Since this was the overwhelming lead in the recent poll, here it is:
First of all, read Caveman Theory. You can only get it in digital format from my E-store because it is unlikely to be published by any of the politically correct places. If you can’t be bothered to spend £20 and read for a couple or three hours and then apply what you read to your life, there really isn’t much anyone can do for you.
If you have other specific, unique issues, well, I do consultations on general issues, not just hypnosis, for £100 and hour, and plenty of young men had good results taking that specific advice. In fact they tend to end up in long term relationships, get married and make babies within the first year of marriage. But again, my time is limited and what I can do to help I have done both on the blog, on YouTube (both free) and in the Caveman Theory book. If you want more help, I think it’s fair you pay for my limited time.
I will write a few blog posts on how to find a husband however, as that is indeed less well covered in general.
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.
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.
And since on the dating/relationship/women posts I get the most emails, I think his comment is fair and points out a tendency I have to “leave out” the parts that to me are so obvious that it would be similar to typing out:
“Remember to breathe in and breathe out all day, every day, even when you are asleep.”
Even then, I will tend to get a few emails along the lines of:
“My brother did what you said while he was in the family pool and he drowned! You are evil!”
What can I say, the pain of the IQ gap is real.
Anyway, let me attempt to correct my mistake in not addressing the very basic point of HOW do you even GET to the dating part.
And let me point out a few (also obvious) things first, which I have mentioned many, many, many times before:
First of all – In today’s modern society “dating” means you’re having sex.
Second of all – Proper Catholic morality is absolutely against sex before marriage and for VERY GOOD REASONS, and I am NOT advocating against that. What I am doing is sharing concepts that got me, an unbaptised Heathen to eventually achieve a full-blown, and completely Catholic marriage (therefore Sedevacantist, because we are the only Catholics left). Since MOST people reading this are unbaptised heathens, schismatics, apostates, or various forms of heretic, and since, by Church teaching, the likelihood is you’re going to Hell anyway, for those situations, my sharing my personal concepts that got me to where I am, is not, in general terms, endangering your soul too much more than it already is, and my hope is that it gets you eventually to a place where you begin to really appreciate the Church’s perspective to the point that you decide to become a proper Catholic and reclaim your birthright, your life, your family, and your heritage, if you are of European descent, or make a new path, into it, if you are not.
Third – If you are already a believing Sedevacantist, then, your strategy for achieving marriage is, or at least should be, probably different from anything I propose here. What that might look like I have no idea, because I never walked that path. If you DID indulge in the concepts I mention here, then, your soul, according to dogmatic Church teachings would absolutely be imperilled, since you would be adding fornication before marriage to the list of whatever other sins you may be committing. So, you have been forewarned.
Fourth – The MAIN DANGER of following this advice is that you become successful (for various levels of that word) at entering into a sexual “relationship” with women. That in and of itself is indeed dangerous for many reasons. Firstly because since it may be unlikely that you very first sexual encounter goes so spectacularly well that you both reach the altar hand in hand, confess your sins of fornication and get happily married ever after, you are likely to (in time) enter into sexual congress with more than one woman. The pleasures of the flesh are among the most tempting and difficult to overcome, which is why Satan uses it to such great effect to create more and more degeneracy all around us. The danger then is that like being a junkie, you get addicted to the chase, the thrill, the sexual variety, and so on. You can end up stuck in this cycle for the rest of your life. I have met men that had literally hundreds of sexual partners (heterosexual men, that is, homosexual men are not anything I know about, but they tend to have sexual partner body counts in the thousands) who never got out of that vicious cycle. And I have met men that had only a few or even just one sexual partner, who understood more about being a man and acting as one that had no problem getting into a relationship, and hence another very Catholic marriage after their first wife had passed away. The point here is that if you engage in these concepts just to get laid, you may well be successful, but you will also lily actually end up in Hell far more likely than if you had remained the frustrated incel you may be today.
Fifth – The advice I will give you is extremely simple and direct. You will not like it, and you will likely not do it. And that is YOUR decision and your right. But you then really cannot whine any longer about being an incel. Become a monk, and do good in the world that way instead.
Alright then, here is the advice. First the ones you should already know:
Get physically as fit and good looking as you can get. Go to gym, learn basic hygiene, laser your hirsute back (or not, some girls like teddy bears), learn to dress decently, don’t get any face tattoos, eat properly, your diet, more than anything else determines your general lard-assess, and so on.
Get economically viable. Improve your job. Hustle, work harder, climb that corporate ladder even if you start out as a shelf-packer at Tesco. Money helps pretty much everything to go smoother.
Place yourself in social contexts that give you opportunity to meet desirable women. Attend your Church (yes, Sedvacantism is the ONLY real Catholicism and hence the ONLY real Christianity left, but if you attend heretic Churches, as a heretic yourself, well, one can only hope you save some unfortunate damsel from Hell when you eventually realise Catholicism is the only Christianity that ever existed), or join a book club, a tango class, a yoga class, whatever. You can’t meet women in real life if you are not physically present where they are. And yes online dating works for some of us, but the techniques to make that happen are pretty brutal, too advanced for an incel to even begin to attempt them, and not helpful at all when you are starting out. And even if you do everything right, at least 80% (and it’s becoming more like 90% and more) of men will get ZERO traction on dating apps today, and that’s not even counting the scam ones that are all fake profiles and geared to just get a bunch of lonely guys paying fees in the hope of getting a message from some “hottie”. How do I know? Because I dated a very pretty Russian girl that did that as her job. She literally was hired by this dating online firm to pretend to be interested in random guys on the app so they would keep sending fees. She was not closed off to the possibility of meeting one of these guys, but only if he ticked off all the boxes she cared about. I never paid any fees, though I did meet her on a dating app, probably because I engaged her mentally enough to respond to my message and then just went to voice call and once I got talking she got interested enough. I probably ticked off enough of her pre-conceived ideas that we did have a relationship, and she was shortly very invested in it. I liked her a lot, but did not have that mystic click I need to become fully invested, though she was undoubtedly one of the better women I got to know. My point here is that it is easier and more likely for you to get into a relationship when you are interacting face to face, so get into those situations.
Last of the obvious advices before the “secret silver bullet” is that if you live in a big city, this is a mid-point between face to face and online dating. You are far more likely to have SOMEONE that wants to engage with you sexually than in a remote village, but they are also far less likely to stick with it, because the choice is just as varied for them as it is for you. A remote village may make you an incel by geography, a large city may make you into a rootless degenerate. Pick your poison.
And now for the final reveal, the all-solution issue to getting into sexual congress with a woman. Are you ready? Sitting down? remember, I told you that you will not like it and are unlikely to do it, which are both true, but I promise you the advice is very, very real, and absolutely solid, and above all, it works.
