In Parts 1 to 3 I covered the fundamentals of what the actual pillars of society are, unlike what most people believe. In part 4 I covered the individual man and how his beliefs create order or lack of it with regards to moving towards civilisation. Part 5 covered marriage and why it is the foundational cell of a functioning society, as well as the fact that absent this, that is, actual marriage, not the parodies of it we see all-round us, a civilisation that arises —if it arises at all, which is doubtful— will simply not be able to compare in any way with the Catholic civilisation that first created real, actual marriage. Or we should say, imposed God’s will regarding it. This part 5 is important to have read before reading this post on the Individual Woman, because otherwise some of the premises and attributes of women in general, established there with proof, will simply be misunderstood as “my opinion” here, instead of being taken as a biological fact.
Part 5a was a treatise on justice and its importance as a pillar of civilisation, and the fact that reinstating the death penalty for certain crimes is absolutely necessary. If you also pay attention to who wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout all the nations on Earth, and eventually managed to mostly do so, you will find the usual suspects, Judaic Zionists, Freemasons, or their Goyim minions. Which by now should not come as any sort of surprise.
Right. On we go! But first, the usual introduction:
This is the sixth in the Theoretical Models of Society series of Posts. Use the category of the same name or the Search Me function on the right-hand sidebar to find all related posts in the series.
It is generally helpful to a reader if they are already familiar with some of my other work, in order for this stuff to have the most useful effect on your life. In particular, The Face on Mars and Believe! would be the top reads to have done to have the generic global perspective of reality well in hand. Systema and Reclaiming the Catholic Church would have the most impact on a more personal level. On health/security/self-protection, and on the reality of Catholicism as it was (and remains with Sedevacantists) before Vatican II and why the Novus Ordo Church is not only not Catholic, but Satanic at its core. I will repeat this little paragraph on each new part, as I think it is important to have a general foundation if one is really interested in more than skim-reading before returning to the general slumber we are all being attempted to be forced into.
Having digested part 5 of this series (On Marriage) you will know that in general terms, women will tend to be far more solipsistic than men, and this is the case quite aside from anything else, as it is the logical consequence of the male/female dynamic due to their different biology.
But as described in part 4, which basically defined the utility as well as the description of what is an individual man that is ultimately a force for good, we now come to the same question concerning the individual woman.
As stated previously, men are the civilisers of a society. Their monopoly on force requires them to have always been the part of the family unit that faced the outside world, and dealt with it, meaning that the survival pressure for a man was essentially the objective universe; be this represented by inclement weather, natural predators, disasters and challenges, or even other men. As a result he developed a far more objective, logical and practical way of not just seeing things but doing them and even organising his fellow males into functional hierarchies that together could take on much larger scale projects.
Hence: Man is the civiliser and creator of any functional society. As such, the individual man could be considered the DNA strand within the cell (the nuclear family unit). A woman on the other hand, can be seen as the remaining entirety of the cell. The cell wall, and all the bits that keep a cell alive and functioning.
Unlike a man, a woman’s survival pressure was mostly other women. Absent other women, even a relatively unattractive and unpleasant woman will still get male attention and opportunity to be looked after. Such is the biological imperative for reproduction. However, introduce other women, especially prettier, sluttier, less scrupulous ones, and suddenly, the security provided by your man for yourself and your offspring is under serious threat, since you can be replaced. As a result, the dynamics in female relations differ enormously from those between men. Women are necessarily far more adept at social interactions, capable of having multiple agendas happening simultaneously. A process a simple male may even interpret as self-serving and manipulative, which it can be, but not unavoidably so.
It is true that only men create civilisations, but without women, there would not only not be any civilisations at all, but there would not even be a need for them! A world in which a man only has to worry about taking care of himself, is a far starker, simpler, harder and more brutal world.
Absent wife and children, a man is perfectly capable of living in a one room space where he has the capacity to make basic food for basic survival and a bed to sleep on. In ancient times this could literally be a cave and the extent of his possessions a few weapons and clothing. In modern times it’s a one room space with the ability to cook basic food for basic survival, and a subscription to the latest multi-player on-line gaming platform.
In short, men and women, in the natural order of things, complement each other and function in a natural harmony that is based on mutual sacrifice for the greater whole (the family unit).
Men, being more objective and logical, naturally have a far healthier and more positive understanding of this in broad terms.
Women, being biologically built to place their own welfare first, and being driven primarily by the emotion of the moment rather than the larger context, can (and do) make decisions in a possible long term marriage that can be destructive and based far more on their perception of “reality” on any given day, rather than actual reality as it is.
While a man, in the positive, tends to place his belief primarily in God and his own abilities and efforts, a woman will tend to place her belief in the man she chooses for a mate and how his actions (or lack thereof, or perception of same) affects her emotions.
While there are of course exceptions, this is the general order of things.
A woman in love with her man will go beyond the limits of reasonable or even valid levels of loyalty, sacrifice and effort. And even if it be the same man, if/when what she perceives as her “love” for him degrades, she can become equally cruel, deceptive and hateful towards him.
So, if women, in broad terms are less logical, more prone to react based on their emotions of the moment instead of reasoned motives, tend to be solipsistic and potentially manipulative, from a male perspective, what makes a good woman?
We need to start with the understanding that the presentation of a woman in the previous character, while potentially valid in broad terms, is an extremely limited and somewhat deceptive perspective; one that incidentally has been pushed relentlessly by (((the usual suspects))) in order to further erode the baseline of Christianity and indeed human performance: the nuclear family.
A woman in her natural and ordered place in life is someone that enjoys taking care of her children and husband and home, and thrives when being respected, appreciated, and loved for her doing so by both children and husband.
The average woman today is bombarded constantly with lies about what makes her life “worthwhile”. So are men, but given the difference in constitution, it is women who are most affected by it, and there is plenty of evidence on this now, one only needs to look at the disproportionate number of teenage girls that have been affected by the tranny agenda and attempt to “become male” which is really merely the recognition that social pressure (in the form of peers but also propaganda on TV, the internet and so on) is more effective on women.
If you have understood the differences between men and women, as already described, this is fairly obvious. Their being more susceptible to emotional and social events, they are easier to fool into taking seemingly polite, friendly, conflict avoidant positions on various issues, especially if presented as the “acceptable” majority view, were instead a strong, swift, and decisive response or action is required. Alternatively, they are more easily led into manufactured “outrage” at some perceived “social injustice”, where once again the main driver is a sense of social acceptance and cohesion (which is generally entirely false but manufactured artificially by mass media outlets, which today are simply the operative branch of the constant psyops we are all subjected to daily)
The West has largely been led deep into Clown World madness, primarily because women can be swayed to “tolerate” and then “champion” just about everyone and everything.
In these terms then, a good woman is one that has primarily overcome her deep need for “running with the herd”, keeping in mind that this is and intrinsic and biologically driven imperative.
There is a reason why traditionally in disasters the priority is on saving women and children. Aside the male imperative (also biologically driven) to be more ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for the safety of their woman and offspring, there is a linked factor, which is the one of relative diminished capacity. We protect children in part because they are simply less able to do so themselves due to their smaller size and lower ability to understand and respond appropriately to a serious situation. To a lesser extent, due to their propensity to process the world through their solipsistic emotions, the same is true of women.
This is why women used to not be allowed to vote, and why when the idea was introduced (by the same usual suspects) the vast majority of women did not want to be given such a “right”.
A sensible woman that is well ordered and balanced knows full well that she has far more power of persuasion and influence as a dutiful and loving wife without the right to cast a vote, than she does as a “strong independent woman” with a vote she can cast herself.
The solution, would be a woman smart and self-assured enough to take this “right” and return her behaviour in any case to that of a dutiful and loving wife, which casts her vote whichever way her husband does.
Although it should he obvious, it needs to be spelt out for far too many, that such behaviour as a “good woman” is deserved only by men who similarly behave as “good men” described in part 4 of this series.
But what of the unspoken concept that a woman’s life being filled with raising children, cooking, cleaning, keeping home and being loving and respectful to her husband makes for a boring, lonely, isolating, limited, suffocating and even dangerous life (because the husband can always drop her for the younger hotter model).
I would say that the primary crack in that narrative is the selection of husband. There is as much danger for a good woman that she may marry the kind of man that will drop her twenty years later for a younger model, that there is for a good man that to marry a woman that will divorce him for no real reason down the line and take half of what he has built along with his children.
That is the pivotal and cardinal point that needs to be addresses first, foremost and above all other issues.
The entire global zeitgeist, driven primarily by the Freemasonic country of the USA, and the vast amounts of “entertainment” that it produces, is geared to destroying, polluting and making the nuclear family as hard and impractical as possible to have and create.
Doubling the workforce by “empowering” women to serve a boss instead of making a home and raising children, for a wage that is now required just to maintain a survival level quality of life, was the first of many methods introduced (yes, always by the (((usual))) tribe of suspects) to make the traditional nuclear family go the way of the dodo.
Shortening attention spans (mobile phones, audio books instead of reading, video shorts and pretty much the entire sound-byte rich but content free dystopia we are all subjected to) produces people that are concerned with short time preferences and who become functionally incapable of planning for the future or even considering it.
The consumerism that permeates every aspect of our lives makes the chase for the next shiny but ultimately meaningless object the objective of a perennial dopamine rush with no reward at the end except an empty and childless grave surrounded not by family and friends but by the decaying and forgotten objects and toys we have accumulated over the years. Perhaps in the not so distant future, with only the standard sex robot/maid/butler android to hold our hand in the final moments, just before the harvesting of our organs routine kicks in.
Ultimately while it is true that it is men that create civilisations, it is women that maintain the social fabric to a very create extent. Men may indeed need to build the structure that holds it in place and directs it into the wind, but women form the sail that gets the boat moving.
How then, is a good woman supposed to counter the constant (and intentional, and evil) push away from the nuclear family and hence a durable civilisation? What should she look for at a minimum?
And here we come to the reason why I have always stated that if civilisation is failing, it is men that are to blame. Yes, it’s possibly quite true that women have been manipulated into becoming gold-digging, selfish, shrews, and as such they need to take responsibility for their own agency and stupidity in falling for it, but that said, let’s not pretend that this has not come about for the simple reason that men stopped acting like men and started to “act” (that is not act at all) like effeminate losers.
It is an absolute fact that your “civilisation” has clearly lost any semblance of having functional testicles anywhere in it when tens of thousands of children get raped and sexually abused by invading foreign gangs of organised pedophiles, and the native police protects these criminals and both the police stations, the politicians and the criminal foreign ethnic rapist aren’t all burned to the ground.
As for whatever clown-world faggotry might label my comment above as “inciting hatred”, I would put it to you that anyone who even remotely thinks that way, is fully deserving of not just hatred, but physical removal from society altogether, and is better to be put to forced hard labour until they either die or genuinely see the error of their ways.
Any adult that thinks that “people” who behave like the organised Pakistani gangs that operated (and probably still do) in the UK to rape and abuse tens of thousands of children deserve anything less than death, as do their enablers and protectors, is not just “not a man”, they are unworthy to belong to —nor are they capable of being members of— any functional, viable society at all. Such people, that have such absurd and dangerous ideology, should NEVER be permitted to be part of a healthy society, and certainly should never be placed in any positions where they may have ANY level of authority over anyone for any reason whatsoever.
In fact, people who advocate against the death penalty on general principle should be shunned and ostracised, as they are obviously mentally, emotionally and spiritually unfit and cannot be considered as healthy members of a functioning society.
Most women, sadly, fall into this category. They do this because being solipsistic, a woman cannot imagine passing the death sentence on someone without also imagining themselves as the executioner on some level. While this mode of thinking is acceptable for a man, and should be, it is not true for a woman (because remember, diminished responsibility for those that are less emotionally stable).
Which brings us again to the “right” to vote.
It is NOT a requirement, and should never be, that a woman actually, physically, is the executor of a death sentence. It is an unnatural state for a woman to be one. As it would be for a child. Even if a woman (or precocious child) understands and agrees with a death sentence, the execution of it should never be for them to perform. It is the duty of a man to do so. In fact, one could argue that if a man lacks the mental and emotional stability to execute a death sentence himself, he probably should never be allowed to have a say in it being the punishment that is justified for a specific crime.
The reason I write all of the above and discuss seemingly disparate topics like the death sentence, the introduction of women in the workplace and so on, is because in truth they all are interconnected strands of the social web of civilisation. And as such are indeed the very “material” of which the social sail of civilisation is made and which women very much construct and are a part of.
A good woman recognises that certain crimes absolutely warrant the death penalty, while also being perfectly aware that she is not the one that should push the button that executes the criminal, and as such should have no “vote” on the guilt of the criminal in question. Nevertheless, she absolutely should have the ear of her husband, who may be on the jury and does get to cast said vote.
Similarly, a good woman should have the strength of character, intelligence and imagination to notice how a theoretical nuclear family, difficult as it is in reality to have even under the best of conditions, and so much more so today, is nevertheless preferable and a better way to spend your life than “building a career” and being a cubicle dweller in an office for the next 40 years, even if it means you have to give up on having the latest iphone every year.
Understanding of these concepts comes to women in a different format than it does men. Mostly it is not achieved with pure logic in the case of a woman, but more by a process of a gathering of feelings and emotions and realisations that over time form a cloud of probabilities the overall sum of which comes to the same conclusions that a man’s direct and cold logic may arrive at faster and with simpler explanation.
A woman that is able to see past the lies and illusions of feminism and the entire class of cultural marxism that has thoroughly infiltrated Western Civilisation and all but destroyed it, is a woman that is not only seeing past the lies, but is also in the process of regaining her true power: her femininity.
Never forget that it was the female beauty and femininity of a single woman that launched ten thousand ships and the decade long Trojan war.
A woman’s power is not in trying to be a man, but rather in fully embracing her femaleness.
A woman that does that and also who has the capacity to devote herself loyally to the family she creates with her husband is not only a good woman, she is literally the co-creator of a functional civilisation. And while it absolutely is our duty as men to rebuild, reinstate, and maintain those structures that support, glorify, and sustain such a woman, as well as tear down, destroy and delete all such structures that are actively trying to suppress her, it remains for the woman to first of all make the choice to BE such a woman.
As to how such a woman finds a suitable and worthy man to pair up with and create that nuclear family and thus eventually rebuild a functional, effective, just society, we will cover that next in part seven, although if you are able to piece together the various concepts from this series so far, you should have a pretty decent idea already..
To act in the name of good (which means the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church as far as I am concerned. You, dear reader are unlikely to agree unless you too are a 1958 Sedevacantist, but I understand, I too was a heathen for most of my life).
And acting in the name of good, whether you realise it or not, means permanently removing pedophiles, child killers and rapists from society. And of course also removing permanently all those people who aided and abetted them and hid their crimes. It also means getting rid of fraudsters, con-men and usurers, if not permanently at the very least to place them in such a situation where they are not able to practice their deceptive ways, and where their labour is used to provide compensation to the offended parties.
In short, it means dealing justice to all who deserve it, charity to those who deserve it AFTER justice has been served, and ONLY then, not before. Mercy to those who deserve it but also punishment to those who deserve it too.
The death penalty absolutely needs to come back for certain crimes, that too is non-negotiable. And secret societies of Satanists, that is Freemasons, illuminati, carbonari, skull and crossbones and so in should not only be outlawed, but membership of it should be grounds for receiving the death penalty in fact.
Freemasonry is a Satanic, anti-human, evil thing as is all Satanism.
There are many other social rules that it would be good to impose too, but this post is not primarily about that. Each group or society of people will have certain things most agree need to happen. What I wrote above is generally acceptable to most people, and the only real exception might be those too innocent, or too ignorant and lazy to look into freemasonry properly who assume it’s just a friendly social club.
If they bothered to research things a bit, they too would mostly agree that what might seem as a harsh punishment (death penalty for membership) is in fact quite sensible.
So let me now add the part no one wants to talk about:
If you agree with the above in general terms, then you also need to recognise that NONE of the political alternatives being presented to you currently are based in truth. None.
They are only different shades of lies.
