at all, is undeniable evidence that a Loving God is the creator (think it through, it really is a logically inescapable fact, even if you may not see it right away. Seriously… think it through, this post is not going away anytime soon, it’ll wait.)
Which is why ultimately faith is more important (and powerful) than knowledge, and why millions of illiterate peasants throughout the ages, have always known better than the wealthy, nominally intelligent, educated, but evil scum that has tried to rule over them throughout the centuries.
As an aside, in times past, being wealthy was not necessarily as closely or likely to mean the individual was as corrupt as it is likely they are today (evil has accelerated and consolidated its position, as inevitably it must, hence, again, the so-called eventual End Times bottleneck).
Bringing all this together in a short summary then:
This combination of the stupidity, arrogance and blindness of evil, coupled with its inability to generate, create or grow anything self-sustaining and viable long-term, leads to two factors:
1. Unintended consequences that indicate a way out of their nefarious plans.
2. Ultimately a collapse of their structure/position/power-base. This may not always be total (evil too is a fundamental property of reality, so while it cannot generate the so-called tower of Babel successfully, some critters beholden to evil will always escape its collapse and go on to try again more or less quickly after the crash).
So in this respect there is always some way out and as such some hope.
3. Some humans somewhere may be able to pull the plug.
Usually not the guy you hope or think. Trump is not going to save us from the WEF mass murderers any more than he will save any Gazan children being torn to shred by the American bombs supplied to genocidal Israel for the same purpose of mass murder.
Elon Musk is not suddenly going to have a change of heart and fight the global alliance of globohomo that put him in place, not even if his son became a tranny as a result of it. I mean, miracles do happen, but miracles require miraculous evidence, and so far there is none.
On the other hand, God has a sense of humour and loves using the most unlikely of people for His purposes (of turning even conscious evil, ultimately, to good in some way). I mean, I am a perfect example of that. Of all the people He could get to become a Catholic zealot pushing original Catholicism (which I remind you is only found in Sedevacantism) instead of some hedonistic take on life, the universe and everything, I was about as unlikely a choice as any.
So, it may well be that some jabbed janitor coughs on the latest dish at the next Davos conference and all the mass-murderers present die of turbo-ebola-ass-cancer within the month (hey, miracles of unexpected joy, happen, you just keep praying along with me, right?!).
Or some other unexpected and unthought of black swan event suddenly becomes a tipping point. Say if spontaneously, something in the human spirit snapped and every father affected by the muslim rape gangs in England suddenly decided that regime change was required in the UK, well… the entire government, armed forces and police would be swept away in 24 hours.
This last hypothetical however seems unlikely (but you never know) here is why:
Part of the reason that the COVID mass murder was enacted, was also so that they could deploy the mass-control technology.
It has been known since the 1990s that human emotions at the very least can be controlled by a variety of EM fields and waves. Today that level of specific mental control is undoubtedly higher.
And we now know with certainty that the 5G antennae deployed globally absolutely can direct EM energy in ways that is essentially weapon grade level stuff. So maybe all the fathers of abused children in the UK are not even able to reach a tipping point anymore if their bloodstream and brains are teeming with nanobots and spike proteins that are receptive to whatever the 5G antennae is able to make them feel or not feel.
But then it will be something else.
Like, for example, maintenance and sustainability.
Think about it. Ok, the Soros, Klaus Schwabs, Zuckebergers, Bill Gates of the world have it all figured out and enslaved all of us and have a supply of small children to satisfy their proclivities, but… who is going to maintain and upkeep their infrastructure?
None of these people are themselves capable of changing a car tire, much less build or maintain (and I also think really intellectually understand) the required infrastructure to keep their pedovore utopia going. They really are not geniuses. They are mostly useless parasites with infinite money.
They have to rely on actual functioning human beings to keep this stuff running, and while you can corrupt a lot of them to do your bidding, you inevitably run into the degradation problem.
Evil cannot create. Eventually corrupting the maintainers will produce diminishing results as they too shift from starry eyed scientist glad their pet project is funded to disillusioned automatons who realises they are actually perpetrating and producing the total evil that destroys anything worth living for. The realisation is usually very slow and gradual, but it exists, and the outcome is always only one of two things: conversion to fully and consciously evil – which we already know is not sustainable long term because logic (and/or God if you prefer and can’t see the logic yourself) or self-disgust so great it prompts collapse or occasionally even total conversion (which effectively produces a monkey-wrench in the globohomo machine).
Conclusions
There are a few simple conclusions we can summarise from all of the above, and they are:
1. Fiat money is their primary lever of control.
2. Propaganda is their secondary lever of control.
3. Force is their tertiary lever of control.
4. Cohesive, logical, capable, communities immune to the above are their greatest threat, and always have been. This is why for centuries, their primary aim has been the Catholic Church (now reduced only to Sedevacantist Communities): Consider:
* Catholic communities quickly become self-sufficient (immune to Fiat money)
* Catholic communities are 100% immune to globohomo propaganda
* In times past Catholic communities could defend themselves well even against mass invasion by larger enemy forces like Islam.
The only barrier we have to reclaiming our freedom is the nihilism and loss of hope and inability to functionally do logic anymore in the vast majority of the populace (at least to a higher degree than it was until relatively recently).
