It occurred to me that there is something quite obvious about the various religions that I had never considered before.
Catholicism originated from the most absurdly improbable roots and was so diffused throughout the world that we literally date our time on the basis of the birth of Jesus.
First, consider that Catholicism, or Christianity, since the words are synonymous as ALL Christianity was always and only Catholic before the infiltrations and schisms were created by the enemy, allowed anyone around the world, to participate in a Holy Mass that was identical wherever you were in the world, and regardless of what language you spoke. This was the case since the 1960s when the Satanic impostor Montini, against canon law, dogma and Catholicism itself, changed the Mass in line with the equally Satanic Vatican II events.
Secondly, consider that it started with 4 women and 11 guys too scared to adit they followed Jesus. And it civilised the world. Despite constant attacks from gnostics, other religions, atheists, $cienc-eh and so on. It’s really quite astonishing since the divine principles of Catholic dogma remain unchanged after 2000 years.
So let’s look at what other religions had also a decent run, time-wise at least.
Islam, of course, Hinduism, though it is mostly secularised, 40,000 versions and counting of Protestantism, which can’t really be said to agree on anything other than “Catholicism bad”, Eastern “Orthodoxy” which is starting to split off like Protestantism but much slower and in any case is really quite schizophrenic historically and hasn’t spread itself very far comparatively speaking and the only fruits it can boast of is that presently Russia is the least cucked country on the planet. Novus Ordo fake Catholicism doesn’t really count, because this Satanic institution was only really “born” in 1958, when Angelo Roncalli became the first of the current and ongoing era of fake Popes, but really the infiltrators are mask-wearing Stanists. Satanism itself, in its many, many, many guises and under its legion of names, is, of course older than Christianity, being the first rebellion, or Protestation, against truth. And of course, Pharisaical or Talmudic Judaism which is what people who call themselves Jews today are. There is also Buddhism and Shintoism, and I think that covers the main ones. People LARPing at being “Pagans” really fall in the category of cosplayers at comic book conventions, if not furries and other fetishists, so we can’t seriously consider them, especially given their pitiful numbers and not insignificant mental health issues.
There have been many other religions that fell to the wayside for many reasons, conquest often being the main one, either physical or intellectual/spiritual. The Pagan religions of the Vikings for example died out because they gradually and spontaneously converted to Catholicism. The Mayan beliefs died out because the Spanish conquered them and the survivors converted too. and so on.
But the point is that only religions that have a spiritual basis in reality tend to stand the test of time.
And according to Catholic doctrine and belief, every one of those religions does, to some extent, square with reality, because they essentially are the creation of, or the literal worshipping of demons.
I will give a necessarily very brief and absolutely incomplete and also reductionist view of each of them below. It will be easy to critique any of these thumbnail summaries for being “simplistic” or incomplete, nevertheless, they will give a good and not unfair general sense of each one. And for good measure, I will give an equally brief and objective view of Catholicism at the end so you can get a feel for the level of both reductionism and oversimplification, but also of fairness and no overt or intentional mischaracterisation of any of them.
Protestantism – (See also Catholicism below) – The idea that a unified religion with one set of rules agreed to by a hierarchy that referred directly to God and was promised to be infallible until the end of time, should be split into each individual interpreting these divine truths independently and on their own, from one book alone, that had been edited and had parts removed by the founder of this hydra-like religion, who also expressly stated that because “reason was the whore of the devil” it should essentially be abandoned and all his ideas and theories (or the ones of your own head) should be accepted purely on faith. The obviously deaf, dumb and blind kind, one presumes, since reason could not be part of it.
Islam – the idea that a mass-murdering pedophile could do no wrong, and was the spokesman for a God that does whatever He wants arbitrarily. Reason is once again not required. Merely obedience. Conquest and conversion by force is perfectly acceptable, and should ultimately be done as soon as you are strong enough to impose it on non-muslims. Treating anyone not Islamic as an enemy, lying to them, and pretending to be their friend, but always holding in your heart the concept that they are enemies, being the right way.
Hinduism – Belief in a wide ranging pantheon of Gods for various specific things each deity takes care of. Some of these deities are said to have been historical personages from the ancient past with extra-solar origins, and others are considered to be proper deities. Regardless of either case, human beings are divided into various classes from untouchables to nobles that are like princes and reincarnation is the only way you can move up or down the hierarchy, and this is achieved by burning or not accumulating Karma in your present life.