Trump is not going to save anyone nor drain the swamp. And the swamp creatures that are almost certainly pedophiles of the worst sort have just had their homes NOT burn down when every house around them has in fact been lasered from the sky into ash. The trees have not however. Isn’t it amazing how Tom Hanks, Oprah, and such people have not had their home burn down?
Weird trees that don’t catch fire eh?
Do you remember Tom Hank’s face/reaction when Ricky Gervais presented the golden globe awards and accused the entire room of being pedos? It was a very worried face. And there is plenty of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. As for Oprah, she’s been feeding young meat into the machine for decades.
My point is this:
No one is going to get justice by voting for any politician. They ALL need to go. And a lot of them need to be punished for horrific crimes, along with their puppet-masters who are mass-murderers of the worst kind.
No one will get justice other than by creating a literal alternative society that is based in truth above all and has a moral foundation that equates child rape to a death sentence. And preferably not a quick death either.
Even if you are a young atheist and still do not understand this yet —think it through and you might realise it— any moral foundation of that sort has to be rooted in belief in a higher power (i.e. God). Absent a higher authority than man, there is no reason at all, for any morality whatsoever. Nor can you defend there being one. If it’s all just one nihilistic black hole of meaninglessness then, whether one rapes and kills children to satisfy their urges or serves in a soup kitchen is neither here nor there. You may prefer one over the other but there is absolutely no logical reason you can claim one is objectively “better” than the other aside your personal preference; and you have zero objective argument why your preference should be superior to anyone else’s.
So… once you realise every actual functioning society humanity has ever had was based on a religion and its morality, and if you agree with my idea that pedophiles deserve death, as do those who help them, hide them and cover for them, guess what, at removes a couple of world religions from the equation right away, because they have child rape as acceptable in their unholy books: Islam and Judaism.
There may be other views that are at least not pro-child rape, like shintoism, at least some buddhism, or generally zen-agnostic type of views like Taoism or Daioism. But in any case, false versions of any of those religions, that is, people who may pay lip service to them but don’t actually follow them, are really not relevant, which of course means most “christians” too are just another species of lukewarm NPCs.
Which means that the only people who might actually have a chance of changing the world for the better are those of us who:
1. Have a religion that is essentially good which means does NOT include child rape as part of it, or in any way acceptable to it.
2. Actually live their religion.
3. Reject the falsity and evil of the world in favour of their religion.
That is the baseline premise of the people who MIGHT actually change things.
The follow-on from that is that they therefore also need to:
1. Create an alternate society that comes into being, sustains itself, and grows that does not rely in any way on the current ones populating our Satanically dominated planet.
2. Is able to defend itself from the inevitable attacks that the Satanic Clown Worlders will eventually launch.
3. Must become able and willing to remove the evil doers and replace them with both people and systems that better guard the good, freedom, and above all justice based on truth for all, the most defenceless first: i.e. children; and rewards based on merit not fictional ideologies.
Ultimately this means to re-conquer all those positions of power that are currently inhabited by corrupt and evil people who are as allergic to truth and goodness as bacteria is to ammonia and sunlight.
The astute reader may also have realised that of all the world religions, only one clearly states that it is not just a decent thing to do, but the dogmatic duty of a man to defend the innocents.
So. Gentle reader. Guess what?
This means if you plan to serve the good, your very first step, needs to be to stop serving the evil of the machinery we are all currently being trapped by to various degrees.
Vox put up a good post on Putin’s Presidential Q&A. It’s worth reading because it is useful to drive points that should be obvious by now home.
Nothing that is in Vox’s post is news to me, nor has it been for a long time, in fact, far linger than I have known Vox. But his post certainly helped to bring into sharp focus for me something that I have been in essence writing about in one way or another for decades, and it is this: the big picture of things really is quite simple.
There are events from my life that stuck out and are remembered sharply even fifty years later. Many are related to shocking or unusual events but a few are rooted in the very reality we inhabit on this planet. Specifically, I recall how since the age of four to about seven, I tried repeatedly to make sense of the concept of money, and how as a child I simply could not make sense of it at all.
The whole thing seemed absurd and fake to me, and although I eventually did what everyone else does, except I did it at about age seven: give up and assume it must be too complicated for me to grasp. But the truth is precisely the opposite.
The whole concept of fiat money is absurd. It is literally invented out of thin air (and sustained by literally nothing) by a bunch of predatory, and largely also child raping perverts, to enslave humanity. And yes, I know that sounds “unhinged” —especially if you working finance yourself, right? And yet… anyone who takes the time to look into it knows I am simply stating an undeniable fact.
Fiat money has no bearing on logic, reason, justice or fairness of any kind. It is an entirely vicious, evil, and predatory controlling mechanism that we have all somehow been fooled, cajoled, ultimately forces into accepting as “the way things are”, as if it was as normal as needing to drink water and breathe air to live. But it is a complete fiction and absolutely not required to exist at all for anything we have now and indeed more and better things to exist too.
Even without getting into other esoteric concepts for which a blog post is not the place, if we just shifted to a gold standard again, it would be a major improvement.
Which is why anyone who tried it in living memory ends up having their entire country “liberated” by USA carpet bombing, colour revolutions and the death of the guy proposing it as a vicious dictator.
We could even improve on the gold standard too, with my fractionating value of gold concept, which could be related to a generic global population index adjusted yearly. This means the value of gold would fluctuate yearly on the basis of the overall global population. More people and each fraction of gold becomes more valuable. Leas people and it drops in value.
The idea being that the total amount of gold on the planet is eventually finite, and you could say that each human being could on average use say 10 million dollars of value over a lifetime, and if we assume a total of 8 billion people, that would mean the total value of the gold on Earth needs to be 10,000,000 x 8,000,000,000 = 80 quadrillion dollars. The total amount of gold currently mined and excavated on Earth is approximately 200,000 tons, so each gram of gold should have a value of 400,000 dollars. Sounds like a lot? Not really. Many people use up a lot more than 10 million dollars in their lives. And you can always fractionate the gold. So you have various gold deposits (some “banks” that is really a central fort knox type place with extreme security but also total transparency – think live cameras and open book accounting online globally) that stores people’s or even governments gold, and issues digital currency that is measured in micrograms (one microgram would be worth 40 cents in this example).
At any time a person can go to one of the “banks” (really just holding secure places that have no other function) and retrieve whatever weight of gold they are able to (say a minimum of a gram for ease of things). More importantly, anyone has the right to verify each “bank” really has exactly the amount of gold they are issuing digital currency for on each customer’s behalf.
Such a system would also have to instantly do away with usury, which is the favourite weapon of the parasites feeding on the rest of the human race currently.
Anyway…
You see how my thought about money as a four to seven year old was in fact correct, and how with another 20 years or so of life experience, one could easily describe a system that is simple to understand, fair, and would absolutely work.
Yes, I came up with this system by age 26. I never published it officially as I figured doing so at the time in any meaningfully public way might be unhealthy. After all, I am from the generation that saw what happened to the guy who posted the original essay titled Assassination Politics.
And that’s the thing. If you are just able to ignore the lies and reason things out for yourself, all the big political and economic “issues” are childishly simple to understand and correct.
They might be extremely difficult to put in practice, but not because of any intrinsic difficulty beyond the fact that the current pedovores in charge would absolutely murder you and whole nations to prevent so much as the ideas, never mind the implementations of these things.
The other thing that struck me as a seven year old was the concept of indeed free trade and specifically import/export of goods. I still recall out elementary school teacher explaining how export goods were the top quality that we would send out and we would keep the second grade stuff. That didn’t make any sense to me either. Surely if you have an excess of something that other people need you keep the best stuff for YOUR people and send out the next best thing. After all… if the other guys don’t have enough of it they can hardly complain can they?
And by the time I was old enough to know what GDP stood for, I knew that the entire system of economics and accounting was basically the purview of conmen and idiots and idiot-conmen. I briefly took an economics class for university and dropped it after a scant month when it became equally obvious that all accounting is, is a way to mask fraud, theft, lies and deceit. Sure, some people that work in that field are actually honest, I know, I worked in a closely related aspect of it for decades and still do, but the various practices of accounting, while mostly potentially harmless in and of themselves, become intrinsically easy to be made deceptive by someone adept at navigating the system. And it’s not even an injustice in many cases, because more often than not, all a good accountant is trying to do, is fend off the throughly predatory class of vermin that composes government, who live off the work of honest citizens while giving a return for it that would see them executed for fraud, criminal negligence, misappropriation of funds, nepotism and flat out theft in any just society.
See, things really are NOT that complicated. And even the more truly nuanced and deeper aspects of economics can still be thought of carefully and deeply and equitable, fair, honest, and just solutions found.
But that is not what the people who own and run things like the Bank for International Settlement and the Federal Reserve and the various “national” Central Banks, and the IMF want.
Of course not.
They want the chaos, and the barriers to understanding, real, simple, knowledge first of all, then the barriers to entry into their domain of course and above all, the barriers to doing anything at all that might change the status quo where they have infinite supply of that which they create out if thin air, but determines if your child will eat or starve, have access to good medicine based in science or poisons based in the lies they teach their “cattle” (you and yours and me and mine), that is: fiat money.
It’s all a giant, massive lie, spun in a delusion, covered by sophistry, fraudulent math, predatory “legislation”, and deeper down, blackmail, violence, war, and deception at every turn.
So what can you do about it? You can start by regaining as much of your own personal sovereignty as you can, with the aim of becoming able to be independent of fiat money too, ultimately. And this is what I have been writing about in various ways for the last four years at least, but has been a trend for much of my life. Until 2020 though, this was limited to trying to be left alone as I got in with my little life in my corner of the world. That was a mistake many of us made, and it is no linger sustainable.
It’s time to organise and create a new way of life.
You will find the beginning of this in the sticky post at the top labelled The Important Stuff. Click on that read more up there or the link here, and work your way through. At the bottom you also have links to various series that will help you put things in context.
Good luck cowboy. Hope to see you on my side of the fight one day.
This pinned post aims to give both new and old visitors the quick links to the main parts of this site that are most important, and gets updated with any new stuff fairly regularly so it’s a good idea to check it now and then.
I strongly suggest that, women especially, look at this 15 minute video from a woman that has interviewed 1000 women.
Pay attention especially between minutes 5 and 12 or so.
I found it interesting that she said people want other people to convert to their religion (after minute 10). I think she is mostly right. And I also think that the perspective for Sedevacantist is slightly different.
Yes we do want people to see the truth, but I personally do NOT want random people becoming Catholic. I am not aware of any Sede that does either. And when I say Sede I always mean actual Catholics. Because as a matter of dogmatic principle, Catholicism makes it absolutely clear that the only conversion to Catholicism that is valid is one that is entirely voluntary.
Specifically, in order to go from whatever one was, to proper Catholic, inevitably tends to mean a process of rather in-depth study of the history of the Church, the various dogmas of Catholicism when compared to reality as we find it and other beliefs we may have had and so on.
Her final conclusion that marriage only has about a 10% chance of working out is not something I looked into, and she may well be right, nevertheless, I still think that marriage is worth doing. I do agree that women used to stay in marriage in the past due to mostly external factors, and if we take that as the method of measurement then 10% may be optimistically high. But then, I have been saying women need to catch up and evolve some rationality, logic and emotional self-discipline for decades. Those who manage it, and who go on to get married and create numerous families, will be the ones that —along with the men who also evolved beyond mere brute force as the way to control their surrounding— create the next generation of worthwhile humans.
Aside from simply the fact it is the highest form of absolute truth I have yet encountered in human affairs, viewed from an autistic level of objectivity, because I did not start out with any kind of dog in the fight, this is also why real Catholicism makes so much sense. It is based on objective reason that absolutely reflects objective reality, regardless of how we feel about it, and the women in it are amongst the most capable, intelligent and rational I have ever met in my over half-century on this Earth.
And we Catholics certainly don’t shy away from the whole making a bunch of children and sticking with your wife/husband for life while you raise them, and beyond it too.
So, no, I don’t want people to become Catholic for any reason other than the real one: Because it makes sense and model reality accurately and they see and experience that in their own lives.
In the previous Theoretical Models of Society posts (Search for TMOS) parts 1 to 3 and 3a, I covered generally “big picture” concepts, and in part 4, tied together how these apply and what they produce when seen in relation to the individual man. Here we will look at the context of marriage, while keeping all the previous points made in mind.
And for the offended feminists, yes, wait; there will be a part 6, and it will be all about the individual woman. The reason this will be done after this post that focuses on marriage, rather than before it, will become obvious by then. So much so, that astute readers will already have concluded many of the things I will write in Part 6 even before I spell them out.
Let’s get to it then.
The first thing to understand is that the only valid perspective from which to view marriage is the spiritual one from which it originated. As many already know, in modern parlance, this leads to the Catholic perspective. That is, the only valid form of marriage that is genuinely a marriage, has the following attributes:
* It is, and can only be, between ONE man and ONE woman.
* Once validly entered into by both parties’ free will, it is indissoluble and for life. It can only end when one or both parties die.
* Its primary (but not exclusive) purpose is to make children and raise them within a safe, loving, respectful, honest, brave, orderly, pious and kind family.
* The body of one now belongs to the other, and vice-versa.
* You are to treat each other with love and respect in accordance with the analogous relationship between Jesus and His Church (humanity).
* It is a sacrament, that is, a spiritually holy thing, that bonds the man and woman in it before God, as a lifelong promise.
Anything other than the above is simply NOT an actual marriage, regardless of any secular laws made or names it supposedly goes by. People can say that a homosexual “marriage” now exists, but it has the same relationship to reality as me, a 6’2” Venetian saying I am a 4’ Pigmy. Just because you call yourself a flying monkey, doesn’t mean you are one either, tempting as it might be to want to push you off a roof to prove the point with a certain finality.
And for those of you squealing about what a “bigot” I am, because I ignore “marriages” from other religions, no, I am not ignoring them. I am just categorically saying they are of an inferior type of “bond” and do not qualify as being a proper and true marriage. Regardless of if any specific such “marriages” work or are happy or not, the contention is that as a matter of principle, they are merely a set of pagan rules, designed to formalise the general ownership of the woman. Which differs considerably from a Catholic marriage. This will become obvious later in this post as you work your way through the concepts.
But let’s look now, in the context of all the previous TMOS posts, why marriage is as defined above only, and why anything else simply isn’t marriage. After which we will also look at what marriage actually is and what it does, within the larger social context that this series of posts concerns itself with.
The Why
For most of human existence, a few things have always been true, and most still remain true. These are:
* Men are generally physically stronger and thus automatically become the protectors of their individual family unit as well as their greater social tribe (which for many millennia was limited to a few hundred people at most).
* Due to the point above, men necessarily form natural hierarchies between themselves, originally placing the most physically and intellectually powerful, willing, and capable men of leadership at the top of the hierarchy. Lesser capable men, or men with specialised skill would tend to naturally fall into a hierarchy that formed below that, based on various factors, their agreeability, willingness to be in their generally correct place in the hierarchy, relevance of skill to the tribe, and willingness to lead. It is important to understand that willingness to lead, in an actual leader that was lacking capability to do so, would tend to result in either autocratic tyrants, or, “leaders” that would be short lived. And, of course, also both. Autocratic tyrants often tend to be short-lived, after all.
* Because ultimately the ability to en-force rules within the tribe was ultimately limited to men in general, and men capable of organising, and following the hierarchical structure and keep it coherent more specifically, the natural order of things is that those higher in the hierarchy of leadership traditionally most often had their pick of the most attractive and desirable females. And because females are physically weaker, at a practical level, for millennia, they probably had relatively little say in which man they ended up “belonging to”.
Absent other men who cared about her to en-force either her wishes or a good situation for her, she may well have been mostly at the mercy of the greater hierarchy within the tribe. This is relatively easy to understand when you consider that if you were a mid-level man within the tribe wanting to get together with the daughter of the tribe chief, who also has various lieutenants loyal to him ready to bash the head of anyone that doesn’t fall in line with the chief’s wishes, your approach to that would be vastly different than if you wanted to approach orphan Annie who has no brothers. And again different if orphan Annie also captured the eye of the chief rather than the eye of just another mid-level male or perhaps even a lower-level male in the tribe.
* Because of the above, women, while not usually able to en-force their wishes physically, nevertheless found ways to influence outcomes. Mostly by using their feminine charms to influence some man, to do her bidding (if the chief who forced himself on her as her husband/owner really repels her, she may try to suggest to one of the more appealing lieutenants that he should be rightful chief… and he could be… if only he got rid of the chief…). Similarly, by being able to influence other women, she could potentially influence a bunch of men. If she managed to be seen as the most influential woman in the tribe by the other women, those other women would all be both simultaneously trying to be in her “good books” while also becoming as influential as possible themselves in order to replace her.
This explains why women will quite effortlessly compliment each other when face to face, even if they hate each other’s guts, while subtly undermining them behind their back.
It may not be a very flattering analogy, but if you think of men as people who generally speaking respond to efficiency, you can see how that hierarchy would tend to form and what it would look like. While a female hierarchy would tend to resemble more what a gaggle of thieves may organise themselves as. Sure… the thief that is most successful at gathering “ill gotten goods” (usually by being the consort of whoever is the wealthiest man in the tribe) may generally be thought of as the “leader” of the thieves, but it is an ever-shifting and temporary status as easily lost as the attention of that same wealthiest man in the tribe may shift from the current thief leader, to a potentially more attractive or better manipulator-level thief. And as the saying goes: There is no honour among thieves.
Now that we have a better understanding of the general pressures of society on both men and women, it should be obvious that in each case, biology dictates the situation. And so far we only really looked at the ability to enforce one’s wishes, which for many millennia essentially relied mostly on the physical strength of a man do do so, and then on the cohesion and organisational ability of groups of men to do so.
This being the most important thing in human affairs. That is, the ability to project your force into the world so as to shape it to your desires. For most of mankind’s existence this has hinged on the physical attributes of brute strength first, and ability to organise in coherent and durable hierarchies second. Over time this second ability became superior to the individual and formed the basis of society in general. Whatever rules the people most capable of organising the force-projection of men as a whole wanted to have, became the laws of the land.
Of course, if these rules were too harsh, or, conversely, too weak, other men, just as capable of leadership, could organise and plan a take-over of the leadership and power-projection structures.
It is little wonder then, that in these larger contexts, the role of women was relegated in many cases to the level of possession. Prized and cared for possessions in the best of cases, but still, in general terms, possessions.
Nor, despite the squeals of the fat, ugly, and unpleasant women, was this really necessarily a bad thing for women. If you were a prize worth having and the envy of the other men and women in the tribe, being treated well by the most capable man was generally speaking not a bad deal. As his woman you had more influence in the tribe than pretty much anyone else except the man that “owned” you, and your children with him too would be safe and well cared for. This also explains why women, in general, can more easily hop from one king’s bed, to the bed of the next guy who killed that particular king. Or at least do so with less trouble than most men would prefer, or feel comfortable contemplating.
Over millennia of such genetic selection for reproduction, women would tend to be most attracted to a man’s qualities that marked him as a potentially capable leader of men and protector of her and her offspring, than his specific looks.
While from a man’s perspective, the most physically attractive woman would tend to be the most desirable, because, generally speaking, unless her personality was especially toxic, she was bound to usually fall in line with whatever the man wanted or said. Her specific personality was less important. It would generally affect the man’s life usually less significantly than a man’s personality might affect a woman’s.
All of the above stems primarily and simply from one biological attribute above all others: the ability to project force effectively; and thus impose one’s will on others, and, simultaneously, preventing others from forcing their will upon you.
This, in essence, is the ability which shapes the hierarchies of men and the behaviour of women more than any other biological aspect of humanity.
One other important factor to keep in mind is also that women are always absolutely certain that any baby they give birth to is certainly theirs; even if the paternity might be dubious, depending on how easily she gave access to her womb to multiple men within a short span of time.
Which brings us to the next point of biology.
Because maternity is always certain, but paternity is not, for the longest time, because a woman could essentially be forced into sex by most men who had unfettered access to her, that act, of forcing yourself on a woman, was seen in generally homicidal tendency by any man that was responsible for her, be it her husband/owner or her father or say brothers (who generally can be assumed wanted to preserve her chastity in order to give her the best opportunity to pair with a man capable of protecting her and caring well for her).
That all said, a woman that was unhappy with her husband/owner, prey to her own wishes and desires, may well “stray” with a man that she was more attracted to if the opportunity presented itself, but only in secret, because the alternative could result in her own punishment, ostracism or even death, alongside that of the man in question.
So once again, this too, only reinforces the overall general sense that women were to a certain extent, possessions that were to be provided for and protected from other men; especially if you wanted to be sure that any children that came out of her were actually yours.
Run this subroutine for a couple million years and you get the concepts of honour (which is ultimately linked to effectiveness) of men, and the sneakiness of women (do what you must to survive and/or get your way).
Which is why ultimately it is foolish for a man to expect a woman to subscribe to the same concept of “honour” a man does.
Honour for a man means you keep your word even if your life depends on it.
Honour for a woman may be at most limited to ensuring your children are actually yours if she actually loves you, (as men are most likely to understand love anyway, which is rather different than how women may process it) regardless of what other indiscretions she may have got up to. But most times her concept of “honour” would be limited to ensuring she does whatever she thinks will provide her and her children with the best possible situation in terms of resources, comfort and status.
Right then, so, after all that… why marriage?
Because it was a public way to ensure everyone knew what was what.
If everyone knows that Jane belongs to Tarzan, any other monkey that comes sniffing around Jane will get their head bashed in by Tarzan, and everyone will know why, and accept that’s how things go.
And of course, back in the day, if Tarzan was actually Genghis Khan, he could have as many “wives” or “property” as he was able to keep as “his” and guard them from other men sneakily introducing their DNA in his family line.
This explains pretty much ALL the various forms of rituals that were invented to “solidify” this ownership of the woman by a specific man. Whether it was Islam’s multiple wife culture, Hindu marriage, Ancient Roman marriage, where the man had power of life and death over his wife and children, or any number of other systems, the purpose was essentially always the same, and not too different from the basics of property rights.
For all versions except one.
Enter Catholicism
That was how humanity, across pretty much all cultures and beliefs did things, until the Catholic Church came about, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself upon this Earth.
Now, the model of relations between Jesus Christ and Humanity (represented by the Church), gave a very different perspective on the situation that had existed between men and women since sabre-tooth tigers. And that was this:
Jesus was the indisputable leader of mankind and to be obeyed, yet, He also sacrificed Himself totally for us. And this model suggested the model of marriage that actually produced the most productive, fair, capable, and beautiful societies that have ever existed in the entire history of the human race. Why?
Because while not denying or ignoring ANY of the biological realities human males and females are both subjected to, Catholicism introduced the True and Loving approach to the pairing of men and women.
Go back to the start and notice what I had up there as the defining characteristics of marriage.
See that part there that says it’s only valid if entered into by the free will of all parties concerned? That’s a pretty big deal for humanity when you consider the 2 million years prior.
So, right away, Catholicism gave women the freedom and agency to be able to choose their husbands. Furthermore, it defined marriage as having specific duties for both sides, as well as an overall purpose.
The overall purpose was the creation and raising of children in order to create a nuclear family, as, again, identified right at the start of this long post. Of course, not all couples can have children, due to whatever unfortunate medical or physical condition, so although this was the primary purpose, a secondary and also important point was lifelong companionship, love and intimacy. However, the very fact that it is for ONE woman and ONE man, for life and for creating children, elevated the position of women from basically possessions to people with agency that once married had to be looked after and cared for life, as well as all the children she made with you. It is absolutely revolutionary in terms of how things had always been (and will go there agin absent Catholicism).Yur108s
In order to uphold this purpose, it is only logical and reasonable that both the husband and wife, by entering marriage of their own free will, are also taking on some specific and irrevocable duties specific to marriage.
Both have the duties of:
* Remaining in the marriage for the rest of their life.
* Forsaking all others for the purposes of sexual, romantic and emotional intimacy related to it.
* Gifting their physical body for physical use sexually to the other, and thus, not be able to refuse sex to each other. This ensuring neither party is subject to sexual frustration.
* Not abuse of the gift of the other’s body by pretending to use it sexually when the other is ill, or there is a valid reason not to, including possible spiritual ones, but in any case, this is not a condition that should exist beyond a temporary time. “Not feeling like it” is not in itself a valid reason for either side. If there is an issue, the duty for both is to face it, address it together, including by prayer and basically to help each other through whatever the issue is and return to being able to have sexual access to each other’s bodies at will. This point is important because it fosters balance and kindness in that neither a general unspecified reluctance to engage sexually, nor an unreasonable request for it if one party is injured, ill or otherwise indisposed, is considered the norm or acceptable. The norm is perpetual and easy sexual access at all times that it is generally possible, and comprehension and discussion with a view to resolving any issue that from time to time may arise that impedes that, for what should in any case only be a temporary period required to resolve the issue.
* Raising their children within the same set of rules that their marriage is based on; that is, the Catholic faith. And since this is the primary purpose of marriage, not use contraceptive methods that would impede reproduction and thus make the sex act not a creative one, but essentially a masturbatory or intentionally sterile one, which ultimately promotes lust, or hedonistic selfish pleasure, at the expense of life and duty to it.
* Remain faithful to each other and the Catholic faith regardless of whatever unfortunate event, tragedy or circumstance befalls either or both of them.
* Present a united front against all enemies “foreign and domestic” so, both against people and events outside the family, as well as people and events within it, be they relatives or even the children. As a marriage is said to form “one flesh” it makes sense that a such a “body” cannot be in conflict with itself, and especially not when facing outside challenges or pressures.
Furthermore, each sex has specific duties that apply only to them. The main ones tend to be as follows:
For men (husbands)
* To provide and protect for their families and especially their wives and children.
* To lead their wife and children theologically and generally in life, not in what best suits the man specifically, but rather, what is in line with Catholic teaching and also best suits his family as a whole. The benefit to his wife, children, and family as a whole takes precedence over his own desires, well-being, or even survival. Of course, this principle being followed also means that in general terms, excepting some drastic circumstance, his continued survival and existence, as well as a general well-being is important too, because his absence, or continued lack of basic care, would ultimately impact on his duty of caring and leading his family in accordance with this principle.
* To love and cherish his wife, and in so doing, a woman, well led, well cared for, Catholic in belief, becomes her best self and becomes generally more loving, kind, selfless and less prone to sinning (behaving in ways that undermine the marriage and life in general too).
* To protect, including by pre-emptive action, as much as possible, the weak or innocent from predation, injustice, and evil actions in general. While this applies generally as a Catholic man not just within marriage but as a whole, it is worth mentioning here too. Because it is a quality expected of all Catholic men at all times, and as such must exist within a marriage, as it is also a sign of the quality of man and thus leader of a household that a man should aspire to be. It’s absence in general terms can be seen as a red flag prior to entering into marriage with such a man.
For Women (Wives)
* To obey their husbands as men obey God.
This point alone sends feminists into an incandescent rage, and because secular degeneracy permeates everything today, even a good portion of women that say they are not feminists, and even supposedly “religious” and “christian” women. So it deserves a little explanation. The relationship between a husband and wife is parallel to, or analogous to, that between Jesus Christ and humanity. Through love of us, flawed humans, He sacrificed Himself even as He attempted to teach and save us when alive. Similarly, a man that is acting correctly, is sacrificing himself and his desires daily for his wife and family. A woman, because she is biologically far less capable of being as “altruistic” as men (as we have seen in the previous explanations above) are prone to acting based on their emotions and solipsistic desires, instead of the greater good of their children and husband, that is, their immediate family, much less of the greater community or humanity at large.
You may feel this is unfair or not true, but the reality borne out by the facts is overwhelming. Which is why we now have tons and tons and tons of data that prove without doubt that women are less capable and nurturing than men even at what many assume is their best ability: raising children.
Single parent households of single mothers have children that are far more prone to delinquency, using drugs, having teen pregnancies, be subjected to abuse by their own mother (than by their father in single parent homes were the children are raised by the father alone), including more likely to be killed by their mother than by their father in single parent households, be more prone to be sexually abused by strangers, have generally lower academic results, less well-paying jobs, are more prone to suicide, and mental illness, and are more likely to become divorced themselves later in life. This could not be the case if women actually were more nurturing and generally better at raising children than men are. Similarly, even if the commonly accepted narrative is that men are more violent, this too does not bear out when it comes to domestic violence. The highest incidence of domestic violence is between lesbian couples, and the lowest between gay male couples.
The point here therefore is not that men are perfect (godly), and women are incorrigible trash that should just shut up and do as they are told; but rather, that since it is simply a fact that men are generally, objectively, and empirically, better than women at making long term decisions that affect their entire families, women should simply accept this and try their best to support the decisions their husband makes without being a nagging shrew that makes every choice a tribulation and strife the man needs to overcome before any useful action can be taken.
A simpler way to explain it is that on a ship, including a relation-ship, there can only be one captain, and when all is said and done, his word is law.
While the executive officer (XO) first in command after the captain, can chime in (usually only and specifically if asked, bar rare exceptions when the XO may make a welcome positive addition or respectfully make an observation the captain may have missed) they do so respectfully, carefully, and only after first having given due and proper consideration to the captain’s orders, which 99 times out of a hundred need absolutely zero input from the XO, because the captain is aware and considering usually more things that the XO is even aware exist, never mind has noticed.
Lastly, on this point, it is not perfection that is expected; for, just like men fail daily to obey God and be perfect husbands in all things, so will women fail at being perfect wives, but the point is to genuinely strive to be the best you can be and also to gradually improve at least a little day by day.
* To love and cherish her husband. So, be kind, loving, loyal and affectionate as well as respectful to their husband. In this way, just as a man makes a woman want to express her best self through his loving protection, providence and guidance, so a woman makes a man want to be his best self for the woman that treats him respectfully and lovingly. This is generally what is meant by a husband or wife “sanctifying” the other. In more secular terminology, treat a woman properly (while never permitting your authority to be questioned, it needs to be said) and she blooms, and similarly, a woman that treats a man properly will see him move mountains for her.
* To raise the children in accordance with the general rules set down by the husband, while also allowing herself to be somewhat of a buffer between the children and their father, since necessarily his rules need to be generally enforced more strictly than her rules, as a husband’s rules are for the most part to safeguard his family from all the dangers posed by those people and events outside of the family home, and thus more important to follow. While the rules of a mother tend to be for the general smooth and pleasant running of the home within the family, thus more geared for a harmonious home than outright survival, or at least things that can impact the whole family in very serious ways.
Now that we have seen both the why of marriages came about, and also the details and differences of how pagan “marriages” work, in their infinite manifestations, when compared to a Catholic marriage, and have far better understanding of what a Catholic marriage looks like in its specific internal dynamics, we are finally ready to understand the larger concept of what a Catholic marriage is and does in larger society.
I need to, once again, remind you and be clear that when I refer to a marriage, I really mean, specifically and only a Catholic Marriage. Because every other perversion of the concept, be it some pagan version from some heathen religion, or worse, a heretic one like Protestantism or even a schismatic one like Eastern Orthodoxy, not to even mention the absolute abominations of the concepts that homosexual “marriages” represent, they all, without exception, fall short of the primary purpose of the existence of marriage in the first place, and secondly, fall far short of the ideal relationship within marriage.
They fail at its primary purpose (making and raising children to form a nuclear family) because:
* We can immediately exclude all homosexual partnerships since they are biologically incapable of it.
* Secondly, we can immediately exclude all relationships where reproduction is artificially prevented, since it is clear that if the very purpose of marriage is being prevented intentionally from happening, then the real purpose of that “marriage” is something else (usually hedonistic pleasure).
* Thirdly, we can exclude all those “marriages” where the possibility of leaving the partnership is not absolutely excluded, since this means that there is no intentionality to remain a coherent family unit for the purpose of raising children as well as mutual growth and companionship until the end of life. And we can also surmise that any relationship where this is not a definite pre-requisite for entering into the relationship in the first place, is likely to make the choice of being in such a relationship quite light-heartedly and not very seriously. After all, if it doesn’t work out you can just bail out and try again. More the recipe for buying an inexpensive household appliance than selecting a life-partner.