So: Spreading proper Catholicism (i.e. actual Christianity instead of one of its fake, Churchian versions) and creating communities of Sedevacantists is really the quickest and simplest solution, and all we need worry about in the short term is the weaponisation of legislation and economic sanctions that are being levelled against us all but for the moment can’t necessarily (yet) target us Sedes specifically.
So… build those communities ASAP right now.
Guard against infiltration far more than you presently need to worry about force being applied on you. Select rural places out of the way, get involved with local government and begin to shore up the general defences against bureaucracy first. You don’t need to worry about direct force for a while yet. It will come but it will be some years yet.
Of course… if you are one of the zombies already prey to the centuries long propaganda, you will simply dismiss all the logic and verifiable information above and assume I am just another deluded “religionist”. And if that’s who you are, that’s ok. We don’t need you.
Catholicism started with eleven frightened men and four women. And we overcame the wrath of the then most powerful empire humanity has ever seen.
It’s just another day/era/persecution-time.
We’ve been here before. We’ll be here again.
And the Gates of Hell will not withstand against us.
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.
Note the 27,000 reposts, and in case the writing is too small, here are the 4 images the commenter “Myka” does not give any fucks about at all.
Now my general feeling on this sort of thing is that the men who whine about this just need to grow a pair. Or not, and die without reproducing, with any luck.
And of course that no man at all should ever reproduce in any fashion, or even have any sex, whatsoever, indeed ANY involvement at all with women like Myka. If men followed this sensible advice, within about a month, the entire world would be aflame with how all men are evil and so on. After about a year, feminists would have almost died out, and after a decade the only feminists left would be in mental institutions for the unfortunately insane.
But I am trying to be more compassionate and understanding to those men that have been already crushed by life, their single mothers, or whatever. Maybe you’re a short, hairy goblin with nothing going for you. And it would be unfair for me to simply tell you to “man up” if you understand that in the context of you being able to marry a supermodel not being possible only because of your lack of confidence.
So let me spell things out.
Absolutely you need to change what you can. Get fit, make sure you are always clean, dress better, shave or laser your over-hairy ass, improve your job prospects and career, and so on. Sure, do all of that, but above all, the ONE thing you absolutely CAN do is fish in your level.
As a man you should be able to be brutally objective. So first fix all you can reasonably fix. Then give yourself a fair rating.
Personally, even when I had hair, i never rated myself above a 7 or so, even if objectively I knew that for a not insignificant number of women I was definitely at least an 8 in looks. And in ambition and what I was doing in life, again, for any woman overly concerned about material wealth I have fluctuated from a 2 to an 8 and in some cases a 9, but any woman that understood my nature at all was more liable to rate me a 6 or at most a 7. What I always had in spades however was an unflinching dedication to simply be me. Regardless of what anyone else thought of it. And that, at least temporarily, despite all my other numbers being lower or even much lower, made me at least an 8 and often an 8.5 or even 9.
I provide all the different metrics because unlike men, women do not rate us simply on looks.
It is not a councidence that most of my girlfriends, and certainly all the ones I was interested in to some more or less serious degree were invariably rated at least as 8s by men that generally had been successful with women and often as 9s and rather often as 10s by all the men who had been more averagely successful with women. Many a time I have been told by literally dozens of co-workers from multiple companies, that I was “punching above my weight” and more than once at various large company Christmas parties I was noticed by literally the entire firm, including the owners who would act deferentially to me despite me being merely one of the several people at my level they employed.
I have literally had random strangers stop me and a woman I was with in the street to congratulate me for the beauty of the woman I was with. And even today, I get friends who, without in any way saying this to “get in my good graces” rave about my wife.
I am not telling you this to depress you or show off.
I am trying to explain to you an important point that if you can internalise it will aid you in your quest for a genuine, long term companionship, marriage and a family more than any other single thing you can do.
The reason I did so well, was because I correctly evaluated all my metrics and played to my strengths. And my strengths are absolutely real, forged in the deepest fire of personal self-knowledge.
I have turned down large amounts of money, very hot women, and all sorts of other things in order to not do anything that would compromise my own sense of integrity. So, bending to some temporary whim of a pretty woman was never in the cards for me. This, of course, has the effect of immediately seeing off pretty much any woman who is not a full blown psychopath/narcissist but has those tendencies. Their need for some form of manipulative control over the man (victim?) they select simply drives them crazy when faced with someone of my temperament.
On the plus side, normal women wired in a healthy way, tend to be attracted to that level of confidence (so do all the pretty but damaged ones, which brings up another set of problems we won’t go into here).
The point is that deep and true self-knowledge is always the key. That is step one. Step two is to improve all you can, but it is step three that is the absolute silver bullet insofar as one exists:
Look in your own range.
It would probably be difficult for a guy that is 5’5”, has the genes of predisposition to fatness, is born poor and has a single mother raising him, to have the same level of hard-headed conviction I seem to have been born with. And I absolutely believe part of it is due to my Aspergers, which does not present as such due to high IQ and the luck I had in my rather unusual early life. But the point is that if I had been born in that body but retained my mental attitude, I would probably have been comfortably married a lot sooner, have more children and my friends would rave about how kind and pleasant my wife is. And she would probably be a 6 or maybe a 7 at most. Because that is where I would fall overall if you removed the physical advantages I have.
But let’s say you are overall just a 2.
I actually know people like this. Literal cripples with disfiguring handicaps, no real money or any special prospects. And yet both the ones I know personally are happily married and have been for years. One studied hard, became a lawyer, made money, then travelled to the East and essentially “bought” a filipino wife, being brutally honest with her. He really is about a 2 and she is about a 5 or at most a 6. But his overall number is probably a 4. He is wealthy. And the difference between a possible 4 and 6 is his level of self-knowledge. When I first met him and we spoke a bit he simply stated exactly what I said above and his wife was present. They had been married and living in London for over ten years. He praised her for being loyal and helping look after him. Maybe she was more nurse than wife. Maybe there was a financial arrangement we know nothing of. But his wife did not look or present as miserable and neither did he.
The other guy is married to a woman that also has some physical handicaps. They clearly love each other, have been together for decades and she is a very kind and decent person no one can say a bad word about.
The point is that both men went after a woman within their own numbers.
As did I. And let me tell you that the search at the lower end of the pool, once you accept this truth, is FAR easier than at the “pretty” end of the pool.
The reason was well known to me even decades ago, as is evident by one of my very first posts back in 2007 in a now permanently parked ancient blog (Take note of the relevant image here.)
And has been known by men worldwide at least since the days if the crazy/hot matrix of the early 1990s.
So. Do not despair. It’s only 4 simple rules:
1. Fix what you can fix externally (looks, hygiene, clothing, income, etc.)
2. Chose who you are internally. Learn and know deeply who you really are, so no matter the situation, you will almost always already know how you will react to it. If you are mot how you wish to be yet, do whatever you need to do to become it.
3. Rate yourself honestly in all categories and hence in the overall number you are and then go fish in the pond of your own level.
4. Do not despair. Just correct any errors and persevere.
That’s it.
If you want more detail and context you might also want to get Caveman Theory, but honestly if you just do the 4 steps above, you will eventually succeed.
For now at least, adoption by gays in Italy is still banned.
Vox posted on how China has now banned adoption of Chinese children by foreigners. Something Russia had done back in 2012.
And the reason?
It is important to understand that “adoption” by gay “couples” is literally the definition of human trafficking. A baby is being sold to people to satisfy an unnatural urge.
Because let’s be clear, if you are a heterosexual man or woman that cannot have children due to some accident of life, the fact is that aside that unfortunate point, you have all the instinct of a normal man or woman that wants children, and as such, you’re likely going to care for an adopted child well.
On the other hand, let’s look at the homosexual version under each of their shifting goalpost theories:
The “I am born that way” theory.
I actually accept (based on a study I read some 30 years ago when science was still generally able to reproduce results from studies) that about 10% of what was then about 1% of the population that was homosexual does get born with that proclivity. So in general, about 0.1% of the population. I consider that to be an accident of nature, like for example a woman I met, who was a chimaera and had also Y chromosomes, presented as a woman in pretty much every respect, but had no uterus. It’s an unfortunate condition and her only option to have children would be adoption. Nevertheless, the sexual impetus of this chimeric woman was completely female. Her DNA got some crossed wires but not her brain. Being curious I asked her in depth questions about her life, which she did not mind as most people tended to avoid the issue. She had no attraction or desire for women, only men. In such a case, if she were in a stable relationship with a man, adoption would be acceptable all other factors being in order.
Let’s now look at the state of a man genuinely born with a sexual attraction to men only. Such a man is already in a precarious position because in the first place, if you are aware of the statistics on gay sexual practices, the chances of ever being in a stable homosexual relationship are minuscule. Secondly, even if such a thing did happen, the chances are about 9/10 (or more today) that the other partner is of the variety of homosexual that is not “born that way” but rather “made that way” either by sexual abuse or an overactive imagination that eventually went down a fetish that became a compulsion (this was essentially the gist of the article [in Scientific American I think] I read 30 years or so ago). This theory by the way is strongly evidenced as being correct also due to the large number of homosexuals that stop being homosexuals. Their voices are heavily censored and even violently so by homosexual radicals and activists, but a significant number of homosexuals do change and become heterosexuals. I personally knew at least one such man who had been a friend of relatives, and the event that had turned him completely was a sexual encounter with a woman. The point here is that even if the homosexual man that is genuinely born that way were in a stable relationship, about 9/10 times it would be with a person that is a homosexual because of either some tragedy in their childhood (sexual abuse) or some sexual fetish that is clearly unnatural and tends to be linked to the sexual abuse of children at about 11 TIMES the frequency of non-homosexuals. And that’s on the REPORTED cases. Which are always a fraction of the real number.
But even if two “born that way” homosexuals get together in a solid lifelong partnership we still have a major problem, because a child adopted by them would naturally become socially confused and would not be receiving the natural responses to his mirror neurones that a child with a make father and female mother would. Inevitably this would result in a complicating and confusing of his own sexuality which is bound to render an already difficult start (being an adopted child) even more so. And by the way, such a hypothetical pairing of two “natural” (born that way) homosexuals, is also extremely unlikely, because let’s be real, two such unfortunates have some aspect of their wiring twisted to present as what a female would have in respect of sexual attraction, and therefore BOTH would want to be the “bottom” to use gay parlance, which means it’s even less likely that such a pairing would occur in the first place.
So even in the “best” or most “natural” of homosexual situations (that is, “born that way” situation) it is still a clearly screwed up situation that no child should ever consciously be placed into.
The reality
As already explained above, most homosexual relationships will not include both partners as being “naturals” (born that way), and in fact will be the result of usually very temporary, or almost certainly non-exclusive “relationships” between two gay men. If you think my points here are based simply in “bigotry”, you really need to do some research on your own into the realities of homosexual lifestyles and the statistics connected to them which are absolutely solid and have been confirmed and reproduced by pretty much anyone that has done objective studies on this that are not financed by special interest groups from either side.
In such far more prevalent gay “relationships” the likelihood of children being sexually abused is AT A CONCLUDED MINIMUM 11 times higher than with any heterosexual couples and also far more likely to take place from infancy too.
Again, this is not popular to say out loud because the globohomo narrative is nowadays being pushed along also with the threat of imprisonment if you dare tell the truth about it, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Even if that was the ONLY factor, it should be enough for any sensible person to immediately ban adoption by homosexuals. And it is far from the only factor. The incidence of domestic violence is highest of all in lesbian couples, as is the incidence of physical abuse or murder of children. The incidence of later drug use, alcoholism, suicide, and criminality is all higher for those “raised” by homosexual couples than normal man-woman ones. And that’s just some of the issues. There are subtler ones that I will not bother to identify since I am not aware of large data sets of statistics on them, but you can probably imagine a few of them.
Conclusion
Regardless of your personal sexual preference, or mine, it should not be rocket science, to understand that the best possible situation for an adopted child, is to be placed with as close to what might be his natural family as possible. This AUTOMATICALLY AND INVARIABLY means a couple composed of a man and woman that are seriously committed to one another (i.e. married) with a reasonable expectation that only death would dissolve that union. You of course can also add other factors, like trying to ensure the child is given to a couple of the same general ethnicity and cultural background whenever possible, if all other factors are equal.
Again, none of this is difficult to understand, unreasonable or illogical. The only “barrier” to understanding all of the above is an artificial one inserted by a false and degenerate ideology that is demonstrably destructive to any civilisation, which has been demonstrated throughout history, and that is pushed by people who deliberately want to destroy, the most humanly successful cultures the world of men has ever produced.
It is therefore absolutely a good thing when nations better protect their children by ensuring as best they can that any adoptees are placed with traditional couples best suited to their care.
Those of you who have read this post, may better understand this one.
Part of the reason this blog exists, is my insane level of optimism in the hope that is helps a few people improve themselves and perhaps stave off the total annihilation of thinking humans in the ongoing zombie apocalypse that we are currently in. Some argue the Zombie Apocalypse is 4 years old, but I have known it was essentially a Cold War ongoing pretty much since I was alive.
In fact, in the hopes of showing a few Zoomers or Ten Alphas the way, I even put out an actual RPG with a module, just in case the few of them that can still read instead of watch videos, might teach a few friends how to meet in real life and play a game together that provides fun, entertainment, and develops the imagination and your ability to solve real life problems, thanks to having to use your head to solve imaginary, or thought experiment ones.
But the general point is that my intent, insofar as I may have one, is to try to uplift whatever shrinking percentage of the population still exists that has understood we are the last stand of actual humans with a soul, and the brainwashed masses of idiots around us, led by evil pedophiles, are really quite likely to overwhelm us if we do not get organised, band together, and build fortress cities from which to stave them off.
There are so many facets of life that one needs to become aware of, from the evils of government and government-ran education, the sell-outs who aim to become the leaders, the corruption of everything from the basic morals of humanity to the lowest employee, and so on.
How to present a coherent whole easy to digest? And then it was clear:
No analogy of modern existence is as useful in terms of representing in a secular fashion the times we live in, than the parallel with pen and paper Role-Playing Games of old, like Dungeons and Dragons, Traveller, Top Secret, Car Wars, and so on.
Why? Well, allow me to explain, especially for those of you that never played them, which I expect is the sad, depressed, and depressing, majority of readers here.
In a game like Dungeons and Dragons, it was understood, that even a lowly first level, brand new adventurer, was a unique and rare individual. Most people in the D&D worlds, were simple shop-keepers, farmers, town soldiers, traders, merchants, and so on. Only the mildly insane, the idiotically brave, the wildly and untamed foolishly adventurous would wander about a world that is filled with marauding hordes of Goblins, Orcs, and Gnolls. Where werewolves, and Vampires, and Ghouls, and Zombies actually exist. Where magic is real and so are curses and spells that can channel in literal demons from other planes of existence.
And yet… every player made up a character and played that character. Those were the “people” who made the stories happen. Those were the only “people” that really made it worthwhile to be in such a world.
Life is not dissimilar.