Catholicism (today only found in 1958 Sedevacantists) – The idea that God came down to Earth as a man to take on all the sins of the world past, present and future, and any human beings who accepted this truth and kept his laws and rules would also be saved from separation from God and thus Hell. The baseline behaviour is to treat others as you wish to be treated and to spread these good news all over the world, but no one can become catholic other than by free choice.
Novus Ordo “Catholicism” – false representation of Catholicism that inverts its dogmatic principles in order to create what is ultimately a false religion, analogous to Protestantism, which informed much of its creation, alongside the push from Jewish interests behind it too and the obvious Freemasonic infiltration the real Church suffered for centuries.
Eastern Orthodoxy – The idea that keeping Christianity mostly confined to your own country, that there is no overarching authority in it, and that splitting from the origins of Catholicism, then asking their help when Muslims go to war with you, and when the Catholics come to help, you literally backstab them and try and murder them 3 times in a row, you are somehow the victim when the fourth time they sack your capital city. You also ignore basic tenets of the original religion like priests being celibate, which were in place both before, during and after the arrival of Jesus Christ.
Buddhism – The idea that life is suffering and eternal permanent death (Nirvana, the absence of all desire and therefore consciousness) is the ultimate aim of reincarnation. Mostly harmless in its wider worldly extent, but ultimately nihilistic.
Shintoism/Zen agnosticism/Taoism – While each is a distinct belief system, they all have Buddhist origins and generally do not refute reincarnation and veneration of the ancestors for guidance. In this respect they are similar to Catholicism (veneration of Saints) although not with regard to reincarnation, which Catholicism refutes as irrelevant and unnecessary at best and possible demonic deception at worst. The emphasis is on trying to achieve serenity, balance and harmony in everyday life in order to achieve it also spiritually.
Judaism – The idea that Catholicism is the worst possible religion on Earth and needs to be destroyed, and that all non-Jews are but cattle to be enslaved in order to serve Jews. According to their own most revered Rabis, the Jews worship the god of this World, known by Catholics as Satan.
What can we deduce by this brief thumbnail summary of religions from a Catholic perspective then?
- Judaism most directly serves Satan
- Hinduism could be said to serve various demons and/or long-since dead personages that originated from space
- Protestantism and Novus Ordo False Catholicism are a perversion of every Catholic Principle
- Eastern “Orthodoxy” is schismatic at best
- All Buddhist linked religions that do not worship pantheons of false Gods (ie Hinduism) or even any specific “gods” are the least bad of the Pagan religious beliefs, though far from ideal as while many of them promote generosity and friendliness towards strangers, there is no clearly defined rules on it.
If you also look at the fruits born by each of these religions over time, we see that Protestantism and more recently Novus Orcism (they are Orcs, let’s call them Orcs) are merely tools to secularise Catholicism into a human based false religion The object of “worship” is a false idol. A God with no set rules, no set divine Laws, where everyone is “free” to believe s they will and is saved anyway because they agree Jesus is King. That is literally the same level of “Christianity” that demons have. They too know Jesus is King. the result has also been acceptance of contraception, divorce, and ultimately baby murder because babies get in the way of reckless fornication with people you do NOT want to have children with.
Eastern “Orthodoxy” is slow-burn Protestantism, and hasn’t produced much of anything but its stagnant state is presently proving rather useful as a bulwark to the disintegration of faith in general in the West.
Hinduism is a horrible caste system where your station in life is determined solely by your birth, and can’t be escaped, nor is it desirable to escape it since anyway all is karma, so why bother. The resulting inefficiency, squalor and destitution of the people who practice this religion, compounded with purely worldly attempts to gain more wealth by any means necessary, is rather well-known, and surpassed only by Judaism which is, however, very effective at it, since its central principle is to enslave the world to bring it under the yoke of the Jews themselves who will rule all the non-Jews as their property and slaves.
Buddhist types are for the most part the equivalent of mostly harmless NPCs. Individuals may be positive or not, but overall as a religion they do not cause particularly good or bad societies, and the tendency tends to be towards them being organised, clean, safe and efficient.
Catholicism is the only religion that has drastically elevated the whole of humanity while keeping the individual at its core as the important thing, while also understanding his or her role in the wider social context.
There are really only four routes:
- Direct Satanism
- Indirect Satanism
- Indirect Satanism Lite
- Catholicism
So take your pick of the oldest religion of all, or one of its offshoots, or Catholicism.