On the above basis alone, we are left with very few possibilities, since only the (real i.e. Sedevacantist) Catholic Church still and always, insists in marriage being indissoluble other than by death.
But even if we were to find some sect, or a pair of individuals that whilst not Catholic still subscribed to the other three basic components identified above, we still have the issue that their children would be unlikely to follow in their parents’ footsteps in this regard, since they do not have 2,000 years of tradition, but more importantly, empirical evidence, that this way of doing things produces the absolute best societies that humanity has ever been able to create throughout its total existence.
And that aside, we are also left with the absence of the duties being specifically different for men than for women in the marriage.
In short, only a Catholic marriage fulfils all the above parameters and in doing so creates a whole that is demonstrably more than the sum of its parts.
The situation is fractal and the good present at the smallest scale, that is, the individual Catholic man or Catholic woman (yes, I know, the post on the individual woman will be next), is magnified within a marriage of a Catholic man and woman that go on to create Catholic children. And the good that such a Catholic family exhibits internally, is once again magnified when taken in the context of many such families forming a Catholic community.
The works that Catholics have done in the ages are unparalleled by any other religion.
Catholic monks literally invented the scientific method. They had much to do with astronomy, math and science in all its forms in general, especially natural science.
The works of intellectual reasoning of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and the other illustrious doctors of the Church are a testament to both science (logic) and art (the beauty of the truth they expose is undeniable as it is in a sunset, a dawn, or a flower). The increase in justice that was brought to human beings in general, both by the new relation that men had with women as well as each other, resulted in the abolition of slavery and the treating of women and children almost entirely as property.
The communal aspects of Catholicism, while never being so overbearing to squash individual expression, nevertheless fostered the virtues that dogmatic Catholicism espouses, namely the four cardinal virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Courage, which if applied daily produce a society of people that act prudently, calmly, honestly and bravely, and the three theological virtues, of Faith, Hope and Charity, which as the overarching zeitgeist of a community or people, produce pious, hopeful (so generally optimistic and positive) people that are generous and kind.
It is not hard to see why within Catholic communities crime is practically non-existent, especially when you consider that Catholicism also rejects the dogmatic seven sins: Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Wrath, Envy, and Greed.
There are also less pivotal but still important virtues and sins that are also promoted or rejected, such as beauty in the positive sense, or gossip in the negative, respectively.
The overall result is that communities made up of people in Catholic marriages are genuine societies where people generally and naturally help each other and look after one another, despite all the usual human flaws we are all subject to.
A last important point I would very much like you to note, especially if you got this far and yet harbour the idea on some level that all this post is, is really just a contrived strategy to make Catholicism appear as better than it really is, I would like you to please re-read this, and note a few things:
1. I merely presented the objective facts of the case from first principles. You are free to present alternative answers that satisfy all the effects of a Catholic marriage. Provide examples of your theory that we can see having produced that very result you hypothesise for two millennia. (Pro-Tip: You can’t.)
2. While it is true that absent belief in God and His Trinity means it doesn’t necessarily follow that one would reach the same conclusions of Catholic Marriage, if you bother to run the thought experiment in the other direction, that is, trying to see what purely secular values would come up with, and on what basis their foundation would rest (realise that “oh well people just are generally good, so they would all agree to do X” is nonsense and is actually resting on the ruins of degraded Catholicism, and nothing else), you will find that we would reach the current, Rome in its last gasps, or Weimar Germany with its sex shows of transexuals peeing on people’s faces in the cabarets, pretty sharpish. Alternatively, if you try to envision a secular society that would stick to the same morals that Catholic marriage espouses, you will find it impossible to have a reason why they should, if not for the very real and deep belief in God and Catholic Dogma and all that goes with it.
3. Regardless of your personal belief system, which is unlikely to be Sedevacantist Catholic, the simple reality is that if a model produces good results, it is best to use it; at least until you find a better model that consistently produces better and reproducible results.
And if you remove your personal emotions from the equation, you will find it pretty much impossible to find a system that produces equivalent results, never mind better ones than Catholic marriage and Catholicism in general.
I can say that with confidence because I did not start out as a Catholic, and I have exceedingly good powers of objective reality observation that are far above the normal average. In fact I started out with the view that Catholicism must be one of the worst possible models (mostly due to being fooled —as most are— into the belief that the Novus Orco Vatican II heresy is actually Catholicism, instead of what it really is: Satanism with a Catholic mask on). It was only by purely objective measures that I concluded Catholicism as a model of reality was superior; and eventually actual Catholicism, that is, pre-Vatican II and all its heresies and heretics.
On that last point, the only even remotely passable society I considered at least palatable was the one prevalent in Feudal Japan, but even then, it was hardly fair, just, or particularly humane. The main attraction point was that if you were lucky enough to be of the samurai caste, you did at least have the option of behaving in a way that could uphold justice, even if at the cost of your life in many cases. It certainly does not even begin to be equivalent to a Catholic society, but it would at least be generally tolerable to me, given that I am essentially quite able to deal with direct confrontation quite comfortably. But even so, feudal Japan’s social rules have long ago been eclipsed, and going around slicing people’s heads off for rude behaviour is somewhat frowned upon in our day and age, so it’s not as if it was a viable alternative anyway.
Conclusions
We can see that “marriage” in all its various forms was mostly a way to retain control of a man’s lineage and progeny by identifying a specific woman (or women in the case of certain societies) as being his exclusive property.
This state of affairs is inevitable given men have a monopoly on the use of force when compared to women.
The modernisation of treating women as human beings to be cherished, loved and protected, and married and committed to for life (and only one of them at the time) is relatively new and the sole province of Catholicism. The fact it was later “adopted” by corrupted versions of Catholicism (Churchianity in all its legions of names) does not change the fact that it is an institution first created by Catholicism.
Catholicism does not ignore any of the biological realities of male and female bodies, roles and psychologies, but allows both to support, complement, and take care of each other each according to their abilities and specific duties, all within a greater context that permits good flexibility in the individual specifics of each marriage or individuals involved.
Such a marriage leads to coherent and positive communities that in turn create great advances in art, science, architecture, technology and really every endeavour of mankind; but all within a context of loving beauty and hopeful positivity. No other system of pairing of people produces this effect to anywhere near the same level of positive outcome.
Therefore, unless you wish to be in an actual marriage, with all its benefits and also all required duties, there is absolutely no need for you to ever enter into one of the pretend “marriages” that people indulge in, be it civil (government approved) contracts, pagan “marriages”, or worse of all, brutalist perversions of actual marriage, such as those performed by the fully heretical Protestant endless denominations that allow (and have no authority to deny) all sorts of degeneracy and destruction, such as divorce, abortion, contraception, gay “marriages” and so on.
As a man, given the current climate of secular society, why would you ever enter into a contract that can be broken at any time for any or even no reason whatsoever, while almost certainly ensuring you lose access to your children and also have to give half of all your created assets and wealth to the now divorced ex-wife?
And as a woman, why would you ever commit to care for a household and raise the children of a man that may abandon you as soon as you get too many wrinkles and his younger and sluttier secretary flashes a bit of leg at him after you gave decades of your life to your family only to be cast aside?
Quite simply, there is no valid reason why people who are secular should ever enter into a “marriage”. Doing so is really just a cargo cultist action. Following through with an action whose purposes and realities you understand not any better than aborigines in the pacific did that building an effige of a plane would not bring them containers full of goods either.
Marriage is only required of people who are interested in building civilisation, instead of dancing with abandon on its rotting corpse.
It is a serious and lifelong commitment with no way out; done with a clear understanding of all it entails, not simply because you really like and have great sex with the girl or guy in question.
And since only Catholics envisioned marriage in a way that was both functional and effective for humanity at every level, be it individual, family, or community level, but is also loving, made only by the free will of the participants, and is held as sacred in their most core and fundamental belief system they have: Catholic Christianity, it makes sense that you should enter into marriage only if it is an actual marriage.
In short, if you want to be married, you really should become a proper Catholic first.
and not to put too fine a point on it, we both agree it is ultimately demonic and cannot result in anything good.
The reason is simple.
Axiom 1: All Humans are flawed.
Axiom 2: Only the creator behind reality is a truly loving force (i.e. God, but the reality of intelligence behind creation is essentially provable now, so don’t let the word God with whatever negative associations it may have for you hamper you from being able to follow the reasoning).
Axiom 3: Humans are the only and necessary link between the loving intelligence of the creator and AI driven machines and software.
Given the above three facts, the only possible conclusion is that the inevitable iterations of Artificial Intelligence will increasingly be more and more flawed from the perspective of a Loving Creator. And thus descend into the very opposite of a Loving Creator, which is essentially a demonic outcome.
And it will do so at a super-efficient speed and efficacy. In short, the deleterious effects on humanity will rapidly accelerate.
We can already see this to a certain extent with AI replacing people in various industries:
Translation, art generation, mathematical calculations, even complex hard science problems of engineering, medicine and so on.
The future looks bleak and if you don’t want to take my word for it, take a look at this short video, it really is worth it (but don’t lose hope and read my take after the video).
As I said in the discussion with Tony, AI has been able to duplicate video for years already. It’s just now to the point that you and I will soon be able to do it from our own computers too.
So what can we do about it? The way I see it there are a few things that are working in our favour.
1. Resources are finite
Yes, a potential army of self-replicating terminators that can independently build bioweapons and deploy them globally could wipe us out, but… we are not yet there, and the resources required to create fully independent robots that can build all the required infrastructure to keep themselves repaired, going, and building up more of the weaponised drones and automated weapon posts and so on eventually requires huge power requirements. It’s just not sustainable at the current commonly understood level of power generation.
Counter: Anti-G tech is real and AI could develop it and since Anti-G tech is related to accessing zero point vacuum fluctuations, it could hypothetically create near infinite power generation.
Counter-Counter: Even so, the physical material is limited, and the autonomy required to build all the related infrastructure to monopolise access to it is still very large in scale, so not happening in the next few years at least.
2. Unintended Consequences of Evil
Ultimately the most efficient way to wipe out humanity is not with robot armies but biologically engineered contagious pathogens.
In fact, there is already ample evidence that the COVID mass-murder event orchestrated by the usual suspects and their ever-obedient puppets was already using certain genetic markers to be most deadly on humans with certain genetic traits (Vikings to be dramatic) and far less deadly on other people with different genetic markers (Ashkenazi Jews).
And if the more recent evidence that the nanobots in the serums are self replicating, and the spike-protein generating mutants that injected themselves with the genetic serum of the vaxx also continue to produce and shed the same spike-protein, then we may already be in the early stages of a human-guided AI take-over.
If that’s the case, we can at least reliably know that there will be unexpected consequences for those people who put this whole thing in motion.
Which is essentially that their stupid, arrogant, and small-minded, short-term, materialist way of thinking inevitably means they too will be wiped out by their own creations.
It’s cold comfort, but it’s something. Which tends to lead me think that there is also going to be some “fix” available. Recent examples have been how military robots were defeated by humans in various tests by really high-tech and difficult things like placing themselves in cardboard boxes and advancing on them a little at the time until they could be in close quarters with the robot. The machine did not perceive them as dangerous because they didn’t look like humans. In a series of tests, this was just one of the ways in which humans could fool the machines.
A recent video/report by quinta columna also indicated that a solution of distilled water and nicotine apparently wipes out the nanobots and may also be efficient against the spike protein, as was alcohol and smoking.
The point here being that the mass-murdering sons of bitches that are orchestrating all this are far from being geniuses.
What they have are infinite resources based on fiat money, because they have orchestrated the planet so that fiat money has become an effective substitute for power acquisition, and they also orchestrated it (especially over about the last 200 years or so, mainly as the Rothschilds family trajectory shows) so that they are also able to literally create the same fiat money out of thin air at will, while you and I have to trade our lifetimes (and for some their souls too) just to accumulate enough of it not to starve. So yes, they have that undeniable source of power acquisition and projection, which is absolutely massive, BUT, they have very little in the sense of imagination and intelligence.
Ultimately these people are evil, and for reasons that are obvious to someone NOT evil, but that are absolutely opaque to actual evil people, evil cannot genuinely create. It can only corrupt or destroy.
This is a very important point that can be demonstrated fairly easily by pure logic, absent the belief in any supernatural entities, at least to a point.
That is, eventually the logic inevitably leads you to the concept of supernatural entities because that is the only way the logic, including logic itself, can even exist. The very baseline concept of good and evil itself is meaningless absent an intelligent and benevolent creator. In short, the very fact good and evil actually exist for you at all, is undeniable evidence that a Loving God is the creator (think it through, it really is a logically inescapable fact, even if you may not see it right away. Seriously… think it through, this post is not going away anytime soon, it’ll wait.)
Which is why ultimately faith is more important (and powerful) than knowledge, and why millions of illiterate peasants throughout the ages, have always known better than the wealthy, nominally intelligent, educated, but evil scum that has tried to rule over them throughout the centuries.
As an aside, in times past, being wealthy was not necessarily as closely or likely to mean the individual was as corrupt as it is likely they are today (evil has accelerated and consolidated its position, as inevitably it must, hence, again, the so-called eventual End Times bottleneck).
Bringing all this together in a short summary then:
This combination of the stupidity, arrogance and blindness of evil, coupled with its inability to generate, create or grow anything self-sustaining and viable long-term, leads to two factors:
1. Unintended consequences that indicate a way out of their nefarious plans.
2. Ultimately a collapse of their structure/position/power-base. This may not always be total (evil too is a fundamental property of reality, so while it cannot generate the so-called tower of Babel successfully, some critters beholden to evil will always escape its collapse and go on to try again more or less quickly after the crash).
So in this respect there is always some way out and as such some hope.
3. Some humans somewhere may be able to pull the plug.
Usually not the guy you hope or think. Trump is not going to save us from the WEF mass murderers any more than he will save any Gazan children being torn to shred by the American bombs supplied to genocidal Israel for the same purpose of mass murder.
Elon Musk is not suddenly going to have a change of heart and fight the global alliance of globohomo that put him in place, not even if his son became a tranny as a result of it. I mean, miracles do happen, but miracles require miraculous evidence, and so far there is none.
On the other hand, God has a sense of humour and loves using the most unlikely of people for His purposes (of turning even conscious evil, ultimately, to good in some way). I mean, I am a perfect example of that. Of all the people He could get to become a Catholic zealot pushing original Catholicism (which I remind you is only found in Sedevacantism) instead of some hedonistic take on life, the universe and everything, I was about as unlikely a choice as any.
So, it may well be that some jabbed janitor coughs on the latest dish at the next Davos conference and all the mass-murderers present die of turbo-ebola-ass-cancer within the month (hey, miracles of unexpected joy, happen, you just keep praying along with me, right?!).
Or some other unexpected and unthought of black swan event suddenly becomes a tipping point. Say if spontaneously, something in the human spirit snapped and every father affected by the muslim rape gangs in England suddenly decided that regime change was required in the UK, well… the entire government, armed forces and police would be swept away in 24 hours.
This last hypothetical however seems unlikely (but you never know) here is why:
Part of the reason that the COVID mass murder was enacted, was also so that they could deploy the mass-control technology.
It has been known since the 1990s that human emotions at the very least can be controlled by a variety of EM fields and waves. Today that level of specific mental control is undoubtedly higher.
And we now know with certainty that the 5G antennae deployed globally absolutely can direct EM energy in ways that is essentially weapon grade level stuff. So maybe all the fathers of abused children in the UK are not even able to reach a tipping point anymore if their bloodstream and brains are teeming with nanobots and spike proteins that are receptive to whatever the 5G antennae is able to make them feel or not feel.
But then it will be something else.
Like, for example, maintenance and sustainability.
Think about it. Ok, the Soros, Klaus Schwabs, Zuckebergers, Bill Gates of the world have it all figured out and enslaved all of us and have a supply of small children to satisfy their proclivities, but… who is going to maintain and upkeep their infrastructure?