When I was 16 I went to study in England for my A-Levels (which is not what you porn addicts thing it is, it was the last 3 years of school or so before you can go to university, after )-Levels, which is ALSO, not some perverse sex thing). I found the people there, in the supposed civilised West, to be far more retarded, limited and dumb than they had any excuse to be. While it is true I went to school in Africa where my parents paid fees, this was pretty much the case for almost all expatriates. And we did 7 to 9 exams for various subjects, like history, mathematics, geography and so on. In England the school I went to, had students that on average did 3. Things like English (their own language, Geography, and maybe History). One of the girls who did take Geography on my first few days there, asked me where I was from. I explained I was Italian but had spent most of my life in Africa. Her question:
“Africa? Oh… What’s the Capital of Africa?”
To which, astonished, I responded sarcastically:
“I don’t know, what’s the capital of Europe?”
Her: “The capital of Europe? I’m not sure… London… isn’t it London?”
One of the other girls came to her rescue, explaining Africa was a continent, not a country.
Nor was this experience unique. The level of education was poor, to be kind about it, but the level of inactive grey matter inside their thick skulls was far worse.
I recall trying to spark some reaction, a thought, an imagination, something, in one of the other students, who was asking me about my life and I asked him about his dreams and aspirations in turn. His reply?
“Oh, well, I’d like to probably get married some day, have a couple of kids, would be nice to have two cars…”
Again, I was aghast. I responded saying:
“Man, that is what happens if you do absolutely nothing. I mean, don’t you want to drive a Ferrari? or sail the world on a seventy-foot trimaran with an all female crew?”
His response?
“Oh that stuff only happens in the movies.”
To which I could not help but tell him:
“Well, yes, with your attitude, that is absolutely true for you.”
Now, I didn’t particularly ever care about driving a Ferrari, although I did briefly think a seventy foot trimaran would be awesome to own and I even tried to buy one once, not having sailed a day in my life and not having the money for it either. And I figured if I ever got one, I’d have got the all female crew along the way without too much trouble.
Now that I am older, I know I was right about getting the all-female crew, but the ship would have sunk at sea on its first outing with no survivors.
Again, my point is not that I was ever obsessed by making a lot of money, or achieving any particular thing, other than perhaps a proficiency in martial arts and the general ability to be able to adapt and survive pretty much regardless of circumstances.
Mostly I went after things that interested me, read about stuff that I found fascinating, like astronomy, and physics, and chemistry. Tried to see the weird and strange. understand the natural world around me, and when I could find one, tried to interact with people that I deemed at least somewhat interesting. In short, if you had to reduce me to a character class from Advanced D&D, I would probably have fit the description of a Ranger. Maybe Chaotic Good or Neutral Good. In Basic D&D I might have been a Mystic. Obsessed with achieving martial perfection in hand to hand and following a sense of the mystic in life, while able to do a lot of what some other classes could achieve only by over-specialisation (thieves) or magic (healing hands of Paladins).
As a result, like a typical PC, my life has been anything but boring. I have had tragic life events and astonishingly beautiful ones. I have seen and done things most men will not do or see, and both great pain and great joy comes with that, but above all, my most certain strength has been my absolutely thorough knowledge of myself.
The oracle at Delphi (which I visited, and saw myself) did say:
Man, know yourself.
And truly, that is the most important thing in life. But most men have very little idea of who they really are. Because unless you are actually faced with the prospect of death, bankruptcy, having your heart emotionally ripped out of your chest and stomped on, being lied about, and worse, as well as having had the experience of a woman that loves you to beyond what is healthy or sane, the friendship of another man that will stand next to you when you are both facing the very real prospect of being killed, and you doing the same for him, having money and being generous with it, and having none, not becoming a miser either, holding the hand of the woman you love being utterly powerless to prevent her miscarrying, and also seeing the first smile of your own son or daughter, as they look at you with the eyes of a newborn, unless you know and feel and go through all these things and remove all doubt from any corner of your psyche as to who and what you are, you do not really know. You can guess. You can hope. But you don’t know.
Twice in my life before the age of 10 I found a side of me I wanted to remove ferociously. I froze in fear once, and did not try to react another time, when it looked as if my brother would be dragged off a cliff by our dog he held by a leash, and would not let go of it as the dog hurtled towards the cliff face. I was too far to make it, so was my father, who was an adult, but at least he ran as hard as he could and shouted to “let go of the dog”. My knees went weak and I just knelt in the grass, feeling my heart sink as I thought I’d see my own brother die in a few seconds. The dog finally stopped short and so did my brother, but I never forgot the feeling of failure at not even having tried.
I had achieved some measure of success in removing this part of me by age 10, because by then, when an adult reached in the car and stole my mother’s purse from her bag and ran off with it (she had left it on the car seat next to me as she had gone out of the car briefly), I tried to chase him as hard as I could. He was an African that could probably have given Usain Bolt a decent run and in his late 20s.
When my mother returned I was in tears that I had not caught him. And when my father arrived on the scene too, I told him (because it was important to me that he knew I had not just stood by) that I really had tried to catch him, and run as hard as I could but I just couldn’t keep up with him at all.
My dad, looked at me calmly and said: “You’re ten years old. What do you think you could have done even if you had caught him?”
The thought had never even entered my mind. My only fear had been that he would get away, which he did. The concept of what might have happened to me if I had caught him was never even a thing. And I know I would have fought, utterly ineffective, and possibly suicidal as it would have been.