Good Luck.
Oh No! Kurgan vs Vox Day Theology!
I know there are now going to be heads exploding in various gamma hives around the internet as they hope and pray to their slithering nether-gods for a major rift between myself and Vox.
While I am sure nothing of the sort is or will be the case. In fact, many moons ago, I asked Vox if he would be willing to have a friendly discussion/debate on Catholicism vs Protestantism, or to be more precise, my Sedevacantist Catholicism and his specific brand of Protestantism which I believe hinges on the original Nicene creed.
Even back then, somewhat to my surprise, he said he wasn’t against it in principle, but the time required for it (and I suspect utility of it) was not really worth it. Which, in general I agreed with.
That all said, my brain can’t help but want to continue down paths that in my view are likely to increase my understanding of reality. Christianity, is one of those paths that is essentially endless in this regard, so, like say learning to paint, or make music, is a lifelong continuous investigation.
With such endeavours, after a time, there comes a point where your understanding or skill in the topic is good enough to outdo the common men and women in the field and then even the well-known ones. In short, it becomes difficult to find other minds against which you can confront yourself in order to learn more of the topic that interests you. And when you do find one, naturally, at least for me, you’d like to investigate it and push and prod at it and test your theories and ideas and baselines against.
Well, Vox has such a mind. I also consider him a friend and few things in life are as enjoyable to me as philosophical conversation of some substance with a friend. Preferably over a good wine and light meal, or with decent cognac after a good dinner. Alas, distance and circumstance prevents such discourse in the customary civilised fashion I just described. So I find myself limited to this rather barbaric format. Blog to blog. Well, perhaps we might do a livestream on it one day, but be as it may, I will now simply dive into the post Vox put up which prompted this one for me: This is it.
As baseline axioms I think I have the following, which are:
Given the above premises/axioms, I will then look at the above linked post critically. And consider that I am absolutely in no way defending the Boomertastic Doug Wilson. I read a couple of his post years ago, before I was even a Christian and the illogic and hypocrisy prevalent in Protestantism made me conclude he’s an idiot and not worth listening to at all.
Vox concluded that Doug Wilson is a gatekeeper but still keeps tabs on him clearly, which is understandable, as I keep tabs on other gatekeepers like Milo and EM Jones and Taylor Marshall and so on. But perhaps does not condemn him as thoroughly as I do, and perhaps, in general he might not condemn the gatekeepers as thoroughly as I do. I may be wrong, but I suspect he is more forgiving than I am on such matters.
Anyway, to examine the post in more detail:
I will first note that this is precisely the same defense that is regularly offered up on behalf of other gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, and also of books like the Harry Potter series. Don’t criticize the obvious errors and the demonstrable falsehoods when they are otherwise doing so much good? Don’t you understand that if they tell the truth instead of lying, they won’t be able to reach as many of those who need the truth? Isn’t it better that they read godless tales of evil being portrayed as good than not read at all?
And the answer is no. This is a false, pernicious, and fundamentally short-sighted perspective. It is less a defense than an attempt to negotiate a guilty plea in exchange for a lesser penalty.
And so far we are in absolute agreement. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that it is better to leave aborigines in jungles alone and not instruct them at all than to instruct them with Protestantism. Because as per Church doctrine, a savage that has never heard of Christ might yet enter heaven judged by God on the merits of his own conscience, but one that has taken on a perverse version of Christianity is far less likely to escape the mortal sins of pride and in essence, choosing “me and my way” over “God and His ways”. I have always had the same idea. I met some of the last Khoi San that were free of any influence from so-called civilised men, and I found them to be honest, reliable, friendly, and just. Their society might be very primitive, but within the confines of that limitation they were essentially innocent and good people. Take a couple of generations of essentially Protestant “education” and a previously scrupulously honest primitive people become dishonest, haphazard, unpredictable and liable to suffer from everything to alcoholism to being criminals.
Let me be perfectly clear: No one who advocates equality of any kind, and no one who is a civic nationalist of any variety, and no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.
Because liars cannot, and will not, defend the truth. They will always produce one reason or another for refusing to do so. And if you are foolish enough to trust or follow a liar, you will come to regret it, as all of you – and readers here should recall, the vast majority of you – who used to lionize Jordan Peterson and consider him to be a great intellectual champion should know.
Again, I agree whole-heartedly. Although, I realise Vox here was referring specifically to Civic Nationalism and so on, the fact remains that:
no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.