What you need to do is…
Approach, talk to, make propositions to (from having coffee to wild sex, depending on the woman, the situation, your ability, etc etc) women all the time, while observing, and noting their responses, the types of women that respond in certain general ways and wha those various ways are, their demeanour, your own, and essentially every aspect of the interaction, but do so organically, not autistically, just TRY to get a general sense of your emotions and theirs AS you interact with them and try and experiment with different modalities of your own internal mechanism. Even if you feel fear, or shame, or anxiety, act against that, or perhaps act as if afraid when you are not. Test YOUR OWN emotional limits and push beyond them, so as to EXPAND your own emotional range of responses. Eventually what used to terrify you may make you laugh. And what used to make you laugh might be a behaviour you will not tolerate in your life and would simply walk away from. In essence, interact, observe, experiment and then correct for errors you make. That’s it. Repeat a thousand time a month and you will absolutely improve your ability with women, but also with people in general.
I can strike up a conversation with a beautiful woman on the subway that is used to rejecting hundreds of proposals a day, generally as effortlessly as I might start up a conversation with an old lady that is sitting lonely, alone in a coffee shop, and desperate for some form of human interaction. It’s like anything else, a skill. And you can only learn by DOING IT, not reading about it.
That’s it. That is all it takes.
But in the end, get thee baptised, get thee married, and make a family. And why PROPER Catholic?
Think about it:
In Catholicism the purpose of marriage is to have children and creating a family.
Divorce is dogmatically not allowed (which means you select your partner FAR more soberly if you accept this premise truly, and also it means once in it, the option of bailing does not exist, so you are forced to resolve issues together, as you would if you were castaways on an island).
Contraception is not allowed and abortion is murder. You are very likely to have a large family and while everyone on Earth will tell you what a terrible life decision that is, I can tell you that I wish my wife and I got together when we first met, as we would now have about 8 or 9 children. or maybe 8 or 9 more children. And yes we might have to live in a van down by the river, but I have never, and will never regret having children, and the more the merrier. Yes, it’s a pain that they need feeding daily and also require clothes and toys, and so on, and your time is ALL for them, but you know what? It’s awesome. Utterly awesome.
So there you have it.
And Orion, if you ever read this, feel free to get in touch, I’d sure appreciate getting a few thousand )or tens of thousand) of your subscribers become regulars on my blog or Youtube channel too. And of course, I’m offering to increase the value your subscribers may get out of life by considering my perspective.
The videos of Orion Teraban are generally good advice and this one is too, concerning what he refers to as the present day dating market.
However, it is not correct to say that things were really any different ten or even twenty years ago.
I have been essentially out of the dating market since early 2017 now, but I was certainly in it from about 2004 or 2005 until then, with a hiatus of some 5 years or so between 2008-9 and early 2013 which is how long my second marriage lasted. Before that, online dating wasn’t really a thing for me because I had been in a long relationship since before the internet until that ended and I met my first wife shortly thereafter, which sort of imploded about the 2004/2005 point.
There are some observations I found interesting in comparing my own experience with what Orion states in the above-linked video, and as these may be useful to younger men that are still in the process, I thought it would be useful to share them.
The first point is that the advice concerning the having high hopes but low expectations is absolutely correct and is probably pivotal if you’re not going to he a bitter and resentful weirdo. Personally, maybe because of my slightly autistic but high IQ perspective, this was never really an issue after a certain point. At first my main frustration was really more about my perception that women’s brains appeared not to function properly. Logic appeared to be a mystery to them and when you layered that on top of the basic 30 point IQ communication gap that I tend to have with most people, it honestly felt as if I was trying to have a meaningful relationship with monkeys.
If you are a woman reading, I realise how all this sounds misogynistic, etc. etc. But your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, because this is not about you, but rather my lived experience. So, you can either continue reading and possibly learn something about male and female interactions that may be useful to you, or you can get offended and stop reading or rage against it, either way, my life and perspective will not change one iota. So, comport yourself accordingly, and consider this your lesson number one in basic logic.
Now, returning to us, men, the experience felt disturbing to me because on the one hand I had the vague idea (instilled by boomer lies) that men and women were supposed to have equivalent brains, and on the other, my lived experience was that I was generally dealing with creatures that were possibly more akin to a pet you can have sex with than a real, thinking, human being.
It seemed to me that the female brain was hardly at all interested in any of the abstract things that interested me on almost any level, and were instead apparently fixated almost entirely on the human interaction level, to the point that gossip, drama, and needless emotional negativity consumed their lives. The only positive aspect of this was the sexual component, in which they could become as interested as I was, even if they started out relatively tame. Once I demonstrated to them certain aspects of their own physical and/or mental sexuality they had either not explored or encountered before, they generally speaking became, sexually at least, quite entertaining. And they quite often also mistook sexual compatibility with being deeply in love. A facet I tried very hard to prevent them from confusing, certainly when I was not interested in them in that way.
I did not want to have a pet-like relationship where the main component of the relation was essentially only great sex. It got to the point where I started to worry that I would end up seeing women in general as just that, creatures to have sex with but not even bother trying to engage in any other meaningful discourse. I knew this was not reality either, though it also quickly became obvious that the boomer lie of equality between male and female brains was just that: an outrageous lie.
As a result I also took up reading about the differences between male and female brains and although the literature on it is scant (because God forbid anyone tells the truth, doing so gets you cancelled if not incarcerated these days) one of the more useful books on it is Mapping the Mind by Rita Carter. Though I note with some cynicism that the linked book is an “updated and revised” edition, so I am not sure if it still says the things it used to or if the “updating” has resulted in a sanitising of any politically “unacceptable” facts.
At any rate, the reality is that the male and female brains have noticeable structural differences. And once you know this, a basic grasp of logic will immediately tell you two things:
One: they will perform differently
Two: they will have developed (or been created) differently for a reason that is valid in reality, regardless of what political narratives by homoglobos, boomers, satanists, feminists, or anyone else, will tell you to the contrary.
In large part, that is how I developed my Caveman Theory, (see books I wrote) and using it as a model certainly proved very useful in my life.
What changed for me was that I began to study the women I dated more as a scientist might, and noted a number of behaviours that while irrational in the specifics of my circumstances with them, had an original logical and biological imperative behind it. Once I catalogued these behaviours and recognised their origins as per my model of reality, it was then just a matter of on the one hand accepting reality as it is, which was the easy part for me, and on the other, reconciling what my tolerance for humanity could be raised to without me losing my mind.
I discovered that I could genuinely enjoy the company of women, regardless of what I would have labelled as their chicken-headed behaviour a few years earlier, as long as it was somewhat limited, or at least when they had a certain level of self-awareness. Women that were aware of their irrational behaviour were quite entertaining and even endearing at times, which made up at least for a bit of the times they behaved essentially insanely from a male perspective.
The change was that I had gone from processing women as:
beings incapable of reason that had only sex and a generic companionship level to offer for the relative trouble having them around entailed
To:
Partial aliens that had biological motivations stuck in reasons that originated from millennia in the past if not millions of years ago.
Suddenly they were interesting beings again, and I could appreciate them not just generally but also at the individual level.