Later in life I had several occasions to realise that right down to the level of my DNA, I would not respond in a cowardly fashion even to a life and death situation where I thought I was sure to die, especially if the protection of people I cared about was on the line. In fact, I even had occasion to discover that I might jump in front of danger even for perfect strangers, which frankly, today, is a worry, because I think that is likely my actual response at an instinctive level now.
But this is not about me. it’s about you. I am using myself as exhibit #1 only because it is irrefutable and real because I lived through those things, so I know with certainty that it is possible (not easy or likely, but possible) to change even really deep-seated aspects of yourself.
And the key to becoming a PC in life instead of an NPC lies there. In your ability to see a path, a way of being, something you want to achieve, or become, and then throwing yourself into that until you do or die.
Nor is it necessary for you to be a wild Ranger, or a weird Mystic. Go and be whatever it is you want to be, but keep in mind that generally, character traits like perseverance, courage, honesty, integrity, and so on, are hard-won, and not often innate.
Perhaps the one aspect that differentiates PCs from NPCs is curiosity.
I went for a short hike through the forest on our land with my 5 year old son recently. He followed instructions, spoke softly so as not to scare any animals we might get to see, and did not complain about me having forgotten to take any water or the occasional thorn poking him when we went past brambles. At every turn I asked him which path he wanted to take. The one that looked easier, safer and a little more boring (though I never expressed any of these descriptors to him) or the one that looked harder, more difficult and that may get us stuck in a place surrounded by brambles and have to head back. He invariably chose the harder path.
So much so that at one point we had to cross some brambles by walking on a log that had fallen over a sort of crevasse, while I had to cut some brambles out of the way with a little pen knife I had, while trying to not slip off the slimy log into a void of brambles below us. He took it in stride, waited as I cleared the way, and trusted me not to drop him when I picked him up and dropped him on the other side as I made my way slower once he was safe.
He is five but he’s not scared even though he sees the dangers. He thinks and acts to get around the dangers while still going where he wants, not where the forest or a more prudent father might wish to take him.
Perhaps Player Characters are born, not made, I am sure to some extent that is true. But I also think some Player Characters can definitely be made or at least improved by conscious effort.
Non-Player Characters on the other hand, will always be with us. Even if they will never count for much except as background foliage.
So, reader… What will you be? A zero-level human villager, or will you roll the dice and become a first level player character who will dare to go where only fools, the insane, and those with the explorer gene dare to tread?
So I was holding the little turtle, she is blonde and has her mother’s blue eyes, she screams “Daddy!” every time she sees me after I have been away for an hour or so, and she wakes me up by saying “Morning daddy!” with a kiss and hug to go with it. She has always been so direct and clear with everything and though she is not two yet she speaks enough to explain anything that she wants to express. I had asked her mom to put on some music and I was spinning the little turtle around dancing with her.
The first song that came on sounded like some country and western love song, kinda whiny and drawn out, and I said so; half to the little turtle and half to the wife, something like “Sounds a bit whiny…” but whatever, my little daughter, like all of them, just likes to dance and if I swing her round a bit with the music she smiles or laughs.
The wife didn’t even betray a smirk or anything, just looked up then carried on ironing a patch on one of my perennially ripped jeans. Then, as she knows I would, because I always do, I started hearing the actual words.
And all I managed to say was…
“Oh, it’s about… I thought…”
And then, without any warning or even understanding of why really, a whole bunch of crying burst out of me. Tears and that coughing thing a man may do when trying to stop, except I couldn’t. All the things I passed through with Scorpio Girl, who is twelve now, and who I didn’t have any time with for 5 of her first 9 years, who is here for the third year with us now, came flooding back, even while I was holding the little turtle and her total innocent love and honesty, that I would murder thousands to protect, and the other two girls too, of course, but these two, the first and the latest, they hit me at the same time like a one-two from Mike Tyson in his prime.
I still haven’t really processed it in a way I can put into words. I don’t know if I ever will, I have always been like this. Stuff of this sort probably just adds up. Scar on scar. Builds an armour I don’t know about. And all the women and broken things before just buried it I don’t know where.
And Lucie comes along and finds that gap, and shines a beam of sunlight in there. Among all the broken things and what it maybe used to be shines through as she begins to dust and clean and repair something I forgot I even had in there.
The little turtle was worried looking at me crying, tears on my face she had never seen. And Lucie came to hug us both. I told the little turtle I am fine, I am happy, I love her. And she seemed to accept it, if maybe not fully convinced.
I went to lie down upstairs on my own a minute to try and understand what happened. And the best I can do is what I write here now, so far.
One other thought came to me that is irrelevant to the specifics of this but I still think is relevant in a wider world context, and it is again a difference between what one might at first imagine is the difference between Latino men, spics and dagos like me and Northerners like the Anglos, Swedes, Germans and so on.
But on reflection, I think stems more from —once again— the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. The reflection of the reality of God, as it expresses in man versus the caricature of it.
The difference is perhaps best expressed in a way that my father pointed it out once when I was a young teenager. I don’t recall what the context was. And my father has never been a very soft man, anyway, but he was describing this difference between the Anglos and us:
“They think if you show your emotions you are weak. They are stupid that way. They think if you cry because your dog died you’re a pussy, and maybe even say so to you. Then when you kick them in the balls and break their nose for disturbing your private moment of mourning, they think you’re a crazy person. The truth is that they are weak. Just because a man cries when something hurts him doesn’t mean he can’t cut you open from belly to throat without blinking when you piss him off.”
It wasn’t a life lesson I really ever needed to be taught, as I was this way instinctively, always have been, but the verbalising of it had crystallised it for me nicely.
I don’t have that crystallisation as to why exactly I burst out crying so suddenly, and I don’t especially need it for myself, but it is probably important conceptually for others. A contextualisation of spiritual truth matters in the wider context. It is, after all, how the truth of God has spread and expanded in its details thanks to the Catholic Church’s dogmatic truths, expounded and detailed over the centuries from the basic principles of the gospels and Catholic tradition harking back to the three centuries before the Bible was even compiled.
Anyway, I am not sure what you may gain from this story, other than some generic concepts which will no doubt get twisted into mutant versions of what I wrote, be it “Latins are more manly and in touch with their feminine side!” All the way to: “The kurgan is a pussy and no one should take any advice from a man that cries because of a song!”
Without forgetting the “He’s obsessed! He makes it all about Catholicism and how it’s the best religion ever!” For the record, I am no more “obsessed” with Catholicism than I am with 2+2 being 4. It just is true and that matters.
And if I cared what people said about me, well… I think by now anyone that knows me realises there is no danger of that being a threat to my psyche.
Oh, and of course, the final lesson to take away from all this is that women are devious creatures even in their most loving and caring aspects.
Between the kinkiest, dirtiest, most pleasurably debauched sex you can imagine, and the totally connected, deep intimacy of being with a woman you want to reproduce with and who wants to do so with you, is really not comparable.
The problem is that we have an endless supply of examples of the first kind of sex to “aid” the stunted imaginations of both men and women, predominantly in pornography, but also in pretty much every single “cultural” and “normalised” aspect of modern society, especially in the West.
While the second type of intimacy is only known about by those who have experienced it. And there really is almost no one left even capable of imagining it. I did —imagine it, that is— before I experienced it, and it was, in my imagination, kind of the mythical Holy Grail I was after, as I worked my way through dozens of female bodies in a short period of time, I certainly partook of the first type of sex enough to know, that there is a definite allure to it.
In fact, I believe the most common response of a reader that has experienced that, on reading the very first paragraph would be to say that if you can find a woman just debauched enough to click with your own kinks, you can achieve a level of sexual chemistry that is in and of itself, as deep a connection as you can have with another human being as possible. And no doubt such people believe it. I partly thought it might be the best you can get on this Earth too, although, like a foolish and mystic knight, I never gave up on my imagination of what it might be like to experience the second type of connection. And even when I lay with women who did want to have children with me, and even with one who did, there was still, always, something not quite there.
And being as how I am built, I have always had, since a very young age, the sense of following the ideal instead of the possible. I’m not just saying that. My memory was always excellent, being able to recall at least some events from age two. And one I recall from age four or five or so, was my grandfather telling me an old Italian proverb, which was:
“Better to be a living deckhand than a dead hero.”
I didn’t say anything, but I recall my thought clear as if it happened a minute ago. And it was this:
“But as a living deckhand you’re only a deckhand. A dead hero at least was a hero.”
That way of being has always been in me. I don’t know where it comes from or why, but the perception of what might be, of the impossible glory, not for me specifically, but for a concept, an ideal, a truth above all, has always mattered to me more than what the world around me, material reality, the thoughts of others on the matter, or what passed for the possible supposedly was.
And in my 55 years on this Earth, I have only increasingly satisfied myself that this way of being is far superior in quality than one that is limited and hamstrung by what the vast unwashed masses of humanity assume is “possible”. Not that I ever had any doubt of it. I never have, even when I was briefly atheist.
Therefore, even when my first two marriages crashed and burned, when the sex with the most kinky and exotic of women ended, I still imagined that somewhere in the Universe if not on Earth, that intimate connection I imagined, must exist; even if I never found it, I felt certain this Universe must be one in which that kind of connection can exist.
But I don’t think even 1 in 10,000 men can imagine it as vividly as I did. And it’s not arrogance saying that. Are you aware that almost every Chinese person has no internal dialogue? That most Africans can’t have conceptualised thoughts of three dimensional objects in their mind and rotate them?
And it’s not about race, it’s just humanity in general is so very poor at using its imagination. Of course, it has also been intentionally trained out of us certainly for at least over one hundred years. Today, it is almost entirely the purpose of formal modern education to do so.
So, how can one even discuss, or make a man that has NOT experienced that level of depth of connection believe how much better it is than any level of debauched sex you might engage in?
Especially since you are far more likely to have experienced the lustful and kinky side of sex than the deeply lovingly intimate one.
Any man who has not lived it is likely to think that anyone extolling its superiority is merely an exaggerated fable-teller. A puritanical Bible-thumper who couldn’t know what kinky sex was if he was parachuted into a Roman orgy, whose only aim is to get you to fall in line with his stunted and puritanical religious ideas so you can be just as miserable as he is.
It’s probably right up there with teaching a guy from Sentinel Island what an aeroplane is and how it works. Except they can see the aeroplanes, but modern men and women cannot even imagine the connection I am trying to make you aware exists.
And yet… it does exist.
And I wish there was a way to make you all see it and know it. Because if only you could, if only you knew, the world would change in an instant.
The Satanic pedophiles would be hung from the rafters in their own high-ceilinged homes in a matter of hours. Current politicians would be tarred and feathered if not buried in mass graves, and people would instantly have a proclivity to be far more honest and direct than any other period in the entirety of the history of the human race.
But we are the lucky, if eternal, few.
And yes, we are eternal, because our imagined dream of intimacy, is really but a mere shadow of the real thing. The real thing, for those few of us that live it, overshadows our best imaginations in ways none of us could have contemplated.
That reality, that absolute truth, all the more so because of how broken, fallen and corrupt we all are on this Earth is itself an ever-present miracle.
On this Earth we are all dominated by Greed, Lust, Gluttony, Sloth, Envy, Avarice, Wrath, Pride and all matter of Sins, and despite how weak and cowardly we are, this truth, this union of souls in a sexual intimacy you can’t even imagine, that creates new life too, remains true. Exists. Is real.
And it will always remain true because it is one of the foundations of this very Universe. It is why every sunset and every dawn is beautiful in and of itself. It is why a flower or a little insect crawling over it, a bee, gathering the nectar, if only you could see it, if only you could really watch it and understand it, reveals to you an endless Ocean of love, that you are immersed in even when the darkest things happen to you and you have no hope, no God, and no chance.
And as hard as your heart cries out for Justice, so too, know, that that very sentiment, the ever-unappeased rage of an injustice never righted in this life, that too, can only exist in a Universe where Love, total, ultimate Love, must exist.
I hope you will know it.
I hope you will live it.
But first, you must at least believe in it, if you are ever to see it or find it.
If you are, like me, considering building your own community, with like-minded people, then you really need to see this video:
Regardless of the fact that I was never fond of Afrikaaners in general, and certainly not of the NGK (main protestant denomination of heresy in South Africa), the simple fact is that I entirely support the concept of what they did.
And just so people who think I am superciliously arrogant can get a shock, I will admit for the second post in a row that I was somewhat wrong 30 odd years ago when Orania was announced.
I assumed it would remain a backwater semi-desert with little to show for the efforts of what I considered the half-retards that are Afrikaaners.
As always, there are exceptions, and I certainly have met Afrikaaners that were absolutely awesome people in all respects. But as a general rule, I found them lacking in imagination, far too brainwashed by generic Protestant puritanism and literal illogical nonsense that simply makes zero sense, and more often than not rude and with a chip on their shoulder. Basically, what one of the black guys that worked for my dad said once: “Afrikaaners are just another tribe of Africans. They just have a white skin.”
That all said, it is an absolute fact that they have made their community a success. And in the scheme of things 33 years is not very long.
If I can create a Sedevacantist (aka Catholic) community one quarter the size in the next 20 years, I will have considered it a success.
I have far less exposure than they did from the start, but hey, thanks to you guys reading, maybe the concept will spread.
The point is not that ONLY Sedevacantism will work. In the short term, say 10 to 150 years, probably several versions of community will work. What I do think will make the difference is in the long term: say the next 500-1000 years.
I believe real Catholicism will continue to exist even then and some of those proto-communities I am building right now will be real ongoing communities, city-states, or even brand new nations. Orania… well, it clearly intends to be around and the Afrikaaners have had a rather resilient history, primarily because unlike many other people, they have never foregone the concept of violence.
Violence is a way of life in Africa, and whether you realise it or not, recognise it or not, or can even understand it or not, violence is an aspect of humanity wherever you live on Earth.
Being very clear about that and ready to use it at the least reason for it, tends to ensure that on an individual level you may suffer dire consequences, but as a people en masse, you are almost guaranteed to keep existing in time, OR get completely wiped out if you go up against a numerically larger, and just as violent people.
The Afrikaaners have always been comfortable with violence and responding to violence with more violence, and that goes a long way towards making you last in time.
Catholics definitely have the edge spiritually, and intellectually speaking, and in antiquity they absolutely were formidable warriors. But a couple hundred years of pharisee propaganda, global hegemony by protestant “philosophies” and so on has considerably weakened the instinct of self-protection through violence when and as required.
It is not completely gone or generically extinct, because, well, I and a few people like me, still exist, but whether there are enough of us, are able to organise ourselves enough and in time, remains to be seen.
At any rate, is it not interesting how a highly motivated community, with similar values and traditions, armed to the teeth, have a level of internal violence that is practically non-existent, even when located in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by one of the highest crime rates in the entire world.
Proving the old adage that an armed society is a polite society, as well as the fact that more guns in the hands of normal citizens who just want to be left alone, makes for a much safer society than the “gun free” liberal stab-zones now spreading across Europe.
If you are not building a society of people ready and willing to ostracise anyone and everyone that is not part of the in-group, you should be trying to genuinely join one that is already forming.
TMOS – Part 5 – On Marriage
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.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 7 October 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Caveman Theory, Caveman Theory, Christianity, Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, Hard Facts, Heretics, Impostors and Frauds, Increasing Happiness, Relationships, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, Theoretical Models of Society