And this remains the absolute point for me which I cannot reconcile with Vox’s theology.
Vox, is, after all, a Protestant. A very unique one he might be, but he (as far as I know) does not subscribe to the rules of the Catholic Church as per the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which in essence simple explains/extrapolates from both the Bible and Catholic (Christian) Tradition and has compiled and summarised all the various extrapolations, dictates, and dogma of the Catholic Church into one volume that covers all of those documents from the period of human history up to the year 1917. As a Catholic, you then may also wish to add the Papal ex-cathedra commentaries made from 1917 to 1958. After that we have not had any valid Popes since, so everything else can be safely ignored.
I am fairly sure Vox has not read the Code of Canon Law. And if he did I think the things he might object to are probably not as many as he might envision, but I am (foggily) aware he has some issue with some aspects of Mariology, though I am not sure what they are. I feel fairly confident he is well-read enough to be aware that Catholics do not actually “worship” Mary, but simply ask for her intercession, as we do to various Saints. In essence, the difference between catholics and Protestants is that we don’t stop communicating with our dead friends and people. We pray for them and we also ask them to pray for us.
One of the only times we briefly discussed my Catholicism (sedevacantism) and I pointed out some of the main issues he immediately said words to the effect of “Oh, well, those are Catholics I can get behind”. So again, I doubt the differences between us are huge in terms of theology.
He also agrees with me that in general humans need rules, otherwise they will pretty much eat each other alive in the street, which, to a certain extent we are starting to really see on a global level when Christianity fades.
We are also both smart enough understand that, while perhaps a certain optional rule for people may not really be designed for me or him specifically, we can’t really have rules for thee but not for me. And if there are exceptions, they should be based on sound reasoning, logic, and justice, not personal preference. So, in short, I ask myself:
“Why is Vox not actually a sedevacantist?”
I am presently only aware of one possible hitch which is his specific interpretation of the Trinty. Which I will not attempt to speak for him on as I would probably get it wrong. For myself, I do not pretend to know the intricacies of the Trinity, and I am perfectly happy to act in this regard very much as an illiterate peasant from the year 800. The Church says the Trinity works thusly, and I accept it as a given. I see no possible profit in trying to atomise that concept, nor do I have any interest in it.
While I may atomise the concept of not duelling and understand it very well, and instinctively want to say: “But Bishop, I don’t want to run that guy through with a rapier because I am proud, but because he defrauds little old ladies and steals candy from children, and blasphemes! C’MAWN…Just this one (ok, half-dozen) time?!” But intellectually I understand I must just bow my head and NOT challenge the man to a duel to the death. And if I do confront him, it would be a sin to smack the living crap out of him until he makes amends. I know that. Which makes it a bad sin. But… y’know… I’m only human. Maybe next time I’ll give him a warning first. You know, if I really see the error of my ways. Otherwise all I can do is really try to work on it over time. But in the meantime: no duels have been had. #winning.
So, it might be an intellectual disparity, perhaps the things that interest Vox to dissect are so different from the ones that interest me that it causes him a problem with Catholicism. And this, THIS is the real interest to me.
What are those details? Is he seeing something I am not, or is it vice-versa? Or is there a third possibility that we are both missing?
Such conversations, or investigations, if you prefer, are what fascinates me, and the ones that I think help us to see more truth when done with an intellectually honest person that is also curious enough and interested enough to examine such details.
I seem to recall for example that Vox also labelled Once Saved Always Saved as a retarded concept (he may have been more polite about it) and I would expect he similarly considers Sola Scriptura as absurd, but I never asked him the question. I also seem to recall that his generic approach to the Bible was not that this or that version was “better” but to just read one and go with it as best you can, which is “close enough” for really about 99.99% of people.
I suspect that his avoidance of hardcore Catholicism is linked to what he believes are “lies” or untruths that the Catholic Church has as various dogmas. What these are, however I am unaware, and it is my experience that most such ideas are usually rooted in some Protestant fake news about Catholicism. Several aspects of which, honest historians like Rodney Stark have pointed out even though they are not Catholics.
At any rate, I would certainly be interested in looking at what the differences between his and my theological philosophies are.
I suspect he doesn’t have the time, but the invitation is open.