Yet, I was also aware that becoming overly invested in one of them that did not cross the threshold of minimum ability to reason and be self-aware that I required, was a stupid thing to do and entirely my fault.
This realisation was of course gradual and only improved over time. Nor did it necessarily make me aware of various pitfalls that can be encountered, such as getting involved with narcissists that have oscar-like acting abilities, and ignoring various red flags because you’re into exploring all the facets of this partially alien species.
The outcome, from a purely secular standpoint is indeed a rather brutal one. You will bounce from one woman to the next, leaving behind the ones who you can’t tolerate beyond a certain level or who vice-versa can’t tolerate you.
It is true that in this purely secular mode, it becomes easy enough to bed various women and it is true that in that milieu, you find plenty of women who also are just interested in the sex and not much else. Certainly I had plenty of encounters where the main factor was just to satisfy our respective curiosity of each other’s bodies. Those situations usually lasted no more than a few days, and sometimes only mere hours.
But then you realise too that even though you are now able to fulfil pretty much any purely sexual desire you may have, there is still something missing.
Considering women as a kind of partially alien species still does not permit that level of intimacy that gives you a sense of deep fulfilment. Yet, at the same time, and paradoxically, as so many deep truths are, if all you focus on is your desire for that deep connection, you are almost certain to never get it, or experience it, other than perhaps only as your own delusion; which is all the more devastating when the illusion inevitably collapses, and the faux-relationship ends.
It was then that I realised that the only thing left in terms of relationship challenge and goals was the very thing that boomers have advised my generation against all our lives: creating a family and having children.
My first attempt at this succeeded only insofar as my daughter was created, but failed by every other metric after which I had a revelatory experience and began to study the reality I had encountered concerning the reality of a Loving God I had never really believed in before.
In reading parts of the New Testament I realised that the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman that led to the creation of functional families, was not only absolutely correct and made perfect sense, but it was also so far removed from my own experience and even way of seeing things that it might as well be in another Galaxy.
I resolved to simply drift through life with whatever female companionship I could tolerate. I had no specific need for a permanent relationship, personal loyalty beyond a few (but relatively absolute) aspects, or even much in the way of connection beyond any woman I had anything to do with not irritating me past a certain level.
I did not try to mask any of these realities and I still wasn’t short of female companionship, but I was mostly indifferent to it beyond some biological and emotional basic needs for sex, some human connection, and a certain level of peace.
Gradually however, as I deepened my understanding of God, and concluded the Christian God was the real one, and more specifically the Catholic God, and even more specifically that only the sedevacantists were still actual Catholics, a natural, organic, and quite honestly mysterious change came over me, and in some way, mysterious and unknowable in human words, yet, life, God, myself, and the Universe, all seemed to conspire to get another, extremely unlikely one, to come closer to me over time and then, all of a sudden, in one day, move in with me.
The first few years were certainly difficult, and there are plenty of practical issues left even today, but for the most part, the emotional and intellectual ones we have worked out. And in some ways though we have been married 7 years already, it all feels as if it happened a few weeks ago. And in other ways it feels as if we have been together for 40 years.
The difference between my marriage now, the only one I did as a baptised Catholic in a Church with all the correct Catholic procedures for it by a real Catholic priest and also a Bishop, and the relationships I had before, is not something that is in any way easy to put into words.
What I can say without ANY hesitation at all is that it beats all the other experiences put together in terms of fulfilment and peace it brings to my life.
The connection is real and deep and although generally speaking my wife is not especially interested in astronomy, martial arts, or even, the theological details of Catholicism, I certainly can converse with her about pretty much any topic and she is more than capable of keeping up with any of them, being as there is no IQ communication gap, and this is undoubtedly absolutely fundamental for me. And although women on that IQ range definitely have a bunch of quirks, some of them truly trying for an impatient man like myself, (for example, she simply has no conception of time, and can take hours to get ready then sometimes do it in minutes, but it’s a process so random that no computer will ever be able to model it), I can handle them, because the positives she brings —in far more important aspects of life— clearly outweigh any minor irritants.
But none of this can transmit the sensation of connection I have with her that goes beyond anything I can explain in secular terms. We just barely even have the words in any language to even address it, and I don’t intend to try.
My best advice to you is to first discover the truth about God, the rest will take care of itself.
My book Caveman Theory is geared towards secular people, but the thread in it is based on pure logic and if you can do logic well, the natural place you end up at, by the way, is the same one that Catholics have taken for centuries:
Having caught up reading the Sigma Game blog, I found this post to be quite interesting from the perspective of the definition of respect. And probably because this other post brought home to me why Vox always said he didn’t care about the why of the SSH.
This last one made me aware that having had years more practice at responding to the masses as a result of his blog, he is better skilled at communicating with people some 30 points or more lower on the IQ scale. The very idea that someone would assume that because they can’t imagine or understand something it doesn’t exist or doesn’t have a motive, or origin, literally never crossed my mind. Surely, I dimly thought wordlessly to myself in the depths of my mind, the point of asking why is to understand that which you do not… yet.
But once again, I forgot Professor Cipolla and his 5 rules of Human stupidity. Therefore, on reading about respect as Vox wrote on it, I asked myself how would I define the concept? Because I didn’t (and don’t) immediately agree with the descriptors Vox gave. And even more interestingly, how would I define the concept in a way that it makes sense and is mostly understandable to other people outside of my own head?
Personally, I have no need to define the concept in words, its limits and dimensions are crystal clear to me, however, as someone else said somewhere, the unverbalized thought is as the unrealised idea. Or words to that effect. And putting things into words certainly helps my ability to converse meaningfully with others. So let me try.
First I think it useful to define and separate two terms that can and often do become conflated, and which I think perhaps, Vox also conflated to some extent (maybe not, it’s hard to say without sitting across from him with some decent wine to hand); this is love and respect. While both can be present, they are totally separate terms. I can respect even people I hate, and I can love even people for whom my respect is negligible.
Fundamentally, I think for me respect is related to consistency and integrity even in the face of adversity. The Priest who would rather be executed than break the sacrament of confession. The man who right or wrong as he may be will suffer whatever consequences for his belief, the people or ideas he loves, is deserving of respect. It is why it is perfectly possible for me to respect an actual criminal more than a guy who has maybe never broken a single law, but who simply will go along with whatever rule comes along not because he agrees with them, but because he doesn’t believe anything strongly enough to resist.
In that respect, a person who takes the Vaxx despite having been warned about it, their contents, and so on, certainly will never have the same level of respect I have for someone who despite great difficulty refused to take it.
It does not mean I love them any less, but love does not require respect to exist. Friends and even family took the vacs. I still love them just as much. Maybe even a little bit more because now I am better aware of just how fragile and weak they were, but I can’t respect them as much as if they had not taken it.
The key passage for me were these four:
Respect should not be granted solely on the basis of approval, agreement, or perfection.
I agree wholly with this.
I was disappointed by the decisions of many of my friends and family members to get vaxxed. In a few cases, I was even surprised by them. But in no way did it lessen in any way my respect for them as individuals, or my regard for them as human beings.
It makes me wonder how Vox defines respect, because I don’t agree with this statement. I certainly don’t love any of the people less because of it. In fact, as I said, in a way I feel more sorry for them, which could be considered as a kind of love. A certain level of concern for their lives, and frankly, more so their spirits, which I think are weaker than I had thought.
But respect? No, it certainly has lowered from where it used to be. Conversely, people who I thought (and may well still think) are kind of assholes, but who resisted the vaxx, I have definitely more respect for.
Despite her disappointment, the wife should be able to at least respect the husband for ultimately being willing to listen to her and even to accept her advice in regards to his own actions.
Fair enough, this is a valid point, and I agree with it. She should take comfort in the fact that although he was wrong he listened and adjusted or at least let her direct him correctly. There is nothing wrong with this and in fact it is a good trait for a man to have, since we are all flawed, we will make mistakes and the ability to hear your wife out and adjust accordingly when required is certainly a quality deserving of respect.
I find that it is easier to develop respect for people who listen to me and then change their minds than for those who simply continue stubbornly on a path leading to a bad outcome.
I would say this is obvious for most human beings, although that is mostly because we all like to be “right”. Though I am pretty sure Vox here means it rather differently, and in a way I agree with again. I respect a person able to review the data and change their mind based on the facts, rather than someone who will blindly continue on because of their emotions and inability to cogitate like a thinking creature capable of reason.
Certainly respect might not be so easy to define clearly in words, which is perhaps why it covers two full folio sized pages in my Volume VIII of the Oxford English Dictionary. Nevertheless, I would sum up my own definition as the admiration one may have for a person that is willing to undergo personal sacrifice or duress in order to maintain congruency with their world-view and the attending consequences and duties that should follow from holding that world-view.
Of the 23 different definitions of the word respect found in the OED, most of them refer to a relationship with. A contrast. A relation to. Which is only part of the equation. Only four of the first 17 definitions approach something closer to the meaning I would give it:
13: Regard, Consideration.
14: A consideration; a fact or motive which assists in, or leads to, the formation of a decision; an end or aim.
16: Deferential regard or esteem felt towards a person or thing.
17: Deferential or courteous attentions; actions expressive of respect for a person; politeness, courtesies.
In the second appearance of the word, there are 6 more definitions and only one fits to some degree:
4: To treat or regard with deference, esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for.
There is one more that also ties in somewhat to my definition:
15: Dread; fear.
Overall then, I would say that respect is something that gives one consideration, regard, appreciation (which can even be in the form of caution, or fear) for a person or thing. And that sensation, consideration and so on can also result in actions that can be interpreted as being respectful. But the origin of that sensation, of that noticing, of that appreciation necessarily comes from some attribute (real, imagined or faked as it might be) that the person or thing has (or that we ascribe to it).
For me, congruency, things like keeping your word, behaving honestly and honourably, and so on, are all aspects that can and do merit respect, but perhaps the largest part, personally, is probably the willingness to stand against difficulty, society, bad odds, whatever, in order to do, or act, or defend, or protect what is true and just and good or innocent.
Those who took the Vaxx did none of those things. They bent.
Therefore, I don’t see how my consideration for them in that regard cannot possibly have been lowered. It has. And it should have. I don’t love them any less, but yes, I do respect them less. Inevitably.
Why such a post? Who cares how Vox defines it? Well, the man has an interesting brain, and there aren’t too many of those around, and one can always learn something going down occasional random rabbit holes, you never know what you might learn. And conversely, one never knows who might find this post useful too.
I do not know much at all about this Andrew guy debating the woman, I saw (or rather, mostly listened to) over an hour of this podcast he did with a feminist and from first impression he seems to be very cogent, and to give credit to the woman, she is at least trying to respond to his dialectic commentary and reasoning. That is, she is, doing her best, I believe, to reply to his clear logic with actual logic.
What you see here is basically an honest woman being faced with her own solipsism.
Her retreats to rhetoric or “feelings” are generally curbed and although he sometimes has to reframe the question a few times, when she eventually grasps it she tries to answer it honestly. This in and of itself is exceedingly rare, so I have to give her absolute credit for it. In fact, after I wrote this I watched a bit more, and Andrew too gives her the same credit at around 1 hour and 27 minutes.
If feminists could actually do logic and debate honestly, this would be a typical outcome.
Which brings me to the point I wanted to make, which will drive the average woman absolutely batshit insane with apoplexy at my “misogyny”, but which in reality is fully based in the natural patriarchal instinct to wish to protect women in general from their own characteristically irrational tendencies.
I am usually too busy to listen to anything of this length, but I managed to hear about an hour and a half of it, and I will try to hear the rest as I can, but he makes a LOT of very cogent, interesting points that are very fundamental level stuff. Right from the start, he manages to make her understand that everything relates ultimately to force, and although he doesn’t quite get her to understand his point about moral relativism, it is not through lack of trying, and on her part, it becomes quite clear that she simply does not have the intellectual capacity to:
a) keep up with him and fully grasp what he is saying, and
b) either have reasoned out her positions beforehand, or be able to reason them out on the fly.
I fairness to her, she does, honestly reason quite a few of them out on the fly, so she is honestly trying to do that, but the fact she even had to resort to this means she had never really considered these basic questions to begin with, which again, does not put her in a glowing light intellectually speaking.
AND YET… she has performed overwhelmingly better than 99% of feminists I have ever seen trying to stand their ground. I may put her, roughly speaking on a similar footing with Camille Paglia, who is still a trainwreck, but as far as feminists go, she’s not as terrible as the overwhelming majority. This girl is still young, so I sincerely hope there is some time for her to undo some of the indoctrination she clearly has taken on board (as have all of us at some point in our lives).
Now to my point, which is this:
I think this debate, and even this rather polite, intelligent and well-intentioned woman, are strong evidence of the fact that women simply are not, generally speaking able or capable of even understanding the fundamental aspects of civilisation, and that, is ultimately the reason they cannot be entrusted with really any aspect of it beyond those that they are naturally built for, which is child-rearing and taking care of their home in a symbiotic, intimate, and loving relationship with their husbands.
The simple fact is that this young woman, who has not thought about such basic things as the pill affecting birth rates and abortion being anti-natalist, gets to “vote” (not really, none of us do, but we’re looking at the logic of things, not the brutal reality of the nefarious shit going on on top of the lack of logic too). She clearly has no real objective right to do so. She is ignorant and unschooled on such basic things that her vote can only be a vote for chaos, ultimately. And notice how she has zero comment or comeback to the very real point that women were not allowed to vote on a referendum of if they should be allowed a vote, because the overwhelming majority of them were against it because they then understood that to give the women a vote would reduce them to second tier “men” while totally removing their moral benefits that they had purely as a result of being a woman.
If you can follow the logic, this in and of itself also makes it abundantly clear that liberalism, and the eternal pursuit of unlimited freedom, is absolutely Satanic and can ONLY bring to desolation and destruction for all.
It also highlights that the ONLY morality that exists and that can exist is one that derives from divine concepts and laws. If there is no God at all, then all concepts of morality are null and void and all actions are morally equivalent. At best you can define them as preferences, but you have no basis whatever to claim a moral imperative.
The problem then is only, if there is a God, WHICH religion best approximates His will?
And when you get to this point, taking a very high view that encompasses as long a period of history as possible is absolutely vital. The fruits borne by any given religion should give an indication is it is overall good or bad for humanity as a whole, and thus help make it more obvious to you which religion is based in reality, and which is a pack of comfortable lies for other ends.
If you look at all the main world religions, with this broad perspective, it become obvious at a glance that Catholicism is far superior to all other examples. You might disagree, but you can only do so if you are historically ignorant and going on your “feelings”, and are less capable than the woman in that podcast to simply take a look and be honest about things. I’ll give you a primer in comparatives:
Catholicism
Ended slavery
Ended women being chattel
Made marriage permanent until death
Made the primary purpose of marriage the production and raising of children
Has the golden rule of treating others as you would like to be treated
Has the dogma of loving your neighbour and being peaceful and honest to all until or unless they act badly towards you first
Even then, it has the dogma of the possibility of redemption and forgiveness (not obviating punishment for transgressions though)
It essentially created the real scientific method
It dogmatically refers to its dogma and rules as requiring to be in line with reason and logic at all turns and has only a very few accepted mysteries (the trinity for example being one of them)
It fosters honesty and admission of faults (confession) on a regular basis, which instills an overall betterment for everyone at large
It is a dogmatic principle of Catholicism that defence of yourself or innocents is your duty, and this can include pre-emptive action (the concepts of Self-defence and Just War are part of Catholic dogma)
It has absolute respect for justice and hence a dogmatic acceptance and need for the death penalty for certain crimes
Children are viewed as a blessing and all life held as sacred (which is absolutely NOT a contradiction with the point immediately above. Because the minute you treat life as chattel, then you get treated as same)
It fostered the greatest evolution of art, beauty, honesty, and promotion of all the virtues of justice, love, charity, courage, fortitude and beauty, and justly condemned the sins of pride, avarice, greed, sloth, lust, gluttony, and envy
It promotes the veneration of saints, which in turn promotes an understanding and appreciation as well as a remembrance of historical reality and events, both in the good and bad aspects
It promotes the respectful treatment of women while understanding that they are not equal to men, nor is this reason to mistreat them
It probably only requires looking at that list to realise no other religion compares to it, and it’s far from complete. As for the negatives that can be attributed to men who professed to be members of it, similar negatives can be seen and counted in all religions by men who profess to belong to that specific religion.
There also a lot of demonstrable lies that have been stated about Catholicism by its enemies that anyone who actually bothers to try and verify will become aware of. In fact, even convinced NON-Catholics who are honest admit this, notably, historian Rodney Stark in his book Bearing False Witness, or perhaps his book named Reformation Myths, though I have not read that one, so am not certain. But Stark has always been an honest historian, even admitting his own faults if his research had not been done properly in later works, which is far more than can be said about most historians.
A sad truth about Catholicism however is that it was absolutely infiltrated fro the last 250 years or so, culminating in its almost total destruction and inversion, which from 1958 onwards has seen only false Popes on the throne of Peter and false Novus Ordo clergy pretending to be Catholics that have fooled the vast majority of would-be Catholics. The only actual Catholic Clergy left (both Bishops and Priests) are Sedevacantist ones, and the only Catholics actually following the religion in any way accurately are sedevacantists, which are a small fraction of nominal Novus ordo “Catholics”, although their numbers are growing very fast as people begin to realise the truth of this situation.
Islam and Judaism
I lump them together for a very simple reasons, aside from the many, many, many, questionable dogmas of it, I think two will suffice to point out why these cannot be any good:
Both these religions say it’s ok to deceive, cheat or even kill people who are not members of it, and it is perfectly fine to pretend to be their friend, but in fact be lying to them until you are powerful enough to impose your will on them.
Both religions accept child rape as normal and nothing to be punished or even considered a crime.
Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism
Although quite different in details, these all share some essential features and common origins. The principle of reincarnation being key and Buddhism essentially being an offshoot of the more generic Hinduism, and Shintoism clearly also having Buddhist/Taoist influences.
Hinduism is clearly the worst of the lot as it imposes the concept of caste systems, which one can hardly move out of as a person born in India. The panopticon of so many gods and goddesses which resemble quite a bit all the human failings that we also saw in the Ancient Greek and Roman pantheons make this religion little more than the idolisation of anything from cows, to rats, to false idols and quite possibly demons. It has some roots in historical realities that took place long ago, but the process of “Chinese telephone” that played out over the ages has reduced it to a fantastic nonsensical bunch of disjointed fables.
Shintoism and Buddhism tend to be at least generally pacifist and their belief in reincarnation and veneration of ancestors is not at terrible odds with Christianity, but it is a far less complete guide to life and has far less morality in it than Catholicism. The overall attempt at achieving a total absence of desire is also the pursuit of permanent death, though some Buddhists will deny this, ultimately, that is what Nirvana means. And that kind of mindset is not exactly conducive to a particular virtue of caring for others, your extended family (besides elders holding a position of authority) or any other specific virtues, though overall Shintoist and Buddhists tend to be far more reliable than Hindus, who are not compelled to be honest at all.
Zen Buddhism and Taoism
Is a more separate aspect, of buddhism, and could be considered more a philosophy than a religion, being somewhat similar to stoicism, although ultimately more positive than stoicism. It concentrates on doing the best you can at any given moment, in any given situation. The general concept is also relatively pacifistic in nature, but able to respond with violence when or if threatened.
Protestantism
This is a degradation and secularisation of Christianity (Catholicism) and is wholly responsible for only almost entirely negative results, to wit:
The adoption of contraceptive
The permission of divorce
Which directly leads to sex before marriage
Which directly leads to sex mainly for fun instead of daily for procreation
Which directly leads to seeing children as a burden
Which directly leads to abortion
The extended and continuing “progressive” agenda of liberalism
Which leads to the adoption of a veneer of “Christianity” that has “personal interpretation” as the only rule
Which leads to the over 40,000 “denominations” of watered down, irrational and nonsensical versions of faux-christianity
Has been directly responsible for placing emotions above reason, a total inversion of actual Christian (Catholic) dogma, which is no surprise given that its original creator Luther stated that “Reason is the whore of the devil” and in fact, generally speaking, Protestants are indoctrinated in their false religion to the extent thatchy are literally incapable of changing their mind based on objective facts that contradict their emotional comfort zones, similarly to Muslims in this regard, appeals to logic fall on deaf ears.
The acceptance, eventual request for “equality” and “recognition” and ultimately forced “celebration” of deviant sexual behaviour and mental illness, like homosexuality and transgenderism respectively.
The shielding and “protecting” of Israel and the jewish masters that run the USA as being their “greatest ally” whilst denying the reality of the Talmudic Jewish religion, which have been brilliantly and concisely described by Rob Unz, himself a Jew, here: The Jewish Plot to Enslave Humanity.
Eastern “Orthodoxy”
Among all the religions described, Eastern “Orthodox” are the closest to Catholicism, diverging mostly on a few rarefied theological principles of little practical consequence and the main one being the rejection of the Pope as supreme leader of Christianity, which is a ridiculous reason since Popes existed for all the 1021 years previous to their schism, and were accepted by all as the supreme leaders. Something that was in any case affirmed and even reaffirmed multiple times, including a few hundred years after the schism. But overall their fruits are not as grand or positive as Catholicism, primarily also because they are essentially an insular religion that has strong national identities. Greek “Orthodox” are not in much of any kind of “communion” with Russian “Orthodox”, which in turn are not in much communion with Romanian “Orthodox” or Lithuanian “Orthodox”, and so on. So:
Their influence and spreading of the gospel has been weak, and their defence of Christianity abysmal when confronting the Muslims,
with whom they ganged up to try and kill the very Catholics that came to their aid some 41 years AFTER the schism. Betraying and murdering the Catholics three crusades in a row and then bitching and crying to this day when the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople (and did so in a relatively mild way, by the way).
They also failed to secure their own lands that had been taken over by the Muslims and when after 200 years the Catholics who protected those lands with contributions from Europe could no longer afford to do so refused to take ownership of all the fortified structured the Catholics had built for them and let those lands descent into Islam.
And today they are “in communion” with the fake “Catholics” who are actually Freemasons and Satanists (but I repeat myself), led by Arch-heretic and probably never-was-Catholic fake Pope Bergoglio, making them not just schismatics but also heretics too.
Despite all this, the Orthos are the closest to modelling reality AFTER the remaining Catholics.
Paganism
This is just a LARP (Live Action Role Playing Game) With occasional Cos-play aspects (People who get dressed up as fictional comic book characters at fantasy conventions). No one actually “believes” in Odin, or Freya, or Apollo, or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl, or Cit-Bolon-Tum, they just pretend to. No one would give up their life rather than denounce one of these fake “Gods”, while hundreds of thousands if not millions have become martyrs for Christ over the last two millennia.
Returning to the baseline point
If you are wondering how we went from a podcast on feminism to the differences between religions, then I’d say it’s safe to assume that you have not been able to follow the logical thread and I advise you to go back and review it, but the overriding point is that since religion (as a model of objective reality) is the only way that morality can be defined in a way that is valid (assuming there is a God) then looking at the religions of the world is paramount in order to understand which one is best and:
Best models reality, and
Produces the best result for humanity at large
And if you think that Catholicism too is invalid, as are all the other religions (and Catholicism expressly states this, all other religions are false) then you have to note that the ABSENCE of any religion, including even ones like Islam has invariably resulted in massive degradation and mass murder. The Atheists of communism are responsible for over 100 million murders in just the last century alone. In short, the BEST thing that has ever happened to humanity at large, and by a HUGE margin, id Catholicism, and absolutely every aspect of human history demonstartes it in aces all the way.
So… in that context, women have a role that is pretty clearly understood, and is frankly better than any other system, including the current one that has ever existed on this Earth.
In Catholicism women are:
Protected (including from their own irrationality and wild emotions)
Cherished
Accommodated inasmuch as a man is generally able to, so as to make their life as easy and comfortable as possible
Shielded from the general ugliness of the world as much as a man is generally able to do so
Treated with respect
Commensurate with these benefits also come various duties, which generally speaking are:
Accepting the fact that generally speaking (and if they have been wise in their choice of husband) their husband, though an imperfect human being will do whatever he does PRIMARILY to benefit his family, his children and his wife and himself, in THAT order.
Accepting the fact that being generally more practical and given their instinct to place their family before themselves, absent a quite large gap in IQ where the woman is considerably smarter and wiser, a man will tend to mostly make good decisions for their shared future and while this will not always be the case, a good husband will also listen to a wife’s concerns if she has valid ones.
Accept that generally speaking, she should overall be more in charge of the day to day running of the household and the raising of children, particularly in their early years.
Be a positive, nurturing, supportive and respectful mate to her husband.
It does not mean a woman cannot work if she has that inclination, but surely, as a general rule, no role, no job, is more important than being a mother, and given this consideration, all other concepts of work or career become subjugate to it.
In essence, Catholicism recognises what has been demonstrated in the podcast I refer to at the start, that essentially, women are less capable of making important decisions and follow through with corresponding action for the benefit of civilisation as a whole than men are and this difference is notable, important and enough to determine if a civilisation thrives or dies.
Just as you would not want children to run industry, government or the military, neither should women. And just as you wouldn’t want children to be able to vote (because they would be fooled by literally every nonsensical scam and lie that politicians would tell them) neither should women, and essentially for the same reasons. They are not really equipped to have thought the issues through and be able to consider the ramifications, nor are they as capable at implementing any of the necessary systems that civilisation requires, from enforcing law and order to constructing nuclear power plants, and no, the rare exceptions of women who might be capable to, do not exist in any meaningful numbers and do not, as a whole, have any meaningful impact on the greater society at large. Which is not to say they do not exist and should not be celebrated when they do produce some meaningful contribution. St. Joan of Arc being one of many examples one could mention. But every one Joan of Arc, we have a hundred or a thousand St. Pauls or St Adrianus, or even just non-saint Jean-Parisot Le Vallette, or Nikola Tesla.
You might not LIKE the conclusions I describe here, but I think it is really quite impossible to dispute them. And as such, it makes far more sense to accept them and work sensibly towards working together to create a far more Catholic world than we have now.
Adam wrote an excellent piece on this here, and I urge you all to read it.
Adam is a proper Catholic (Sedevacantist) and has got this point about race and religion right.
Nevertheless, I, as a Venetian, have some more nuanced view (or extremist, take your pick).
My country, my nation, has been usurped and annexed first by the French under that megalomaniac Napoleon, and essentially dissolved by the French on 12 May 1797,
He then gave it to the Austrians, who then gave it to the Italians in 1805 (under Napoleon still) but then took it back by force in 1814 with help of the English. Between then and 1866 it went back to independence, then back to Austria, then back to France, then finally to the Italian Kingdom in 1866. Despite this, there has been an undercurrent of Venetian wish for return to independence that has never ended, and that will never end.
On April 25th 2016 I was in St. Mark’s Square during the traditional feast for the patron Saint of Venice. The mayor started out strong claiming Venetian nationality but then went full diversity and the crowd pretty much turned their backs on him with not a few shouts of “bastard” and “traitor”.
It was more than the Catholic religion that held those people together and that calls to me too. Despite my having never felt any loyalty to Italy as a country in general, I feel one towards Venice.
I grew up all over the world and when I lived in Cape Town for over a decade, I loved that city, and the sea, and when I would come back to it after a trip, driving in, seeing the Ocean below I always wondered “Is this my place?“ I liked it and I had chosen it, but it never felt truly mine, even though I liked it more than any place I had been before. It was much later, in 2004 or so when I worked in Aviano’s US base that on one of my forthrightly trips to London, when the plane took a turn over it and I saw the waterways and laguna not close to the city really, that instinctively, powerfully, seeing that desolate and water-logged land from the porthole-like window of the plane, I felt a pull in my chest and the words came into my mind unbidden:
That is my land.
I was shocked by it. I had been a nomad all my life and spent more time in various countries in Africa than I ever had in Europe. I had refused and avoided military service in Italy thanks to having lived overseas since a young age, but on principle I hated the idea of being enrolled in a military if not by my own choice.
I knew my grandfather was Venetian and I went there on holiday with him and my grandmother as a little boy of 2 and 3 years old, where they (both champion swimmers) taught me to swim.
I loved the sea, unlike my brother who was scared of it as a little boy.
But I barely had ever taught of Venice or being Venetian. But from that day, that visceral, instinctive pull made me aware of it.
Then in 2016 I lived in Venice for a year and there it become clear. This was, my city. And the Venetians, ornery critters that they are, are recognisably my people, both in the things I detest about them as well as those I like.
There is more to it than mere religion, though I agree it is the main glue that binds a people.
And there is more to it than race, for it has never prevented me from loving a person I cared about, although differences are undeniable, even if we happen to share a religion.
But there is a deeper sense yet, and it might be in the blood, genetics, or maybe there is even a link to the soil, because I can no more explain why a place I was not born or lived in for my entire life other than one year in 2016 should have ever had such a pull on me, in 2004, and when seen from the air that. And not the city or the glory of it, but the swamps and waterways unpopulated by anyone other than birds and fish.
So, yes, while religion binds us above all, so does race and even nation.
Venetians have always been a mixed breed of bastards, because we travelled and explored and traded with the whole world, and we partook of pretty women wherever we went and the Venetian girls were known throughout Europe for being if not easy to keep, certainly adventurous.
We are not phased by difference from us. I certainly have never been. But that is not to say we don’t recognise it.
We are a nation of explorers, and explorers try and do and see. And they learn to appreciate it all; even as we remain ourselves.
My children have a Venetian father and an English mother, and already, I can see, like me, (and their mother too) they are curious and explorers at heart, and like us, they too, are people of the sea.
And I will teach them their ancient history. And see they ignore the lies of the demons trying to conquer us all and make us all the same.
Belief in God that is absent real knowledge of God is ascetic and relatively sterile. It’s like believing in a hospital when you have never been in one or been operated in one or had things happen in one. You may intellectually know a hospital exists and can heal people but until you had an operation in one, the concept is really quite abstract.
If you are lucky enough to attain some direct knowledge of God, and assuming the trauma of it resolves in a way you decide, and can demonstrably see is good for you, that knowledge can remain with you the rest of your life; but not necessarily. Some people experience it but then the world slowly overtakes them again and they return to a state that is primarily materialistic and worried with the physicality of the here and now.
For some of us, however, the physicality of the here and now was never the most important thing, and not by a long shot, not even when we were atheists, and certainly not when I was a Zen-Agnostic quasi Shintoist.
This sense that ideals, honour, or some other virtue you recognise as fundamental takes precedence even over your ability to continue living, is FAR less prevalent today among men than it was millennia ago. The Romans were as ready to commit suicide rather than be dishonourable by their culture’s standards, as the Samurai were, or the Spartans.
Today the supposedly oh so smart and wise modern man looks back at the Spartans, or the Romans, or the Samurai, or even a contemporary willing to die for an ideal, and scoffs. How silly those barbaric superstitious fools were. Right?
And don’t get me wrong, setting yourself on fire because of Trump, or Joe Biden, or whatever American politician, is a sign of mental illness, not courage or honour or any other virtue, so there may be instances where that accusation might be valid, but not really concerning our old ancestors. You may say that the Gods of their time don’t exist and never did (I beg to differ, they did exist and probably still do, but were the entities God refers to in Psalm 82 (for crippled Prottie Bibles) or 81 (for righteous Catholic Bibles) and bad stewards of the humans on Earth) but I would posit that neither does your version of Jesus if you’re a Churchian that sings “Jesus is my boyfriend” type stuff.
The point is, that whether it is perceived as such consciously or not, some people are aware of the numinous, and implicitly, instinctively, trust it more than the world they can see and touch with their senses. I do not know why that is, and I don’t profess that those who can are necessarily better human beings than those who do not, but the fact remains some feel it better than others and it affects their choices and everything else they do.
There are, however levels of this awareness. At its most basic it is merely an instinct. The reason why some men run into the fire to save others instead of away from it perhaps, even if they have no higher aim consciously in their mind. And even if they may regret it later.
Some way above this is someone that is consciously aware that the intangibles are more important to him than the tangibles. These are almost always men. Women do not often reach this level of conscious agency, though they tend to probably react more often in response to the numinous when the stakes are not as obviously conscious or high. At this level one need not be religious by the way. You can still be even atheist and yet be this way.
Further up again are people that have realised that this numinous essence they feel beholden to is intelligent and has direction. It has, in short, rules. And they may spent years trying to figure these rules out. If they are mechanistic and material world orientated, they can be diverted into occult or ultimately Satanic practices. Short term gains at the expense of eternity. If they are more detached and objectively observant, they can notice some of the rules of this numinous level of reality that is actually on a higher plane than the physical one. The physical plane is a mere shadow of the numinous plane. At this point, at least some indication of religiosity begins to be present. It could be mystical New Age woo-woo, some blend of Buddhism, a generic Agnostic Christianity, a faint hope or belief in reincarnation and karma, or even a belief in Catholicism. But it is a sort of amorphous concept. There is an intelligence, there is a level of reality above our own, there must be rules, we try and follow them, sometimes, haphazardly.
In all of these levels, one can get lost or confused by their own emotions, particularly strong emotions or emotions that are triggered by trauma from the past and so on. And we will tend to confuse a discordant emotion with a real, linked-to-the-divine instinct. When things don’t go our way we will become blind and worried again. We may hold the lotus flower or the grace of God in our mind for a few minutes here and there, when meditating or sitting in a beautiful church, but let some guy cut you off and give you the finger and your serenity is quickly in the toilet.
Then there is a beginning level of some wisdom. Here you know the numinous is real and it is personal. You matter to that intelligence behind creation and it matters to you. So you begin to study. To observe, to experiment. And as you do you begin to discern patterns and begin to make choices. Most men get lost in this aspect of life towards the end of their life and never really reach any solid conclusions beyond a few generic ones. Those who persevere either end up down a wrong road, for a time, or to the end of their lives, and retain a certain TYPE of dissatisfaction. A specific flavour of restlessness. Or, they end up on the right road, which is Catholicism (Sedevacantist only).
And if you have stopped reading here because you think that’s just, like, my opinion, man… well, so be it. Off you go to other places on the internet.
If however, you are willing to explore further, at least intellectually, then let me tell you what happens next.
So you’re a sedevacantist Catholic now. Great. So you take a few years to learn the rules. The important ones. Don’t ask me when a fast day is, because I barely can figure it out. And sure, one day I will concern myself with that more, but I have some forest to catch up to before I investigate the trees. And if you don’t get lost in the minutiae of the details of various rituals, you begin to see the thing that really makes a difference.
Listen, I am not saying the rituals don’t have importance, they do, massive, but just like you can be thinking you really are a Jesus follower and yet, as He told us in the Bible you may have the rude awakening after your last day that He says to you: I never knew you. In short, you don’t want to do these rituals by rote just because you believe you are on the right path. For those who have understood a LOT more and gone further, that same ritual, that you might do out of rote, fort them is filled with meaning beyond your comprehension. Anyone can rattle off 50 Ave Marias. But few can recite ten with true conscious dedication and contemplation of each line they speak.
That thing you see, if you don’t get lost in the details of tradition with little deeper understanding, that really makes a difference, is this:
You now know God exists and knows you personally; cares about miserable, scum-being, little, insignificant you. That’s uncomfortable enough to not let you think straight for some time. But then you are so bathed in His Love and Glory and Grace, that over time, you begin to stop feeling ashamed and filthy and unworthy, and you begin to once again observe objectively, to just notice things, and then you recall that there are rules, that God is Good, and all is Love. And there are rules, not like in the world of things, but rules nonetheless. And so you begin to perhaps understand prayer, and you try it out, and you notice when you pray properly miracles happen, but when you do it half assed, maybe you only get a tenth of what you hoped for. And one of the first things you realise is that praying for shit is kind of a dick move. Praying to give thanks for ALL the incredible miracles you receive literally every day, is a much better thing to do. And then you may begin to notice that as you do this, give thanks and sense the numinous, and obey the rules, it becomes impossible to deny the Catholic religion. You can (and MUST) deny the fake impostor Bergoglio and all his pederast allies, but Catholicism itself, and those who still follow the Sedevacantists version of Catholicism (that is, the original one it has always been from the start) is true.
And then may come the next level, where you keep this knowledge, and it is knowledge, not just an idea or a concept, but an intrinsic, deeply felt truth. And in keeping that knowledge inside you, you begin to sense the winds of change, and so you begin to organise things in a way so as to be able to ride the crest of the wave, even if it be a tsunami. But this wisdom on the plane of the numinous may look like a bad choice on the worldly plane of things, and stuff, and physical practicalities. In fact, it may well look insane on the here and now level of truth “knowledge”.
The classic Biblical example is Noah. Everyone thought he was an insane madman. Then it rained and they all drowned, except Noah and his kin.
If a man has reached such a level —at least some of the time— his life might not necessarily be easy, or fun, he may even end up a martyr, but he will not have that peculiar type of anxiety or restlessness mentioned earlier. And if he does have a nervousness about him, it will be of an entirely different kind to the one mentioned before. A man at this level is only anxious of one thing. The being able to serve God well and as effectively and invincibly as might be possible.
When you reach that state, things just happen to simply… happen to you. And you no longer strive for them. You sense them and you gently reach for them with your soul, and it is almost delivered to you as if in a dream. And if you do strive it is not for them, the worldly things themselves so much, but rather for keeping good company to whomever might be there too. And to help someone else perhaps.
Why all this? Well, because ladies, if you are married to such a man, you need to adjust to his flow, and let him guide the river he produces with his mind and heart and soul. And conversely, if it is your wife that has reached this level, let her gentleness and kindness melt you enough until you see your flow too. Perhaps some women can direct it better then their husbands, I am sure some exist somewhere, but it is not the usual way. The usual way is that the man gets there, consciously, and the woman, follows by love and faith mostly. And the more loving and faithful she is in her trust, the better the man becomes at “hearing” where the river is and “seeing” where it goes, he and gets better at flowing on it well.
Second-guessing, nagging, rebelling, and generally doing what in Italian vernacular is translated as “breaking his balls” does absolutely nothing to increase this almost miraculous flow of Grace. And the task of a woman is no easier than that of a man. Trusting another human being on that level is absolutely difficult, because as you know, we are all rat-faced, cowardly, spineless, liars and bullshitters (perhaps not all of them in the worst way, but if you understand a little bit of what God and being in his presence is like, trust me, calling you a rat-faced cowardly liar is being kind). And yet, this is your duty, and the better you can do it, the more your man will become closer to Saintly.
The whole point of the holographic relationship between Jesus and the Church being reflective of the relation between husband and wife is exactly that. A good husband will absolutely let himself be crucified for his wife, but in turn, the wife should be absolutely willing to trust him unto the ends of the Earth. And yes, I can feel all the quivering disturbance in the aether, as if a billion feminists all screamed out at once while their buttholes puckered in rage at the same time, creating a vacuum of soundless vibration of acidic narcissistic impotence.
Sure, sure, the last thing you want to do is be some supportive, subservient doormat to a useless, cheating, lying asshole. Duh. Of course. On the other hand, listen to that other tremor in the force, the sound of two billion severed testicles floppily splatting on the ground, from all the emasculated men that are henpecked to death by the shrews that will invariably cheat on them with Pedro the pool boy or maybe Mike their “best” friend. It’s two sides of the same coin.
But it’s a simple, simple, flow-chart to follow.
Do your loving best to do your loving best. When the other person appears to NOT be doing their loving best, you do yours anyway and gently ask them if they are doing theirs. Their loving best sometimes sucks the butthole of a donkey with dissentry. And you just don’t recognise that they really are doing outstanding stuff, if only you knew where they were coming from as a starting point. (But never let anyone use that as an excuse, because if they do… well… it’s an excuse). More relevantly, YOUR loving best sometimes is the donkey with the squirts one. If you both are aware of this and you both agree to check in with each other and tell each other when you are donkey sharting instead of being lovingly at your best, and if you both agree (and can actually do it) to not lose even MORE of your shit when it is politely and gently pointed out that hey… this is not chocolate, honey, you stand a chance of then being able to actually do to and for each other, what a relationship is supposed to do: Evolve one another over time and until the day you both drop dead.
If you actually both learn to flow down that river in synergistic harmony, well… then you will REALLY see miracles begin to happen.
So, that’s the piece of advice I wanted to share.
And oh… just in case you were wondering, none of the above means they won’t irritate the living crap out of you at times, or make mistakes, or get things wrong, or screw up in a million different ways.
But errors are forgivable, thank God.
Intentional lies on the other hand, that’s something else.
I hope this is of some use to some of you. If it is, let me know.
This is why
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.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 9 September 2024 | Posted in Brain-Mind Functionality, Clown World, Fighting SJWs, Freemasons, Increasing Happiness, Medical Science, Relationships, Relationships, Russia and GAE, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within, The Jews