None of these people are themselves capable of changing a car tire, much less build or maintain (and I also think really intellectually understand) the required infrastructure to keep their pedovore utopia going. They really are not geniuses. They are mostly useless parasites with infinite money.
They have to rely on actual functioning human beings to keep this stuff running, and while you can corrupt a lot of them to do your bidding, you inevitably run into the degradation problem.
Evil cannot create. Eventually corrupting the maintainers will produce diminishing results as they too shift from starry eyed scientist glad their pet project is funded to disillusioned automatons who realises they are actually perpetrating and producing the total evil that destroys anything worth living for. The realisation is usually very slow and gradual, but it exists, and the outcome is always only one of two things: conversion to fully and consciously evil – which we already know is not sustainable long term because logic (and/or God if you prefer and can’t see the logic yourself) or self-disgust so great it prompts collapse or occasionally even total conversion (which effectively produces a monkey-wrench in the globohomo machine).
Conclusions
There are a few simple conclusions we can summarise from all of the above, and they are:
1. Fiat money is their primary lever of control.
2. Propaganda is their secondary lever of control.
3. Force is their tertiary lever of control.
4. Cohesive, logical, capable, communities immune to the above are their greatest threat, and always have been. This is why for centuries, their primary aim has been the Catholic Church (now reduced only to Sedevacantist Communities): Consider:
* Catholic communities quickly become self-sufficient (immune to Fiat money)
* Catholic communities are 100% immune to globohomo propaganda
* In times past Catholic communities could defend themselves well even against mass invasion by larger enemy forces like Islam.
The only barrier we have to reclaiming our freedom is the nihilism and loss of hope and inability to functionally do logic anymore in the vast majority of the populace (at least to a higher degree than it was until relatively recently).
So: Spreading proper Catholicism (i.e. actual Christianity instead of one of its fake, Churchian versions) and creating communities of Sedevacantists is really the quickest and simplest solution, and all we need worry about in the short term is the weaponisation of legislation and economic sanctions that are being levelled against us all but for the moment can’t necessarily (yet) target us Sedes specifically.
So… build those communities ASAP right now.
Guard against infiltration far more than you presently need to worry about force being applied on you. Select rural places out of the way, get involved with local government and begin to shore up the general defences against bureaucracy first. You don’t need to worry about direct force for a while yet. It will come but it will be some years yet.
Of course… if you are one of the zombies already prey to the centuries long propaganda, you will simply dismiss all the logic and verifiable information above and assume I am just another deluded “religionist”. And if that’s who you are, that’s ok. We don’t need you.
Catholicism started with eleven frightened men and four women. And we overcame the wrath of the then most powerful empire humanity has ever seen.
It’s just another day/era/persecution-time.
We’ve been here before. We’ll be here again.
And the Gates of Hell will not withstand against us.
Bear with me, because the introduction to this one takes a little while, but is absolutely necessary in order for us to understand each other properly. I think you will agree, especially if you are not Catholic; as —perhaps to your surprise— this post is nevertheless for you too.
As usual, the Intro:
This is the fourth in the Theoretical Models of Society series of Posts. Use the category of the same name or the Search Me function on the right-hand sidebar to find all related posts in the series.
It is generally helpful to a reader if they are already familiar with some of my other work, in order for this stuff to have the most useful effect on your life. In particular, The Face on Mars and Believe! would be the top reads to have done to have the generic global perspective of reality well in hand. Systema and Reclaiming the Catholic Church would have the most impact on a more personal level. On health/security/self-protection, and on the reality of Catholicism as it was (and remains with Sedevacantists) before Vatican II and why the Novus Ordo Church is not only not Catholic, but Satanic at its core. I will repeat this little paragraph on each new part, as I think it is important to have a general foundation if one is really interested in more than skim-reading before returning to the general slumber we are all being attempted to be forced into.
In writing this ongoing series, despite the fact it was the most requested among the choices I gave on the Poll, the fact is that it is at times hard to determine if it is having the intended useful effect.
Of the people who read this blog regularly, only a fraction will reply to polls, and of that, possibly a part will be hate-readers trying to skew the stats.
That said, I received a private message that made it clear that at least one person, and a very good person at that, is finding it useful. Among a busy life, a relatively recent marriage and a new son, he is also busy trying to form a Sede community in a place where there isn’t even a proper Catholic Church. Sounds crazy? Well he is not, and amazingly, he is already having some material success, grouping the few Sedes and making them achieve a first contact with each other. Meaning he is becoming successful at creating one of those communities I tell you all you should be busy forming, of like-minded people, whether you are Catholic or not.
His comment to me was also helpful because it ties very smoothly into the next aspect of TMOS, and that is, the proto-cell of the whole thing: The Individual Man.
Introduction before the concept
In my explanation, the analogies and explanations are best executed in terms of the underlying Catholic (1958 Sedevacantist) spiritual underpinnings.
Now, possibly heretical though it might be, I do not want this to dissuade people who are not Catholic from understanding the baseline concepts. Remember that if the model works, you should use it. As I already explained in the first 3 parts, as long as you base everything on the spiritual reality that sustains the physical, you will achieve some measure of success, and there are many spiritual realities. It’s just that most are not good, and of the few that might be considered “good” all but one are less than ideal. And even if you don’t agree with me about which one that is, if you can do basic logic at all, you must concede that the truth can only be one, whatever it is. Nothing can be both true and not true at the same time.
It became my considered opinion, after some 4 years of intense investigation (between 2013 and 2017) that the original Catholicism that existed (mostly) and was promulgated by the Vatican until 1958, is the very best approximation or approach to reality that humanity has ever had. It has produced the best and most fruits globally, and therefore has an impeccable track record when compared to any other spiritual model.
That said, is it possible for a human being with some other philosophy to produce demonstrable and overall good effects in the world? Yes. Absolutely.
It is certainly possible for a truly pious, well-meaning Buddhist, or even Protestant, or even Muslim believer, to have interpreted what shrinking good there is in their false philosophies, just so, that they really do produce an overall net good that is certainly superior to that of a genuine Catholic, that however genuine in intent, may have misunderstood the basics of his own philosophy. We are all in error to some degree or other, and it is not a race to some finish line, so this is a bad analogy in many ways, but if we assume that in order to get into heaven you have to accumulate 1,000 points, starting out as a proper Catholic is like starting with 1,000 points right out the gate. You can certainly lose points in your journey, and it may be a lot easier to do so than you think maybe, but you sure have a better shot than someone who starts out as a Muslim, which might be like starting out with -500 points and generally in a lifetime you can only accumulate say 500 points max, and converting to Catholicism gives you a 1,000 points.
I mention all this not to try and scare you into conversion (I mean, hey, if it happens, and you chose it of your own free will, great) but only to identify that fact that despite there not being any salvation outside of the Catholic Church, in our path of life, it is possible (if not very probable) to find people who are not on the true path (Catholicism) that nevertheless can have demonstrable (good) effects in the world due to a variety of variables and factors.
There are also plenty of people that have demonstrable effects in the world that are using an underlying evil spiritual underpinning of course, but we are talking only to the “good” guys here.
And while I sure hope you would all become able to see the logic, beauty and truth of Catholicism, find yourself a real Church, a real priest, fall to your knees and beg for proper baptism in it, I am, above all, a realist. Which means I am aware of the war I face. And while I wish you all the Truth with a capital T, I know many, probably most, will not be moved an inch from your erroneous ideas any more than I was moved from mine for 43 years.
So, while I leave the details of your possible salvation by conversion to the Lord, because ultimately it is a job waaaaaaaaaaay above my station to even worry about, aside from pointing out, as crudely, simply, and correctly as my human flaws allow, the retta via (right path), I tend to work with what I have.
And if all I have are a bunch of Pagans, heathens, agnostics and autistic atheists, so be it. Within your errors, I wish you to find the best, the snippets, the shards of good that may exist, imperfect and insufficient though they are, for you to fashion weapons out of them and combat the enemy.
Do not think I will treat you as equal, or pray with you in your heathen ways, we are not the same; but also know, I do not hate you; and, in my heart, I wish you only well and that one day you too are saved, and get to heaven, by whichever tortuous path you might need to. My own path has certainly been far from straight, after all.
And now, with that out of the way, let us now get to this Part 4: The individual Man
The Proto-Cell: The Individual Man
Continuing with my imperfect analogies, and considering you as if you have already read and digested parts 1-3 (including 3a), I shall now explain why the individual man is the proto-cell.
The actually cell of human society is the nuclear family, and the only version of that that actually works analogously to a healthy cell within the body, is one that is composed of a Husband, Wife and Children, all operating under the foundational principles of a real spirituality, which I will from now on simply refer to as Catholicism. But feel free to substitute that with your own word for your philosophy of life; and if you do, yet are perceptive, you may notice that certain things simply do not work in your heathen ways, because you lack the demonstrable fruits throughout history to show you the truth of the matter, you lack the reason and logic that prove the truth of Catholicism throughout the ages, and on and on. I am not striking at you here, just making a point that you might want to take note of and verify for yourself.
Any other version of the nuclear family that is not composed of Husband, Wife and Children can be considered as a damaged, crippled or even a cancerous cell. Now, there are some cells, that can’t have children, but these too, if under proper spiritual underpinning, are genuinely positive and helpful. In each body there are cells that are specialised and appear to be slightly different, because they have a different role, but all are still healthy and required. Childless couples can improve the world by adopting children that might otherwise be lost, or help others in other ways, and they do. But the model is still based on the same foundations.
We will discuss the nuclear family in the greater context of the very practical and beneficial effects they have on society in later posts, but first things first. The proto-cell, if you like, the DNA of the cell, is the individual man. And I say man not coincidentally. Without a man at the spiritual helm, you get nowhere. The female may be considered the cell wall and other parts of it, you need both to form a real, proper, functioning cell, but the code of life is in the DNA and similarly, the code of a proper community and functional society is the individual man, both in each cell (family unit), as well as in greater society.
The second concept, that of the proto-cell in greater society will be a subject for a future post. Here, today, we will only examine the proto-cell of the individual man on its own terms. What makes a valid, viable, strong, Individual Man? That is going to be a good example that will perform well in both the complete cell (nuclear family) and/or in the larger body (community/society). This is what we will concern ourselves with in this post.
Trying to avoid my common error of skipping something obvious to me that turns out to be not so obvious to others, I also just want to say that why the individual MAN is the focus first, is because both in a family, as well as in society, it is ultimately men that create civilisation. Which is not to say that women are completely useless in the process, but women simply are not the civilisers of humanity. Men are. Always have been, and always will be. No matriarchal society has ever existed, and any attempts at creating one have invariably always failed in ways that are absolutely horrific. The current fruits of feminism most certainly included. But again, the details of the role of the woman, as well as the evils of feminism, etc. are for a post way down the line.
Accepting the above premise then, what makes a “good” proto-cell?
We already know he has to have a a sound spiritual foundation but on a more practical level, the key factor that makes the difference is self-knowledge.
The Oracle at Delphi was right.
Above all, Know Thyself
I need to emphasise something regarding the examples I make below. Whenever I insert myself in the discussion, it is not for some reach for glory, but rather because if I use an example from my own life, the experience is absolutely real and factual. In other words I am trying to show you it is based in reality. And it is not my “opinion” of some third party, but rather something I have personally tested and verified works. So keep that in mind.
Even from a very young age, possibly due to my touch of Aspergers’/High IQ I spent time imagining various scenarios life might throw at me and how I wanted to respond. Many were prompted by the fact that my life had been different from most children my age in rather extreme ways. My father moved us to Nigeria when I was four and we grew up pretty wild, being home schooled by my mother in how to read and write and do maths. Periodic returns to Italy were usually short lived and then my brother and I lived with out grandparents in rural Italy for a number of years too. When I enrolled in my first elementary school I was ahead of most of the other children in both maths and reading and writing comprehension. Socially I was never much of a joiner and this sometimes resulted in what today would be labelled as “bullying”, but I never took it and generally fought back regardless. It wasn’t that I was necessarily brave, as such, just that my sense of innate justice was more powerful than fear generally speaking. It was mostly a reaction, treat me bad, I treat you bad right back. The fact there are 30 of you and one of me is sort of irrelevant.
That was luck, genetics, some of my upbringing, and I stress, only some of it, or divine intervention that made me that way from early on, because I don’t think I can take any credit for it before say age seven or so for trying to foster that mentality consciously. But because Justice absolutely is a fundamental spiritual concept, that is closely aligned to Love, my spiritual foundation, even if shaky in many other respects, had at least one strong and unshakable pillar around which the rest of my personality could grow. If Seeking Justice is your main characteristic, you can’t really do it without developing Courage. Which is not easy to do, but is doable, I know, because I did. Courage may or may not come easier to some than others, but I certainly am aware I had to consciously work at it as a child and even as a teenager. It has been one of the constants in my life, to continually try to improve it. At age 55 my efforts are far less in the physical realm, but rather more on the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual level. By exposing perhaps more of myself to the wider world, there are costs to it, but I feel it is important and as such the type of courage required in it is of a different sort than facing, say, an armed opponent.
My point is that in order for you to be effective, you need to be congruent. I made conscious choices as to what type of man I wanted to be, and pursued those choices relentlessly. So I imagined all sorts of scenarios or situations in order to understand what was my natural inclination, and if I was happy or not with it, and if not, how to change it or improve it. By the time I was in my late teens, and certainly by my early 20s, my internal self-knowledge was pretty absolute. Certain events continue to happen in life for which you can never be prepared, but if you have a truly deep understanding of who you are, even the unexpected, tragic, surprising, and so on, can be at least survived, and often navigated and sometimes even taken advantage of and turned into an opportunity. If however, when life throws you a curve ball, you end up reeling in confusion as to what to do with it because, on top of the event itself, you also are unsure of who you are and, so are unable to quickly or even instinctively process it appropriately, life will definitely be harder for you.
Self-knowledge inevitably requires a deep delving into your philosophies of life, and if these are in turn based on false spiritual concepts, your efficiency in the world will, once again, reflect that.
Prior to my baptism, my overall philosophies of life were few and far between, and I always knew and said this too. They were limited to a set of ethics that I had investigated very deeply and knew was correct, but did not venture much beyond that. Justice was absolutely the core of it (and remains so, mostly), followed by the related concepts of honesty and honour (keeping your word, essentially) and courage. The rest I was pretty much agnostic about. And because I limited myself to the spiritual reality I could absolutely reconcile with reality, my foundation has always been solid. One can say it was incomplete, but not that it was ever unstable. Which is why, mentally, emotionally, and even physically, I have generally been able to outperform most people in terms of efficacy and results.
When I suddenly was presented with a huge revelation concerning the very bedrock of reality, I took time to simply sit and observe. Try to learn, as I did when I was a small child, by simply sitting and observing everything going on around me. Except I was 43, not a child. Which meant some things I could actively begin to investigate in more depth and detail right away, as soon as I became aware of them. And this search was done in the same relentless way I did my previous investigation of the fundamentals of reality. I suddenly had a gigantic, pivotal, absolutely core piece of information that I never had before, and had experienced it directly and unquestionably. For the first time I realised with absolute certainty that:
God exists, and,
God is Love, and Loves us, (despite ourselves!) individually, specifically, and personally.
It took some time (months for the basics at least, but it continues throughout life) to process my past experiences, my life to that point, so that I could verify that yes, those two points are absolutely true and everything in my life to that point actually proved them. Nothing contradicted or invalidated those two key points. Literally nothing. Including my “worst” or most “lost” moments. In other words, perhaps if I had been a more careful observer, I could have, or maybe I should have, inferred God simply by my surroundings and reality as we find it.
In fairness, the enemy does throw up quite the smokescreen at every level of our lives, so it’s not as easy as all that, but it certainly has been possible for others. My friend Tony for example, in pure weaponised autist fashion, became a Catholic purely as a result of following the logic of it.
So that was step one. Verifying that my Road to Damascus experience was rooted in reality; that is, in truth, that the aspects of reality I had shown did in fact fit my experience, observations, and logical deductions. And not only did they do so, but they did so to a level of precision, perfection and correctness I had not encountered even in engineering, which tends to be a rather “exact” science.
Then I proceed to step two, which was to test the model. This took longer (at least two years I would estimate) but once again, every experiment I did, as long as I did it correctly, fit the model. Of course, in experimentation, the failed experiments are worthwhile too, as they provide information on the processes that do or do not fit reality. To my astonishment, I discovered prayer absolutely works. It is a difficult thing to get right, and in some cases almost impossible at times, BUT if and when the conditions are repeated correctly, the result is invariably positive. In other words, the scientific method can be applied to prayer and the results it provides are proof enough that it is a real thing and works.
The issue with prayer is not that it does not work, but that in almost all cases, we are not applying the “formula” or “rules” correctly or sufficiently accurately, to make it work, and some of it is also possibly dependent on external factors beyond our control. Nevertheless it remains wholly and totally scientifically testable.
Say you want to prove that you could use ball-lightning to power something, say charge a battery fully in seconds. First of all you would need to test various models of engineered equipment to make it happen, but you also need the ball-lightning to happen too. Even if you have got all the equipment totally correct, but you do your experiment on a cloudless and sunny day, your results will be zero. If you then chalk that up as evidence that ball-lightning cannot charge a battery in seconds, or that the equipment used is faulty, you are making an error. In good science, the conditions need to be replicated in order to test a theory. So it is not easy to test for how prayer works and how to do it properly. Nevertheless, I have explained this in both Believe! and Reclaiming the Catholic Church.
Again, to summarise, I had a deep knowledge of myself, and this was based only on those valid principles of spirituality I was sure of because I could test and verify them to an absolute degree and see them reflected in physical reality as well. Then when additional information was given to me that showed me a whole aspect of reality I was ignorant of before, I immediately set about observing, exploring and testing it.
It is only in this fashion that I gradually came to my conclusions regarding Catholicism. In each step of the process, I tested, kicked at, explored, and verified, each additional element of the philosophies I was taking on.
The process, in very summarised format was as follows:
Road to Damascus moment leads to the observation that:
God exists, and
God is Love and does Love us, individually, specifically and personally.
At this point I could be defined as a Deist. Shortly thereafter however, observation and testing makes it absolutely clear that:
An enemy to God absolutely does exist and is actively trying to lead us as far from the truth as possible. In fact this reality is so obvious once you even begin to look, that the fingerprints and clues of the eternal psychopath are littered all over the place, as if the entire planet was a giant crime scene, which, in reality, it kind of is, and this too fits with reality as we find it, as well as the historical models of it.
At the same time, it also becomes obvious that the only possibly valid version of God that fits the experience and observations must be one of the following:
An open-ended generic Loving God that potentially (but not historically) could be associated with certain aspects or elements of: Shintoism, Zen agnosticism, Taoism. Vanishingly small chance of being the case, but not totally excluded.
Hinduism, Judaism and Islam are absolutely and definitely out, and not related to the reality of God at all.
Christianity is the only religion that descriptively and historically presents God (the father) as approaching the same reality I was aware of and tested to my satisfaction.
All of the other Pagan religions from the Aztec gods to the Zoroastrian ones, are clearly either nonsensical, or actively working for the glorification of the precise opposite of God.
Further investigation then makes option 1 potentially “valid” but without any real evidence of it throughout human history beyond some inference here and there. The focus then becomes Christianity as a whole, but necessarily the process must now include the question: “Which Christianity?”
Further observation and investigation very quickly makes it absolutely plain that everything and anything related to Protestantism is, in fact, almost certainly the work of the enemy and designed to secularise, destroy and confuse the truth. Every single one of the 40,000 denominations of it (more like 700 million, though since each person is an interpreter of the law onto him or herself) can be safely discarded with the same ease one discards the “logic” of a child that is trying to convince you that 2+2 is purple.
This leaves the Copts, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics.
The first two have a problem of not bearing anywhere near sufficient fruits to be the One True religion. The Copts are also almost extinct and never achieved much at all anywhere at any time. That leaves the EO, which are generally split into nationalistic versions, did not spread the gospel anywhere near as much as Catholics, did not achieve any of the civilisational markers Catholicism did, did not invent the scientific method, did not create as varied and beautiful palette of art in all its forms and has not been exactly the fountainhead of logic and reason that Catholicism has been since the start. They also betrayed the very Catholics that came to rescue them despite their schism from them some 40 years earlier, and literally tried to kill them by making pacts with the very Muslims the Catholics were saving them from. Three times in a row. And then are still bitching about when the fourth time round the Catholics sacked Constantinople (which as far as sacking of cities goes for the period, was really quite a gentle affair anyway).
Against that, I had a “Pope” that protected pedophiles, homosexual orgies fuelled by cocaine in the Vatican by supposed Catholic clergy, and this too could not be reconciled. While it was clear that human fallibility was always going to be a part of any One True Church, because humans gonna human, two things had to logically be true:
God’s real Church, if one existed, must, logically, be infallible, and also be able to be discovered (visible) and tested to be as such. This is no small feat. I have no problem with it being possibly difficult to find; or you needing to work your butt off to figure it out. All that is fine to me, because there is the enemy, and the smokescreens he shoots up are huge, and so on, but anyone truly earnestly seeking should, be able to find it. Logic dictates that a Loving God, even allowing for free will, would absolutely make it possible for you to find it in some way if you truly were seeking for the truth. So that was a thing, secondly, it had to be infallible despite the humans that represented it. Which it would and could only be by supernatural Godly protection, because you can bet every single human in it was going to fuck up some aspect of it in some way to other. And there is only ONE Church that makes that claim. The Catholic One. But even that claim could be fake, so you need to study what the rules of this Church are, and how do they fit reality, which leads to the second point:
The One True Church must —again, necessarily, by reason of the most basic logic— have rules. And at least some of those rules, like absolute truth and math, must be eternal and unchanging, because if a Loving God exists, that Love would NOT be actual Love if:
It was not inclusive of you having free will, including the free will to reject it, and,
Love without Justice (rules) is not Love. If Justice does not exist, then neither can Love. If your Love towards another is potentially never even acknowledged, or worse, is abused constantly, can it really be love? Or is it merely a perverse dictate without any goodness in it? Just as if you were forced to Love God, that would invalidate Free Will, if you were forced or only able to “Love” no matter the response, then it would just as identically not be actual Love, because Love, the real one, can ONLY be given as an act of free will.
Now, again, the only Church that has:
Visibility,
Infallibility, and
A Code of Conduct that is precisely spelt out
is the Catholic Church.
But far more impressive than that, it has had this from the start, has always proclaimed it, and the deeper into it you look, the more astonishing what you find.
You find that the Church has been protected from fantastically “successful” attacks, heresies, lies, and attempts to subvert and destroy it, for two millennia; and no matter how dark and desperate the times can be, even for centuries at a time, ultimately, it continually returns triumphant against odds that simply make no sense unless some divine intervention was taking place.
All of that made it pretty clear that Catholicism was probably it… except… Pedophiles.
In my heart of hearts, it could never be accepted and reconciled that the One True God that I personally experienced in that Road to Damascus moment could ever, or would ever, let His Church ever be represented by Pedophiles. That the odd pedophile pretended to be a member? Sure. Just like the thousands of fraudsters, unrepentant thieves, murderers, adulterers, whatever. But those would be “members” of it; but as a class, represented so repeatedly and dramatically in its upper echelons of the supposed “leadership”? No. It could not be. Cannot be. And yet, Catholicism seemed to fill all the other requirements. So what happened? I began to investigate if it was always thus, and discovered that no, it was not. And then I became aware that the real infiltration started in earnest in the late 1700s. And following that thread of Illuminati, Freemasons, Carbonari, Rosicrucians, Communists, Homosexuals, Jews, and Protestants that plotted against the Church over at least two and a half centuries, it became obvious that Vatican II was the culmination of those efforts and it usurped the Church almost (but not quite) entirely.
At this point one might lose hope if one was affected by rhetoric and appearances instead of fundamentally seeking only the facts. That is: Only the pure unadulterated truth as we really find it, and can test it in reality as we find it all around us.
And luckily for me (and some others too, I guess) precisely because I always had an instinctive understanding of the importance of knowing yourself —and basing it only on the truth that you can absolutely demonstrate is real and reflects reality as it is, not as you wish it were— I carried on digging.
I read the Code of Canon Law of 1917 by myself, and came across Canon 188.4 by myself. It was here that a light bulb moment went off. I had found the point of departure.
It was, indeed Vatican II, its instigators, and all its pomps. And it also confirmed that the impostors squatting in the Vatican not only are NOT merely human representatives of God’s Church, but they are in fact, working for the enemy.
Imagine then my amusement when I discovered that this too is prophesied both in the Bible as well as in the visions of many saints throughout the centuries of the Catholic Church. If you had taken this journey with me, even if perhaps you are the type prone to despair because of appearances, this discovery would undoubtedly provide comfort and joy.
Because although it is sad that the Catholic Church has now been reduced to only a tiny remnant of what it was at its peak, it at least explains everything. It explains precisely why things are as they are and, once again, it explains reality as we find it. The Pedophiles and their “Pope” protectors are Satanists, just pretending to be “Catholics”, and yes, fooling more than a billion people, but that too is to be expected. Again, we know that the large and well paved road leads to Hell.
Only at this point then, and studying and testing further to my satisfaction, did I realise that indeed, the position known as Sedevacantism is actually, simply, truly, mere Catholicism. The real one. The one that has survived other dark times like the persecutions by the Roman Emperors, the Arian crisis, the attacks by numerically superior Muslims, and now, the almost total infiltration of the Church by its enemies now pretending to be the rightful “Catholic Clergy”, but really only being servants of Moloch and other demons under Lucifer himself.
It all fits, the logic returns correct, the math works, the reality we live in proclaims every aspect and facet of this correctly, so I am now comfortable to take on the rules and ethics of the Catholic Church. As best I can of course, which is miserably imperfect, because as I keep saying, all humans are badly flawed, and me perhaps more than most in some ways, but nevertheless, I understand that the correct position is Catholicism and any errors or lacunae I make are mine alone.
The official processes, and rules and ways of Catholicism, are all written down in one volume, the Code of Canon Law of 1917, and it all stems from the Bible and the Catholic tradition that actually put the Bible together too. And reason and logic, verifiable in the world and reality all around you, if you can but do it.
Armed with all of the above then, I went from one solid pillar (Justice) to a veritable temple composed of many huge and unshakable pillars. Some that created themselves in some mystic fashion that I yet do not understand but cannot deny.
Added to Justice comes Love, Charity, Beauty, Virtue (in its many forms), Miracles, the sacrifice of Christ, and my very simple, but honest devotion to Him and His Church. The reality of the Saints and how we are eternally linked to and connected to them. The mystical effects that praying the Rosary has on your very Terrene and Earthly life.
I went from one lone column in the dirt of no man’s land, called Justice, with vines of Honour, Honesty and Courage growing upon it, to a veritable enormous and constantly expanding beautiful temple of many columns and rooms and altars of beauty that almost blinds the eyes.
My knowledge of self has expanded exponentially simply by having seen far more of the truth of the spiritual reality that underpins all of creation, and seeing exactly how it absolutely verifies all that we see in the world, both good and evil.
Aligning myself with that wider and deeper and far more beautiful spiritual reality, absolutely makes me more capable, more effective and more able to create more in the world in accordance with His Will, which I absolutely wish to serve as best I can, within the confines of my human flaws and any God-given talents I may posses.
And yes, Evil certainly appears to have the upper hand in this specific timeline. You can argue that it is in fact a reality and not just an appearance. But am I worried? No. Not at all. I am aware and I will fight to my last breath, but I am not unduly worried. Because even if it lasts for a few centuries, the Church is undefeatable, at least until the very end, at which point, it will rise triumphant, and more so than in any other human era, with the return of our Lord and the final cleansing of the evil spirits from this world, to be relegated to their eternal prison.
Now this last bit may seem to be absolute nonsensical fantasy to you. It certainly seemed so to me for some 42 years or so. And I certainly can’t prove it even now.
But what I can prove and have done so, first of all to myself —and then only very imperfectly and distantly to others through my books and words— is that the entirety of those things that the Catholic Church says that can be tested and that I have tested, have, without fail, proven to be true.
Therefore, I trust too, the extrapolated “big picture” for the future as well. But even if it were wrong, even if the ultimate big picture turned out to be an error, I still, cannot see a better way to live until it is revealed as such by actual events in physical reality. Which I doubt will happen in my lifetime.
So, once again, even if you have followed me here only as a secular reader, I ask you: What other system or model can even begin to provide the same level of recurring proof and evidence, as well as functional societies that come anywhere close to the beauty, glory, peace, serenity and joy that a real Catholic community exhibits? There simply isn’t one.
All of the above, to show you that my acceptance of Catholicism is based not on any kind of idiotic version of “blind faith” but rather on the detailed, deep, constant, probing and testing of all that I can observe and test within the dogma of Catholicism. And should I later find any “holes” in it, I’ll be sure to let you know, but, so far, there aren’t any. And there are gaping maws letting fetid water in, in every other system I have checked.
My self-knowledge has expanded and some of my reactions changed in light of this new information, that I have tested and continue to test daily, but that is not to say I am a different person. My soul is still the same, but as my understanding has evolved, my actions, choices and efficiency changes with it and shifts in expression and scale, all of which is normal.
The overarching point I want to make in this whole extremely long post then is this:
I have shown you (briefly and imperfectly, but I think well enough) the level and depth with which I look into things before I base any of my principles on them. How much work have you done? How much of this investigation into reality do you do, or can you do, before you get too scared of what you might find and stop? How much of it is based on true, objective investigation and how much instead because someone or multiple someones in your life have told you “Here be Dragons! Don’t you DARE go look in there.”
And to be sure, there are places that are absolutely dangerous to go look into, but I for one, will never tell one of my children “Don’t go there and that’s that!” I will instead say “My son, in that hole you will find a snake that is poisonous, it is of this shape and colour and general size. And you can smoke it out in this way, and kill it in this way, using this tool. Now, if I am still able enough, come, I will show you and you can see for yourself, and if I am not, then heed my warning, because I love you, and I trust whatever you decide to do, you will use your brain and your heart as best you can. Do not be afraid, but also, do not be foolish either.”
And with that last sentence as a guide, there is very little a man cannot more or less safely investigate.
So I tell you the same, reader, if you are still with me to this point.
Find out who you really are, and what you base it on. Discover what is absolutely true and what is merely a shadow created by your own ignorance, fear, or arrogance. And then decide who you are going to be once you discover the deepest truth you are able to. And don’t stop doing it.
In parts 1-3 I have covered the fundamental abstract aspect of what sustains any kind of social movement, and in broad terms this boils down to how accurate your foundational spiritual model is with respect to objective reality. The closer to it it is, the more likely your social changes or your Theoretical Model of Society is to take hold in the real, physical world.
I have already shown —and history does it for me better than any argument— that Catholicism has been the absolute best at this, precisely because it models objective reality, including all the metaphysical and underlying spiritual and non-tangibles that the modern man is stupefyingly unaware of for the most part, better than any other religion or philosophy that humans have ever come up with. Historically this is simply undeniable. However, there is a subtle but important point to clarify, one that Vox in his recent post expressed rather well (as he has done for a long time):
A Germany full of Germans is an economic powerhouse. An area of 357,022 square kilometers in the middle of Europe populated primarily by German-speaking Turks, Arabs, and Africans will be neither German nor an economic powerhouse. This is not rocket science.
He refers here to the obvious replacement taking place of native Germans, which is simply a factual and mathematical reality
The dirt is not magic. The ideas are not material. People will always live according to their own natural preferences. The transplantation of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to the New World is what made America what it was in the place of the American Indian societies that preceded it. Neither geography nor ideology nor language nor even religion are determinant in the end, as genetics ultimately and always dictates the destinies of nations.
That last sentence is the main point I want to cover “nor even religion”.
He is right… up to a point.
It is true that a Venetian Catholic is different from a Japanese or Zimbabwean or even just Spanish Catholic, HOWEVER, if the Zimbabwean is in Zimbabwe surrounded by his brother and sister Zimbabweans, and ditto the others, the coalition of Catholics around the world, at the level of nation to nation, is valid, helpful and good.
This is why Catholicism has been relatively unique amongst the religions of the world. While maintaining the national identity, sovereignty, culture, and ethnicity of each people, it also managed to have an over-arching belief system that conquered their souls enough to bring them into positive co-operation with each other. In real terms. Not in the usual, cynical, controlling lever that the elites invariably grasp for and use to try and make cattle of us and lords and masters of themselves and their offspring.
It is why until 1958, the Holy Mass could be said in any country around the world and it would be identical, regardless of the local customs or language. As soon as the impostors took over, and the Catholic Church was almost entirely subverted to the new orc cult (Novus Orco, as I call them) dedicated to paedophelia, homosexuality, fraud and Satanism, one of the very first things they did was to change the Mass and make it just like any Protestant quasi-ritual re-enactment of some theatre production of lunch. The solemnity, respect and truth of it was reduced to localised absolute parodies of it in a cacophony of languages and complete with dancing dervishes in colourful costumes. The true and holy mass was (and is) unchangeable by infallible decree and dogma embodied in the Papal encyclical Quo Primum, the fact the impostors pretending to be Catholics changed it was just further evidence of the fact they were absolute enemies of the Church.
This is an important aspect to also keep in mind.
I will expose the enemy in more detail in part 4 and why ultimately, Catholicism, the real deal, not the pedophile infested Novus Ordo impostors pretending to be Catholics since 1958, is not only unique, but historically, the only force that has resisted the predators that try to lay claim over every aspect of our lives.
In part 1 we discussed the importance of spiritual group cohesion. In part 2 we looked at how the more reflective of a true spiritual reality the religion or belief system is, the more durable and resilient it is in creating a physical group cohesion. These are the inevitable large scale realities of mass change, and need to be understood at their scale before anything meaningful that has a chance to create real change in a society can even take place. As usual, the Intro:
This is the third in the Theoretical Models of Society series of Posts. Use the category of the same name or the Search Me function on the right-hand sidebar to find all related posts in the series.
It is generally helpful to a reader if they are already familiar with some of my other work, in order for this stuff to have the most useful effect on your life. In particular, The Face on Mars and Believe! would be the top reads to have done to have the generic global perspective of reality well in hand. Systema and Reclaiming the Catholic Church would have the most impact on a more personal level. On health/security/self-protection, and on the reality of Catholicism as it was (and remains with Sedevacantists) before Vatican II and why the Novus Ordo Church is not only not Catholic, but Satanic at its core. I will repeat this little paragraph on each new part, as I think it is important to have a general foundation if one is really interested in more than skim-reading before returning to the general slumber we are all being attempted to be forced into.
You may have the most wonderful ideas of how to make a better society, but if you are unable to base them on solid spiritual footings that are widely acceptable to the masses, and also broadly representative of reality, so that the operation of these spiritual principles produces tangible effects in the physical reality we all share, your ideas will never even get out of the crib.
In this part 3 we are going to explore how even if you intellectually grasp the above points, your ability to create real, lasting effects in the world, are unlikely to produce any meaningful results unless you too, at a personal level, are driven by a spiritual reality that has tangible effects in the world too.
It is important to understand how this works, and thus, also, to understand that this works regardless of whether your spiritual reality is good or evil. As long as it reflects reality enough, it will produce results.
For example, the Joel Osteens or Jim Jones of the world, may be conmen, they probably don’t believe the spiritual aspect of what they are selling, at least not in the way they sell it to you, and the basis of the spiritual ideologies they sell is a con, a fake, but —and this is important— the spiritual reality they are selling has at least some elements of it based in a twisted form of the real spiritual dimension. And they do believe in that, aspect of it, at least for themselves.
For example the whole spiritual gospel of “Jesus wants you to be rich and happy and successful” sold by the Osteens of the world, is a twisted aspect of a loving God wanting the best for us. American society has been so corrupted for so long that “love” in today’s times is often interpreted as being material wealth and goods. The average man and woman in America (and elsewhere too) if given the magic wand choice of having all the material wealth they want, but no deeply loving relationship, or a deeply loving relationship but being mostly poor, will take the cash and things instead of a truly loving wife or husband. It is understandable therefore that such a false gospel would “hook” a lot of people. And when I say “false” I mean that ultimately it is a lie from the spiritual reality perspective, however, it IS based on a spiritual reality too; one which is ultimately Satanic. After all, it is indeed the general temptation even Jesus was presented with by Satan, is it not? Material goods now, for your soul later. So it does have a “solid” spiritual foundation, in the sense that Satan is the Prince of this world and we are indeed under his dominion, here on Earth. So, this kind of spiritual reality is certainly something that can produce results in the physical world too. All the Satanists, blackmailable Freemasons, and Illuminati in the film and music industry, who have to signal their membership by the usual “ok” sign over one eye and so on, will attest to the fact that if you are willing to commit your soul to the devil, you can gain material wealth.
You may personally not believe in the devil as such, but the physical reality of the associations of such people with spiritual rituals to Satan, is now undeniable. Enough of these people have come forward and either repented or spelt it out that it requires only a little bit of research for you to confirm this.
Now, while the spiritual reality being sold to the masses by a Joel Osteen, a Jim Jones, or an Imam or fake “Catholic” priest of the fake Novus Ordo “Church” is far from the truth, and far from the real Loving God and His Will, it nevertheless has some power because it is based on aspects of spiritual reality. They may not be the good side of spiritual reality, but the bad side exists too. In fact, in the world (using the word “world” in the Catholic Christian sense) the evil, corrupt, bad side of spiritual reality is in fact the main situation of how things are currently; especially over the last four years.
This is not to say all is lost, quite the opposite, the revelation of just how much corruption and evil there is in the world is becoming so prevalent that we may well be heading into an eventual spiritual awakening by the masses. Whether this happens before or after even darker times remains to be seen, but the point is that the spiritual reality is a fact. Whether for evil or for good it exists, and it informs the physical reality. And ultimately, your chances of achieving good in the world are best if you are aligned with the spiritual reality that is truly closest to the truth of the ultimate good in creation.
Personally, what I have been telling you, is that after some 42 years on Earth observing and trying to figure out the real truth of the essence of reality, it took a shocking and life-changing event, a literal road to Damascus moment, for me to finally have the illusions of the world collapse enough that I saw enough of the face of God to know with absolute and permanent certainty that God is Love.
And in my subsequent investigation of that aspect of God, the spiritual reality that most closely represented what I was made aware of was the original, actual rules of the real Catholic Church, which are founded in Love and reason to a degree no other ideology or religion has ever compared with, and which has been tested in time over two millennia, to produce the absolute best societies the human race has ever seen.
And while perfection in humans on Earth is not possible, actual Catholic communities have a true respect of both the individual, regardless of age, or sex, as well as of the family unit, which is described as the cell of the body of Christ, which is defined as the wider Catholic society that has given us some of the greatest thinkers, works of art, martyrs, Saints, and peaceful societies ever seen, all while also being able to defend itself from the evil that also exists in the world.
Now, you may or may not agree with me and you may or may not be a 1958 Sedevacantist Catholic like I am. You might be fooled by people like Ann Barnhardt and be a 2023 Sedevacantist who thinks Ratzinger was a Catholic or even a valid Pope (he was neither, of course). Or you may be a Buddhist, or have bought into the absurdity of one of the 40,000+ “demon-nimations” of Protestantism, or you may think Gurdjeff had it right, or L.Ron Hubbard, and so on.
But whatever your ultimate belief system, it is only going to produce any results insofar as you actually truly are of it and believe in it fully.
So, even if you truly do understand and believe the usefulness of say real Catholicism, and this 1958 Sedevacantism, intellectually, but if you personally are not truly a believer in it, it is unlikely you will be able to create very much in the world of the physical from it. On the other hand, if you are a true believer, but have little interest in proselytising to the masses, again, it is unlikely you will be able to achieve too much in the greater physical world in terms of changing things on a grand scale.
The point is that whatever your personal belief system is at a spiritual level, it too has to first of all be aligned with spiritual reality, secondly, it has to be practiced in order to produce those physical results in the world, and third, your greater mission both within the spiritual reality as well as the physical one, has to be aligned too, for results to begin to appear.
In my own case, the spiritual reality for me internally is strong, especially if I compare it to the average human, or even the average true believer. By those standards, I am a fundamentalist zealot that would have fit in just fine with the guys going on the first crusade in 1095. By my own standards, I am barely scratching the surface, and really only starting to begin to approach what I would consider a minimum level of actual proper spiritual practice and piety now, some 7 years and a half after being baptised.
As such, my concern for the wider world has been relatively superficial, and been encapsulated mostly in my short book Believe! And my subsequent far more detailed work focusing on Catholicism specifically, Reclaiming the Catholic Church. And in the wider world those works have already produced results, in the form of over a hundred souls returning to, or discovering, actual Catholicism and being baptised into it, and some of them going on to help others see it, and/or improve their own lives and those of others in various ways, and/or to form families and have children who will also be raised Catholic and so on. Some are even intent on forming proper Catholic (that is, not Novus Orco) Churches in their country where currently no real Catholic presence exists. And all of these are good things. But on a personal level, I am still putting together my own house, trying to get to as self-sufficient a level as I can, in order to be able to then become a hub, for more sedevacantists to move here and become a real physical presence of note in the world. The obstacles I face are huge, and not easily tackled, but there is measurable progress, and I know that once I achieve real independence from clown world, primarily financial, which is the hardest part, but also in every other respect, it will open the floodgates to other people being able to do it as well, and at that point, the Sedevacantist community near me as well as further afield that I am in contact with, will explode. But it will not happen in a day. And there are, will be, and continue to appear, all sorts of obstacles, people that get in the way of you trying to create something good, and so on.
That is simply the way things are. It is also why the Church here on Earth and its members is referred to as the Church Militant. Because it is a fight. It’s primarily a spiritual fight, but it can be also a physical one. Making your home and family self-sufficient and as off-grid as possible, while also being able to remain integrated in the beast world enough that you can be a model for others to follow or copy, and yet not feel you are too far removed from the “norm” for them to feel capable of doing so, is far from an easy task.
Add in five children, (soon six) a house that needed massive works on it and still requires regular maintenance and constant little upgrades, the running of a farm in an activity I have zero experience in, the bureaucracy of any venture in the world today, the need to rely on others for some elements of this, and the continuing need for enough income to sustain all of it, and you can imagine why progress might be slow. I spent the first year and a half just getting the house liveable. And within six months of our arrival here, a major event that had serious and long term ramifications that are ongoing also happened. The down side is that it impacted everything in multiple ways and at a practical level made everything far more difficult; the up side is that my daughter, who I had not been able to raise for the last nine years, nor spend time with for the last five of those nine years, has now been living with me for the last three years. And you can bet that if everything else had to take (and in many ways continues to take) a back seat, well, so be it.
Some of you may think that this means I will not bear fruit in the long term. But if so you are mistaken. What is happening here is that my personal aspects of reality are first of all aligning with my spiritual understanding, and this process is lifelong. As I have always been a man apart, so to speak, from most of polite society, regardless of which country or culture I may be in, it makes sense, that my own, personal situation has to resolve first at least to an extent that makes it good, and stable, and secure, to a point that it then becomes a foundation from which to move in the wider arena.
This applies almost always in this fashion if it is to be stable in the long term (I have also added my own timeline to it, in order to give a sense of the process as it may apply to you and your beliefs):
Personal Spiritual revelation—> [3rd March 2013]
personal change—> [2013 to present and ongoing]
Personal spiritual growth—> [baptised 25th May 2017]
Personal physical expression in the wider world—-> [Newly Sedevacantist friends appear and help us on the farm and in general – 2021-2022]
spiritual revelation in the wider world (to others)—-> [Newly Sedevacantist friends go on to spread the word, write their own books, get married, have children, etc. 2021-2024]
personal change in the wider world of people (the others go through their own spiritual revelations)—-> [2024 – first Sedevacantist buys property near us, more Sedevacantist babies are born, new sedevacantist budding communities are forming around the world, that are in touch with me/us/our friends]
spiritual growth in the wider world (expansion of the concepts, new members, attendance in churches goes up, etc.)—> [we are currently here]
growth in the wider world [this is the point at which wider communities begin to form and take hold]
What the timeline is like, to achieve strong, permanent, communities that will be able to resist clown world in true and meaningful fashion is hard to predict, but given the course of things, and the fact that while I have been aware of this process from 2014 onwards, I only really started to try to work towards creating something from 2018 at the very earliest in its protozoic form, I expect that within the next ten years there should be a definite sustainable group of sedevacantists where I am. It may happen sooner, depending on various factors, many out of my control whatsoever, but I doubt it will take any longer. And in 20 years I expect several strong such communities will exist around the world; some more successful than others, which will broadly speaking be a function of how close to the rules of Catholicism they actually stick to, with respect to things like non-una cum masses, and being proper Catholics, instead of binary thinkers; which is essentially a Protestant mindset, with merely a veneer of Catholicism over it.
From a personal perspective, frustrated and frustrating as I may find the slowness of the entire process, I also realise that in social, human terms, it is moving at breakneck speed.
My personal revelation was 11 and a half years ago (as of 2024), and it completely overturned pretty much all my lifelong zen-agnostic state of being. My own personal situation and challenges at that time seemed absolutely unsurmountable and beyond any possibility of repair to just “normalcy”, never mind actual achieving of “goodness”. But the only skill I always had that remained valid even spiritually was the inability to give up, or to stop fighting for what I believe is true, and being able to wait like a hunter if that is what is required.
There was no thought at all for even thinking remotely about building anything beyond the mere survival of whatever of my life I could put together just for my own bare minimum peace of mind. And that happened in the blink of an eye, so that by 2018 I was baptised and married in Church. It was only then, and only very much at arm’s length that I thought of the wider world; hence the two books, Believe! and Reclaiming the Catholic Church in 2019 and 2020 respectively.
Then the whole COVID takeover of human brains by the Satanists with the use of global fear, followed by widespread mass-murder by fake vaccines and draconian and dystopic intrusions in all our lives with MORE chemical poisons like chemtrails, the introduction of graphene in all anaesthetic injections now being reported on, the contamination of foods with mRNA murder “vaxx” and so on happened. And at that point I decided to take care of my family first. Hence the farm in Italy in 2021. But it was an investment in time and money that would be further along if the aspects of my personal life that actually led to my initial spiritual revelation had not also miraculously resolved itself in a completely unexpected but oh so welcome way.
Call me selfish if you like, but having my daughter with me for the last three years, whose childhood had essentially been stolen from me, matters to me far more than creating a city state of Catholics. And in any case, it’s not like it stopped those efforts, but the practicalities related to this event have certainly impacted on the wider goals considerably, and I am only now, starting to think about the wider goals, while at the same time also very aware that I first need to establish a self-sufficient hub here, first for my family and myself, so that I then have the possibility to focus on the wider issues. Even so, slowly, the wider community continues to grow, and even begin to form around me, because that is the power of being connected to a spiritual reality that is true and good. If you had told me in 2014 that in a mere 4 years later I would be married, and that 4 years after that I would have three more children and reunite with my first daughter, I would have assumed you were just making up the most fantastic lie to make me feel better. But all of these things happened as if by magic, only as a result of me internally and personally doing my best, imperfect as that is, to follow the spiritual truth I became more aware of and that became more obvious to me the deeper into it and the more I tried to follow and live it.
So, in this rather lengthy and apparently rambling post (but it is not rambling at all in reality, if you pay attention to the macro as well as the micro intent!) the point I am trying to get across to you is primarily one: whatever your belief system is, if you want to create something lasting, it has to be based in something real. And that reality begins in the spiritual underpinnings. All of life does. Even in my brief period as an atheist I understood that.
As to what spiritual underpinnings you choose, I would say be careful. A lot of them are not based in the good. There is only one true God of Love. And like it or not, such a God does have rules for us to live by so as to achieve what is best for us. Just like a truly wise and loving father will tell his children what the rules of life are, for their benefit, yet he will not compel us by force to follow them, because love necessarily entails free will.
So, I hope that given my personal example, which is presented only because it is a real, tangible, proof of the logic that I presented and in any case was aware of even long before I was Catholic or baptised at all, you too begin to see the entire process and how it works.
Furthermore, your life may be less complicated than mine, or you may already have enough wealth, so maybe you can do things faster or more efficiently than I have, but even so, if your spiritual foundations are based in falsehoods, ultimately your community will not form or will collapse or become perverted.
Lastly, you may be disheartened by the time it takes, especially to start from scratch, and even more so if your specific spiritual underpinnings have little history of long term success. I on the other hand have spiritual underpinnings that have been responsible for the literal invention of the scientific method, the use of reason and logic for the investigation of the natural world, and the creation of societies that have been the best in the world bar none, and have done so uninterrupted despite constant attacks for 2000 years. So I feel pretty confident that regardless of my own personal success or failure, I am most definitely on the right track. And even after I drop dead —hopefully in advanced but coherent old age, so I get to meet my grandchildren if not great-grandchildren— others will carry on whatever I managed to start. And that gives my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, a chance to create and live in a world that has been permanently rid of the kind of scum that are trying to murder you and make your children their disposable sex toys.
So, if you don’t have the strength to form your own community, at least, dig as deep into reality and your own heart as you can. Find the deepest spiritual truth you can, and then join and help whatever community that is based on that same spiritual truth that you can find.
As for me, I will never stop or give up, but all and any glory is only God’s.
TMOS – Part 6 – The Individual Woman and Her Belief
In Parts 1 to 3 I covered the fundamentals of what the actual pillars of society are, unlike what most people believe. In part 4 I covered the individual man and how his beliefs create order or lack of it with regards to moving towards civilisation. Part 5 covered marriage and why it is the foundational cell of a functioning society, as well as the fact that absent this, that is, actual marriage, not the parodies of it we see all-round us, a civilisation that arises —if it arises at all, which is doubtful— will simply not be able to compare in any way with the Catholic civilisation that first created real, actual marriage. Or we should say, imposed God’s will regarding it. This part 5 is important to have read before reading this post on the Individual Woman, because otherwise some of the premises and attributes of women in general, established there with proof, will simply be misunderstood as “my opinion” here, instead of being taken as a biological fact.
Part 5a was a treatise on justice and its importance as a pillar of civilisation, and the fact that reinstating the death penalty for certain crimes is absolutely necessary. If you also pay attention to who wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout all the nations on Earth, and eventually managed to mostly do so, you will find the usual suspects, Judaic Zionists, Freemasons, or their Goyim minions. Which by now should not come as any sort of surprise.
But there was also an addendum, a slight tone-setter for this part 6, and it’s probably best you read it first.
Right. On we go! But first, the usual introduction:
This is the sixth in the Theoretical Models of Society series of Posts. Use the category of the same name or the Search Me function on the right-hand sidebar to find all related posts in the series.
It is generally helpful to a reader if they are already familiar with some of my other work, in order for this stuff to have the most useful effect on your life. In particular, The Face on Mars and Believe! would be the top reads to have done to have the generic global perspective of reality well in hand. Systema and Reclaiming the Catholic Church would have the most impact on a more personal level. On health/security/self-protection, and on the reality of Catholicism as it was (and remains with Sedevacantists) before Vatican II and why the Novus Ordo Church is not only not Catholic, but Satanic at its core. I will repeat this little paragraph on each new part, as I think it is important to have a general foundation if one is really interested in more than skim-reading before returning to the general slumber we are all being attempted to be forced into.
Having digested part 5 of this series (On Marriage) you will know that in general terms, women will tend to be far more solipsistic than men, and this is the case quite aside from anything else, as it is the logical consequence of the male/female dynamic due to their different biology.
But as described in part 4, which basically defined the utility as well as the description of what is an individual man that is ultimately a force for good, we now come to the same question concerning the individual woman.
As stated previously, men are the civilisers of a society. Their monopoly on force requires them to have always been the part of the family unit that faced the outside world, and dealt with it, meaning that the survival pressure for a man was essentially the objective universe; be this represented by inclement weather, natural predators, disasters and challenges, or even other men. As a result he developed a far more objective, logical and practical way of not just seeing things but doing them and even organising his fellow males into functional hierarchies that together could take on much larger scale projects.
Hence: Man is the civiliser and creator of any functional society. As such, the individual man could be considered the DNA strand within the cell (the nuclear family unit). A woman on the other hand, can be seen as the remaining entirety of the cell. The cell wall, and all the bits that keep a cell alive and functioning.
Unlike a man, a woman’s survival pressure was mostly other women. Absent other women, even a relatively unattractive and unpleasant woman will still get male attention and opportunity to be looked after. Such is the biological imperative for reproduction. However, introduce other women, especially prettier, sluttier, less scrupulous ones, and suddenly, the security provided by your man for yourself and your offspring is under serious threat, since you can be replaced. As a result, the dynamics in female relations differ enormously from those between men. Women are necessarily far more adept at social interactions, capable of having multiple agendas happening simultaneously. A process a simple male may even interpret as self-serving and manipulative, which it can be, but not unavoidably so.
It is true that only men create civilisations, but without women, there would not only not be any civilisations at all, but there would not even be a need for them! A world in which a man only has to worry about taking care of himself, is a far starker, simpler, harder and more brutal world.
Absent wife and children, a man is perfectly capable of living in a one room space where he has the capacity to make basic food for basic survival and a bed to sleep on. In ancient times this could literally be a cave and the extent of his possessions a few weapons and clothing. In modern times it’s a one room space with the ability to cook basic food for basic survival, and a subscription to the latest multi-player on-line gaming platform.
In short, men and women, in the natural order of things, complement each other and function in a natural harmony that is based on mutual sacrifice for the greater whole (the family unit).
Men, being more objective and logical, naturally have a far healthier and more positive understanding of this in broad terms.
Women, being biologically built to place their own welfare first, and being driven primarily by the emotion of the moment rather than the larger context, can (and do) make decisions in a possible long term marriage that can be destructive and based far more on their perception of “reality” on any given day, rather than actual reality as it is.
While a man, in the positive, tends to place his belief primarily in God and his own abilities and efforts, a woman will tend to place her belief in the man she chooses for a mate and how his actions (or lack thereof, or perception of same) affects her emotions.
While there are of course exceptions, this is the general order of things.
A woman in love with her man will go beyond the limits of reasonable or even valid levels of loyalty, sacrifice and effort. And even if it be the same man, if/when what she perceives as her “love” for him degrades, she can become equally cruel, deceptive and hateful towards him.
So, if women, in broad terms are less logical, more prone to react based on their emotions of the moment instead of reasoned motives, tend to be solipsistic and potentially manipulative, from a male perspective, what makes a good woman?
We need to start with the understanding that the presentation of a woman in the previous character, while potentially valid in broad terms, is an extremely limited and somewhat deceptive perspective; one that incidentally has been pushed relentlessly by (((the usual suspects))) in order to further erode the baseline of Christianity and indeed human performance: the nuclear family.
A woman in her natural and ordered place in life is someone that enjoys taking care of her children and husband and home, and thrives when being respected, appreciated, and loved for her doing so by both children and husband.
The average woman today is bombarded constantly with lies about what makes her life “worthwhile”. So are men, but given the difference in constitution, it is women who are most affected by it, and there is plenty of evidence on this now, one only needs to look at the disproportionate number of teenage girls that have been affected by the tranny agenda and attempt to “become male” which is really merely the recognition that social pressure (in the form of peers but also propaganda on TV, the internet and so on) is more effective on women.
If you have understood the differences between men and women, as already described, this is fairly obvious. Their being more susceptible to emotional and social events, they are easier to fool into taking seemingly polite, friendly, conflict avoidant positions on various issues, especially if presented as the “acceptable” majority view, were instead a strong, swift, and decisive response or action is required. Alternatively, they are more easily led into manufactured “outrage” at some perceived “social injustice”, where once again the main driver is a sense of social acceptance and cohesion (which is generally entirely false but manufactured artificially by mass media outlets, which today are simply the operative branch of the constant psyops we are all subjected to daily)
The West has largely been led deep into Clown World madness, primarily because women can be swayed to “tolerate” and then “champion” just about everyone and everything.
In these terms then, a good woman is one that has primarily overcome her deep need for “running with the herd”, keeping in mind that this is and intrinsic and biologically driven imperative.
There is a reason why traditionally in disasters the priority is on saving women and children. Aside the male imperative (also biologically driven) to be more ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for the safety of their woman and offspring, there is a linked factor, which is the one of relative diminished capacity. We protect children in part because they are simply less able to do so themselves due to their smaller size and lower ability to understand and respond appropriately to a serious situation. To a lesser extent, due to their propensity to process the world through their solipsistic emotions, the same is true of women.
This is why women used to not be allowed to vote, and why when the idea was introduced (by the same usual suspects) the vast majority of women did not want to be given such a “right”.
A sensible woman that is well ordered and balanced knows full well that she has far more power of persuasion and influence as a dutiful and loving wife without the right to cast a vote, than she does as a “strong independent woman” with a vote she can cast herself.
The solution, would be a woman smart and self-assured enough to take this “right” and return her behaviour in any case to that of a dutiful and loving wife, which casts her vote whichever way her husband does.
Although it should he obvious, it needs to be spelt out for far too many, that such behaviour as a “good woman” is deserved only by men who similarly behave as “good men” described in part 4 of this series.
But what of the unspoken concept that a woman’s life being filled with raising children, cooking, cleaning, keeping home and being loving and respectful to her husband makes for a boring, lonely, isolating, limited, suffocating and even dangerous life (because the husband can always drop her for the younger hotter model).
I would say that the primary crack in that narrative is the selection of husband. There is as much danger for a good woman that she may marry the kind of man that will drop her twenty years later for a younger model, that there is for a good man that to marry a woman that will divorce him for no real reason down the line and take half of what he has built along with his children.
That is the pivotal and cardinal point that needs to be addresses first, foremost and above all other issues.
The entire global zeitgeist, driven primarily by the Freemasonic country of the USA, and the vast amounts of “entertainment” that it produces, is geared to destroying, polluting and making the nuclear family as hard and impractical as possible to have and create.
Doubling the workforce by “empowering” women to serve a boss instead of making a home and raising children, for a wage that is now required just to maintain a survival level quality of life, was the first of many methods introduced (yes, always by the (((usual))) tribe of suspects) to make the traditional nuclear family go the way of the dodo.
Shortening attention spans (mobile phones, audio books instead of reading, video shorts and pretty much the entire sound-byte rich but content free dystopia we are all subjected to) produces people that are concerned with short time preferences and who become functionally incapable of planning for the future or even considering it.
The consumerism that permeates every aspect of our lives makes the chase for the next shiny but ultimately meaningless object the objective of a perennial dopamine rush with no reward at the end except an empty and childless grave surrounded not by family and friends but by the decaying and forgotten objects and toys we have accumulated over the years. Perhaps in the not so distant future, with only the standard sex robot/maid/butler android to hold our hand in the final moments, just before the harvesting of our organs routine kicks in.
Ultimately while it is true that it is men that create civilisations, it is women that maintain the social fabric to a very create extent. Men may indeed need to build the structure that holds it in place and directs it into the wind, but women form the sail that gets the boat moving.
How then, is a good woman supposed to counter the constant (and intentional, and evil) push away from the nuclear family and hence a durable civilisation? What should she look for at a minimum?
And here we come to the reason why I have always stated that if civilisation is failing, it is men that are to blame. Yes, it’s possibly quite true that women have been manipulated into becoming gold-digging, selfish, shrews, and as such they need to take responsibility for their own agency and stupidity in falling for it, but that said, let’s not pretend that this has not come about for the simple reason that men stopped acting like men and started to “act” (that is not act at all) like effeminate losers.
It is an absolute fact that your “civilisation” has clearly lost any semblance of having functional testicles anywhere in it when tens of thousands of children get raped and sexually abused by invading foreign gangs of organised pedophiles, and the native police protects these criminals and both the police stations, the politicians and the criminal foreign ethnic rapist aren’t all burned to the ground.
As for whatever clown-world faggotry might label my comment above as “inciting hatred”, I would put it to you that anyone who even remotely thinks that way, is fully deserving of not just hatred, but physical removal from society altogether, and is better to be put to forced hard labour until they either die or genuinely see the error of their ways.
Any adult that thinks that “people” who behave like the organised Pakistani gangs that operated (and probably still do) in the UK to rape and abuse tens of thousands of children deserve anything less than death, as do their enablers and protectors, is not just “not a man”, they are unworthy to belong to —nor are they capable of being members of— any functional, viable society at all. Such people, that have such absurd and dangerous ideology, should NEVER be permitted to be part of a healthy society, and certainly should never be placed in any positions where they may have ANY level of authority over anyone for any reason whatsoever.
In fact, people who advocate against the death penalty on general principle should be shunned and ostracised, as they are obviously mentally, emotionally and spiritually unfit and cannot be considered as healthy members of a functioning society.
Most women, sadly, fall into this category. They do this because being solipsistic, a woman cannot imagine passing the death sentence on someone without also imagining themselves as the executioner on some level. While this mode of thinking is acceptable for a man, and should be, it is not true for a woman (because remember, diminished responsibility for those that are less emotionally stable).
Which brings us again to the “right” to vote.
It is NOT a requirement, and should never be, that a woman actually, physically, is the executor of a death sentence. It is an unnatural state for a woman to be one. As it would be for a child. Even if a woman (or precocious child) understands and agrees with a death sentence, the execution of it should never be for them to perform. It is the duty of a man to do so. In fact, one could argue that if a man lacks the mental and emotional stability to execute a death sentence himself, he probably should never be allowed to have a say in it being the punishment that is justified for a specific crime.
The reason I write all of the above and discuss seemingly disparate topics like the death sentence, the introduction of women in the workplace and so on, is because in truth they all are interconnected strands of the social web of civilisation. And as such are indeed the very “material” of which the social sail of civilisation is made and which women very much construct and are a part of.
A good woman recognises that certain crimes absolutely warrant the death penalty, while also being perfectly aware that she is not the one that should push the button that executes the criminal, and as such should have no “vote” on the guilt of the criminal in question. Nevertheless, she absolutely should have the ear of her husband, who may be on the jury and does get to cast said vote.
Similarly, a good woman should have the strength of character, intelligence and imagination to notice how a theoretical nuclear family, difficult as it is in reality to have even under the best of conditions, and so much more so today, is nevertheless preferable and a better way to spend your life than “building a career” and being a cubicle dweller in an office for the next 40 years, even if it means you have to give up on having the latest iphone every year.
Understanding of these concepts comes to women in a different format than it does men. Mostly it is not achieved with pure logic in the case of a woman, but more by a process of a gathering of feelings and emotions and realisations that over time form a cloud of probabilities the overall sum of which comes to the same conclusions that a man’s direct and cold logic may arrive at faster and with simpler explanation.
A woman that is able to see past the lies and illusions of feminism and the entire class of cultural marxism that has thoroughly infiltrated Western Civilisation and all but destroyed it, is a woman that is not only seeing past the lies, but is also in the process of regaining her true power: her femininity.
Never forget that it was the female beauty and femininity of a single woman that launched ten thousand ships and the decade long Trojan war.
A woman’s power is not in trying to be a man, but rather in fully embracing her femaleness.
A woman that does that and also who has the capacity to devote herself loyally to the family she creates with her husband is not only a good woman, she is literally the co-creator of a functional civilisation. And while it absolutely is our duty as men to rebuild, reinstate, and maintain those structures that support, glorify, and sustain such a woman, as well as tear down, destroy and delete all such structures that are actively trying to suppress her, it remains for the woman to first of all make the choice to BE such a woman.
As to how such a woman finds a suitable and worthy man to pair up with and create that nuclear family and thus eventually rebuild a functional, effective, just society, we will cover that next in part seven, although if you are able to piece together the various concepts from this series so far, you should have a pretty decent idea already..
No related posts.
By G | 8 February 2025 | Posted in Social Commentary, Theoretical Models of Society