UPDATE: A reader pointed out I have not explained the absolute point that anyone who advocates that a sin is not a sin should not be trusted. As often happens with me, I thought the point was obvious, but I failed to realise it is not as obvious to many as I think. So, to clarify, The very concept of Protestantism that each man can interpret the Bible as he wishes, is a pernicious sin of pride. Even the sola scriptura retards must know that man is perfectly honest, clean and good as well as smart and reasonable. It very clearly states this in Hebrews and elsewhere if memory serves.
Secondly, it is just as obvious that a good and loving God would not leave a DYI kit for interpreting His Will and what the rules He wishes us to follow are. Because given the fact we are all a bunch of retards to one degree or other, we are guaranteed to screw it up. And the idea a flawless and loving God would leave us a flawed theology is equally retarded.
Therefore, a FLAWLESS theology MUST exist. And there must be a way to know which it is. As it happens, there is. Jesus Appointed Peter as the Head of His Church, instructed the Apostles to teach His teachings and Paul tells us also that we are to reject things that are not as per their teachings as given to them by Jesus (that is, Apostolic succession, is a thing).
All of which would still screw up if it were not for the fact that Jesus also told us He would be with us to the end of time. Now, if Jesus is with us always to the end, and He commanded the Apostles to teach what He taught them, then their teachings cannot be in error. Not because even the Apostles are flawless, but because Jesus is.
That is the whole point of Papal infallibility. It’s not due to some superhuman characteristic of Popes. There have been plenty of greedy, power-hungry, deviants as Popes, but they did not teach erroneous dogma when speaking ex-cathedra because of the supernatural protection due to Jesus’ promise. Who can speak erroneous or wrong doctrine? People who are not protected by Jesus’ promise and who is that? People who are not the foundation on which the rock is based, which has two parts. The non visible supreme one, Jesus, and his vicar on Earth, which is the man holding the position that Peter held as leader of the Apostles.
18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Priests can lie or be wrong. Bishops can lie or be wrong. Popes can lie or be wrong. But valid, legitimate Popes talking officially for the entire Church on matters of faith and morals, that is the foundational principles of Christianity, cannot be wrong. Again, not because they are infallible in and of themselves, but because Jesus specifically said he was specifically with them to the End of the World. And Jesus cannot be wrong, nor is he a liar. And what He taught the apostles is true and He also specifically stated he would build the Church on Peter,, renaming him from Simon to Peter, which in Latin, Aramaic and most Latin languages literally means Rock.
Regardless of whatever brain-twisting Protestants come up with to try and say Jesus didn’t mean or say what he meant and said, even a child can understand that if someone says, to a guy called Simon:
“Hey buddy, come here, gonna run a little test by you…”
And he does, and Simon passes, and the guy says:
“You know what buddy, I’m gonna call you Rock from now on, and on this rock, I will build my church.” It’s a fairly clear point that Good old Simon/Rock, is now the head of the Church. Seriously, a child gets it. You need to be indoctrinated into lies from birth not to see this as it is.
So, the first lie is to tell people that to not be Catholic is not a sin. It is. You’re ignoring God’s Will. And the entire retinue of sins that follows from anyone following that advice is literally endless. And frankly, it ALL stems from pride to begin with. Some German fattie with a penchant for sexing up nuns and raping maids and swearing and calling reason literally “the whore of the devil”, comes along some 1500 years after Christ and the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY valid Christianity to that point and he FIXES everything? It’s moronic. Jesus didn’t say:
“Oh, by the way, all the people for the next 1500 years or so that call themselves Christians, and all the Popes which everyone agrees for that long are the main dudes, yeah, well, forget about all of them, they are all wrong and Pagan worshippers that ask my mother and a bunch of dead guys of no importance whatsoever to put in a good word for them with me. Anyway, all those guys? Going straight to Hell. Only when that rotund German with the beer and all the sex comes along will AKCHUAL Christianity be fixed. And he will do it by changing the Bible before he says it’s the only thing you should refer to at all. But only the one he changed, not the one everyone used for 1200 or so years and that was put together by the same Catholics who got it all wrong. And oh that Bible that the German guy changed, which was also changed by the Pahrisees, you know, the guys who had me killed, for 700 years before him, that’s the good Bible, scrap that other one. And oh, oh, one more thing: The best Bible, it’s the one with 33,000 translation errors ordered to be put together by a flamingly homosexual English King. Jimmy boy, that’s his name. He also starts up the Freemasons, which are Satanists, but don’t let that bug ya, seriously, his version of the Bible is the best one.”
So… yeah. I hope it’s kinda obvious now.
No related posts.
By G | 11 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary