I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
It is possibly the biggest source of personal frustration when I encounter the lukewarm, which frankly, seems to be literally everyone, with exception of my children, and most pure being the littler ones.
I understand that obstinacy, especially given the average human monkey, leads to nothing good, of course.
And yes, we all see through a glass darkly. Every one of us.
Even so, some things are obviously true. Obviously clear to anyone who cares to look.
Two plus two is, and always will be, four.
It is also a sad fact that I doubt if there are even a handful of people that would be willing to die over that fact. If faced with the prospect:
“Defend that two and two is four to death, or, allow all of humanity to forego the very concept of mathematics, calculation and so on.”
Put that way, it would mean either you sacrifice yourself, or, humanity will literally be forever reduced to about the same level as bonobos, and in fact, possibly lower, in fact, almost assuredly lower; though I don’t expect most people reading this to have the imagination necessary to envision why unless they put some serious thought into it.
I also appreciate that the argument for Sedevacantism takes a certain level of ability and education. You not only need to be able to read, but have the intelligence, will and desire to do so, in the specifics of the details of Church history, law, dogma and credo. I understand that too. I know it is a minority that can do that and the rest tend to follow for the usual reasons, because their family or friends have done so and humans are at times essentially herd animals.
However, if you are one of them; and you have taken the time and effort to learn why Sedevacantism is the only valid Catholicism left, why on God’s green Earth would you give a second’s time to obvious heretics?
If you have understood and accepted that the Novus Orcians are impostors, fake “Catholics” then it is absolutely impossible that you should make any exception for any of them.
“Oh but…” just doesn’t come into it.
It doesn’t matter if on this particular Tuesday afternoon, of the blue Moon, he told the truth on this one point.
It doesn’t matter if he calls out Bergoglio.
It doesn’t matter if he saves starving orphans in Africa.
It doesn’t matter if “he makes so much sense”.
This is not about a “bad” Catholic that is badly catechised, or a weak one that fails. Or a bad one that is in mortal sin every week through a retinue of bad character traits. It’s about fake clergy pretending to be of a religion they patently are not.
They are, in essence, spiritual mass-murderers.
Would you extend the same “benefit of the doubt” to a serial killer? Does it matter if he had a really bad childhood? Or he hears voices? Or he really doesn’t realise the evil he is doing?
Are you going to be buddies with Ted Bundy because he really knows how to get women close to him?
And if you are an actual believer, spiritual mass-murderers are worse than mere physical ones. Physical mass murderers take your life on Earth and your body, but spiritual ones are trying to throw your soul into hell for eternity.
So, if you are a Sedevcantist, that is, an actual Catholic, you do not accept, in any way, shape or form:
Una-cum masses, they are a blasphemy and a heresy.
Novus Ordo anything.
Vatican II anything.
That includes ALL the fake clergy and pomp of the fake “Catholic” Bergoglian Church and ALL their members.
Because they are not Catholics. Just as two plus two is not five.
Now, as you all know by now, if you read here at all, the nickname given to me by others: The Kurgan, applies not only because of my happy-go-lucky and sunny disposition, but also for my intolerance of heretics. We all know: There can only be One (True Church).
What started as some kind of internet bumfight between theological retards, Jimbob and Owen Benjamin, has grown, as an avalanche started by their simultaneous thundering fart, to include the questioning of the very nature of the Trinity by scores of autists across the web.
And prompted Vox Day to clarify his position, as he has often been (incorrectly) accused of denying the Trinity.
The resulting discussion from Vox’s post on SG actually had some interesting commentary (as well as also the “thoughts” of various drooling retards).
So… although the topic is of very little interest to me personally, since my position is pretty ironclad, I thought it might be interesting to others, or at least entertaining. And perhaps they might find some historical background, or some logical thinking related to it, or, ultimately, my personal position, useful.
In that vain hope then, allow me to quote The Creed as the (real, Sedevacantist) Catholic Church currently has it:
Credo
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem caeli et terra; et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus únicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus et sepúltus; descéndit ad inferos; tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis; ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis; inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos. Credo in Spíritum Sanctum, sanctum Ecclésiam cathólicam, sanctórum communionem, remissiónem peccatórum, carnis resurrectiónem, vitam aetérnam. Amen.
Which, translated into English for you heathens, heretics and schismatic is:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day he resurrected from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father; He will return to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting. Amen.
And that, of course, is the only Creed you need or should care about, since it is the one of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, which, I remind you, is infallible and will remain with us until the return of our Lord The Christ.
However… let me now take you through the various iterations and why this is so.
Beginning with Vox’s preferred credo, which he clarified is the one of the “Faith of the 150 Holy Fathers” also known as the Nicene Creed, of 325 AD, but which I believe he clarified (and I hope he corrects me if I got this wrong) meant the first version, as used by St. Cyril who was a catechist in 345 AD, and is also known as the Jerusalem Creed because this is where St. Cyril taught.
There are two forms of this. The first, a very abbreviated form used for the baptism of a new convert:
I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
And the second one, which was used when they made their vows of renunciation and faith before the whole congregation, in other words, when they were essentially confirmed as adult members of the Church.
It reads as follows:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father, very God, before all worlds, by whom all things were made, and was incarnate, and was made man, was crucified and was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and is coming in glory to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets, and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life eternal.
Given that the second one was the one recited formally by the baptised adult (or at least of age of reason), it is obvious that the first is a condensed version just identifying the most important points, and the second one is a more complete version. That in and of itself already makes it clear that a so-called “revision” of the Creed, is acceptable; because it is not a revision or corruption, but merely a more complete and detailed version of the first one. So in principle, the one used by the Catholic Church is perfectly fine.
But far be it from me to deprive you of the thrill of a larger internet bunfight about theology. In essence then, what, if any, is the difference between the Credo I subscribe to and the one Vox subscribes to?
I posit it is very little. Let’s see them side by side and concept by concept with some commentary by yours truly. Always keeping in mind, I am not a priest or Bishop, merely a layman that submits to the infallible magisterium of Holy, Catholic, Mother Church.
Jerusalem Creed
Catholic Church (Sedevacantist) Creed
Notes
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth;
1
and of all things visible and invisible.
2
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father,
and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord,
3
very God, before all worlds, by whom all things were made,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
4
and was incarnate, and was made man,
born of the Virgin Mary,
5
was crucified and was buried,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;
6
He descended into hell;
7
and rose again the third day,
on the third day he resurrected from the dead;
8
and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father,
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father;
9
and is coming in glory to judge the quick and the dead,
He will return to judge the living and the dead.
10
whose kingdom shall have no end.
11
And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets,
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
12
and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
13
and in one Holy Catholic Church,
the holy catholic Church,
14
the Communion of Saints,
15
the remission of sins,
16
and in the resurrection of the flesh,
the resurrection of the flesh
17
and in the life eternal.
and life everlasting.
18
Amen.
19
And here is my commentary then, see the note number above for reference.
I see no relevant difference. We/I is ultimately irrelevant since each person professes it anyway at an individual level. If you must have an autistic take it might be that Catholics do not presume to speak for anyone but themselves when professing faith.
I see no relevant difference. Heaven and Earth assumes the entirety of creation in Catholic Dogma.
No relevant difference.
Here the appears to be a difference. The Jerusalem Creed focuses on the nature of God, the Catholic one states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (which in Catholic Dogma is still one of the three entities of God, so, ultimately, no difference that I can see as relevant).
No appreciable difference with reference to Jesus, but, an important omission in the Jerusalem Creed in that Mary is not mentioned at all. One might assume this is rather irrelevant since we all know Mary gave birth to Jesus and that He was Conceived by God (whether you want to limit that to God the Father or expressly state by the Holy Spirit, is, again, to my mind, quite immaterial since they are both aspects of God). The more obvious omission refers to Mary’s virginity. Which really should not be in question anyway, since every Christian for well over one and a half millennia has known that Mary was a Virgin while pregnant with Jesus. So, as far as any reasonable man goes, there is no appreciable difference. Some retarded person might however, infer that Mary was not necessarily a virgin, I suppose. I doubt this is Vox Day’s position.
No appreciable difference, although we Catholic remember better who did what and when (especially since our prayer for the Mass includes the guilt of the Jews).
A difference. Apparently, according to the Jerusalem Creed, Jesus either did not descend into Hell, or it was not worth mentioning, which I find rather a large omission.
No real difference but the Catholic version is more precise.
No real difference.
No real difference.
No real difference since the eternity of God’s Kingdom is assumed in Catholic Dogma, but the Jerusalem Credo is more detailed.
No real difference, although the Jerusalem Credo specifies at least one of the functions of the Holy Spirit in more detail. The word Paraclete is from the Greek Parakletos and can generally be translated as Comforter or Counsellor, or one who stays or is called to be beside another. In essence it is clarifying that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets. With which the Catholic Church has no argument.
No real difference. The Catholic Church Dogma is that there is only one baptism and it does remit all sins committed before it.
No difference.
A difference. This could potentially be quite a big one, if one is abysmally ignorant of Church history. In the first instance it could be interpreted as not requiring Holy Mass. However, as I said, anyone even remotely familiar with Church history will know that the Holy Mass was performed from the earliest times, with full concept of transubstantiation and so on. In the second instance, again, one abysmally ignorant of Church history might assume that there is no communion between a Christian that is alive and one that is dead. This is, the general error that Protestants make, (almost invariably ignorant of history in general, never mind Church history): Assuming that Catholics “pray” or “worship” dead people. The reality is that for a Catholic, as was the case for all Christians for well over one and a half millennia, it was always understood that the dead remain “alive” to us, whether in purgatory or in heaven and we can ask intercession from them, as you do of your friends when you say “please pray for me”. Which of course, applies to the Hail Mary prayer and many others. It is not a worship of Mary, it is an asking of her to pray for us sinners. That’s all. In this respect then, the omission from the Jerusalem Credo I think can lead to error, although, in fairness, at the time, this would have been omitted in the same way that one might omit saying water is wet. It was obvious to all. Then autists and gnostics came along, so, as the Church does from time to time, it specifies for all what has already always been the case anyway. And does so only to clarify for the laziest and most credulous, what devout Catholics have always known and done to begin with.
No real difference. Although it can be interpreted as being one. See point 13 above. The autist might, however, conclude, as the retarded Protestants do that the remission (forgiveness) of sins, as mentioned in the Jerusalem Credo means all sins, past, present and future. Which is, of course, the retarded take. The Catholic Credo, by placing it here makes it more clear that sins can be remitted/forgiven. The implication being that even after baptism, new sins one might commit, can be forgiven (not WILL BE, but CAN be). So in a sense the Catholic version is more precise.
No difference.
No difference.
A (presumed) difference. I presume this to be on the same level as point 15. It seems to not be expressly stated in the Jerusalem Credo because it was probably spoken out aloud anyway and everyone knew it. And makes no real difference to the theology either way.
This then, to my mind, puts to rest the appreciable differences that I might have with Vox’s theology, and to sum up, what are they, as far as I can see?
The bolded portions, at first glance.
I have not asked Vox his position, as I wanted to write this first, and then let him comment on it if he choses to, so any assumptions I may make on his behalf are subject to correction, and if he lets me know where I may have made a wrong one, I’ll be sure to let you know and update.
Right then, on point number 5: There are potentially up to three issues:
I do not assume Vox takes the position that Mary was not a virgin before the birth of Jesus.
I think he may take the position that she was not perpetually a virgin after the birth of Jesus, which is a Catholic dogma. Given he has not had a Catholic upbringing, as far as I know, I assume he would rely on his own relatively reasonable (at first impact anyway) assumption that once a woman has given birth she is no longer a virgin from a physical perspective. Even if this were the case, the Catholic Church, when referring to Mary’s perpetual virginity means that she never had sexual relations with anyone, even after the birth of Jesus, and that’s what matters. I do not know whether he subscribes to the idea that Mary did later have sexual relations with her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. Possibly he might, if he is relying on the erroneous assumption that the man referred to as the “brother” of Jesus, called James, was an actual sibling of Jesus, rather than merely one of his ardent followers.
Anyone familiar with the details of priesthood, and things like the rituals required before entering the tabernacle, the death of anyone touching the ark of the covenant or indeed other things set aside for God, would understand that Mary, having been made a pure vessel for the incarnation of Jesus, was obviously set aside for God, and no man in his right mind would have dared trying to have sex with her. This is the position the Catholic dogma takes ultimately. In either case, at a practical level, I do not see that it makes any difference in how a man might go about his day-to-day life as a Christian. Possibly, the heretical view might lead one to be slightly less appreciative of the contribution to Christianity of women, in their role as mothers or of sexually pure brides and so on. In other words, if one was to err on the side of caution, the Catholic position would be the better one to side with.
On point number 7: I doubt Vox believes Jesus did not descend into Hell, but I suppose he might. Even if he does, I don’t see how that would affect his day-to-day actions or belief system. It would be an error as far as the Catholic Church goes, but I fail to see the consequences of it at a practical level. At a spiritual level, of course, having such an erroneous belief would diminish the work done by our Lord for those souls that remained in purgatory or limbo until he freed them, as well as diminish His power and ability to do, go and act as He deems required.
On Point number 15: Here may be the only real differences. I am not sure what Vox’s views on the need for Holy Mass, transubstantiation and the communion of (dead) Saints. As he is of a generically Protestant non-denomination, I assume he probably does not subscribe to transubstantiation. I assume he believes there is a need for going to Church, though I am ignorant of what aspects of what passes for Holy Mass in Catholic Churches is replaced by any specific beliefs Vox may have in this regard.
Overall then, I would sum the possible differences between Vox and myself, as far as our theology goes are probably limited to transubstantiation, the need for confession and it being a sacrament, an item that is not even mentioned specifically in the credo of either side (though it is implied within the context of Catholicism, by point number 16), and the possibility of asking for intercessionary prayer from the departed, including Mary.
Potentially, at a stretch, we might even guess at some unspecified difference of opinion or view of maybe women or mothers in general because of his Protestant leanings versus my Catholic ones, but frankly, I doubt it. And if there is, I doubt it would be very significant in practical terms. Lastly, and this only from a very brief conversation I had with him on the matter a few years ago, I believe that he may take the position that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God (I am not sure whether he means from God the Father only, like the Eastern “Orthodox” do, or from both God the Father and Jesus the Son) that He sends to us, rather than a “third person” as such as is generally conceived by most people who call themselves Christians.
Adendum:A commenter helpfully referenced this post from 2013 which sheds more light on Vox’s position. To summarise it then, he questions the change from the original Nicean Credo regarding the position of the Holy Spirit. My understanding is that he does not equate the Holy Spirit with having the same quality of Godhood as Jesus or God the Father. Specifically, he objects to the description of the Holy Spirit being as “the giver of life” since life was already present and eternal as the result of Jesus’ arriving before the Holy Spirit (I assume here that Vox means that those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah even before Jesus was baptised were already given life eternal). Interestingly, Vox seems to also hold that the Holy Spirit must be able to proceed from both the Father and the Son. I am not certain, however, since he also, reasonably enough, states that God the Father and Jesus the Son cannot be wholly and totally interchangeable at all times, but he does not specify if he thinks the Holy Spirit precedes only from the father. I do not think that the position that Jesus and God the Father are both God, yet not exactly interchangeable at all times and in all ways is heretical. the very fact there is a distinction means there are differences. Similarly, being Catholic, it makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, as is, in any case, made quite clear in the Bible. As for Vox’s contention that the Holy Spirit is later raised to a status that is quasi identical to Jesus and God the Father, I honestly abstain from having an opinion on the matter. I don’t see it changes anything one way or the other how this aspect is viewed, and personally, do not even see that it makes a difference if the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Triune God as Vox interprets it or as he assumes the Catholic Church interprets it. I mean… it is literally a mystery, so I find the quibbling over it to be a complete waste of time in practical terms, and at most, a personal point of curiosity as to how another human being might perceive it, as observing such things often can give us new insights.
On this last point, I am not sure if it even makes a difference even at a dogmatic level in Catholic thought. I mean, I know that the Holy Spirit is presented as the third part of the triune God, but as to the exact specifics of the nature of the Holy Spirit, I really and truly believe such speculation is well above my ability or even concern to know. I am perfectly happy to submit to infallible Church dogma, whatever it may be, on the matter. And honestly, I cannot see that in practical terms as far as the way Vox may or may not act it makes any difference at all. For all I know such a belief may well land him in Hell, but I honestly have no knowledge of that, nor understanding of why, and more importantly, no concern at all to find out. As I said, like the great philosopher Harry Callahan, I know my limitations and am perfectly happy to take the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church on this subject.
So, that takes care of the view Vox has of the Trinty.
Now for the others…
This is a much simpler issue.
Owen Benjamin’s take on the Trinity has, without any doubt, been utterly, completely blasphemous, since he compared the relationship between God the father and Jesus the Son as a homosexual liaison with the Holy Spirit as the ejaculate. And no, I don’t for one second accept the cowardly excuse that he was “only joking.” Let me put it this way: Jean Parisot de Valette, who eventually became the leader of the knights of Malta and was possibly the man who single-handedly might have been most responsible for Islam not putting the whole of Europe to the fire and the sword, once beat a lay member of the order of Knights nearly to death. Allegedly for blasphemy. For which he did four months in prison. I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. And in fact, if nearly killing a man for blasphemy was requiring of four months in the hole (it was literally a hole in the ground in which food and water were lowered to the prisoner) that seems about right to me. And if such laws were implemented across the civilised world, we would soon return to a saner, cleaner, more respectful and kind world.
In short, Owen’s take is absolutely retarded, blasphemous in the extreme, and he had best keep such an idiotic idea to himself. Especially is he’s ever near an actual Catholic who might have a temperament similar to good old de Valette.
It does need to be stated that if Owen holds such a belief, which I charitably doubt, or even just whatever belief allowed him to make such an absurd and blasphemous statement, it is quite clear he has a disordered mind, and that, at a rather obviously deep level of degeneracy to even come up with such imagery. Which, if what I am told about his streams by others is even only partially accurate, would also be obvious since apparently he spends a goodly part of his hours long streams referencing homosexual acts, male genitalia, or ejaculation, in graphic detail. Clearly, not the sign of a healthy mind.
But in any case, no one that made the comments he made concerning the Trinity can ever be taken to be a Christian of any kind, not even of some random version of absurd Churchianity like Mormonism. We can therefore only define Owen as a complete heretic (assuming he was ever validly baptised, which I don’t know). And if he was not validly baptised, then he is simply some kind of deranged non-denominational heathen or pagan. In short, we need not concern ourselves with his take on any aspect of christianity, theology, or frankly, much of anything else, since it is wholly irrelevant.
Whatever Jimbob’s take on the trinity is, I have no clue, as I have never watched any of his videos or read anything from him except the odd cartoon he draws, of which, I am not a fan. I just don’t like the look, but that’s a matter of taste and of no consequence. I really do not know anything at all about his view of the Trinity, but I am led to believe that Jimbob considers himself and Eastern “Orthodox” if this is the case, and if he holds the classic views of that schismatic sect, then the most likely difference he would have with me is that being as the schematic “Orthodox” don’t read their Bible very well, he assumes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone, when it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both if one can read in normal human context. In any case, if this is the extent of the discrepancy between us, it is, again, of rather little consequence at a practical level and I doubt would lead Jimbob to act in any specifically degenerate fashion. As I said before, it might lead him to Hell spiritually, but as to the details of the how or why, beyond the fact it goes against Catholic Dogma, I do not profess, nor care, to know, I am happy to simply submit to the Catholic Church’s view on this.
Conclusion
So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. The only interest I have in this whole topic would be Vox’s specific views, and that purely on a personal level, because I find him interesting and his views usually present facets of reality I might not have considered before. From a personal theological perspective however, whatever Vox’s views might be in their detail, it is extremely unlikely to change my own. It might, possibly, add some level of detail or nuance though, I might not have considered before, and as such, it could be interesting.
The views of Jimbob and Owen on the Trinity (or pretty much anything else) are completely uninteresting and utterly irrelevant to me in the extreme. As are pretty much anyone else’s, unless I find your takes on a number of topics and your level of intellectual thought experiments to be engaging.
I now take my leave of what, no doubt, will be further fuel to the Internet Trinity Bumfight Dumpster Fire of 2023.
Alright, so I expect most people will have sort of skip-read Parts 1 and 2 and may tend to skip read this part 3 too, thinking that they already know most of the points I made. I assure you, most people reading this don’t know where it’s going, and for the most part, don’t understand the implications of Part 1 and 2 that have been written so far. I hope, that they will all begin to make more sense here and a lot more sense in part 4. So much so, that you might want to go back and read the previous posts.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume you have got your spiritual aspects right, which means you have an iron-clad mind and very tough mental strength, and that you also have picked for yourself, bought, and paid off in full, the ideal piece of land, in the right part, of the right country for you.
I know this is absolutely NOT the case for almost everyone reading this, but play along with me and let’s assume you have already got, or could get, those first pivotal two parts. Let us now look at how it affects things from the most intimate of social aspects to the outer circles of mere acquaintances.
Family
There are two types of family. The one you were born into, and the one you will make. For the most part, the one you were born into determines where you came from, a large chunk of what your character and personality are like, the most important aspect of which is what you found in part 1 of this series. It also, mostly, will have determined to an extent or other where you are now and what resources or lack of them you have. The important thing to realise, however, is that regardless of the handicaps you have been handed down, where you end up, who you become, and how you decide to live your life, is almost entirely up to you. I personally have known people that came from horrific situations that made lives for themselves that would not be thought possible by most people.
More important is the family you will, or want to, or have already made. And in large part, again, this will depend on where you are with respect to the points discussed in Part 1. Hopefully you are starting to grasp why Part 1 is the foundation of everything.
If you are a nihilistic atheist, or even just a doubtful agnostic, it is unlikely that you will be aiming to have seven children. The more materialistically and hedonistically you’re inclined, the less likely you are to want to bring children into the world. Realise that this is by design. There are very powerful people and forces at work for many decades, that have a long-term interest in ensuring that the population growth of everyone overall drops, but most of all, of European-descent Christians. And Catholics in particular. The reasons why are somewhat beyond the scope of these essays, so you will have to figure this out for yourself, or ignore it at your peril, but it remains a fact, whether you like it or not, whether you assume it’s paranoid, delusional, or most likely of all, “anti-semitic”. The closer you are to having a real Catholic spiritual base, and therefor, invincible spirit of mind, the more likely you are to be wanting to have, and actually make, as many children as you can. After all, Catholicism does not permit divorce, or contraception, and the main purpose of marriage in Catholicism is to create, love and raise good Catholic children. And whether you like it or not, the future belongs to those who show up for it. If you are not making babies, your line will end with you.
Of course, you want to provide as best you can for your family, but I assure you, that if my wife and I somehow manage to feed our five children and ourselves daily, with very little income to speak of, and with what is essentially as yet a non-productive farm that has lain fallow for years, then you’ll probably manage too. Having been both an atheist and an agnostic, well into my thirties, I was fairly sure I never wanted children. The world sucked, people are idiots, life is pain, and why on Earth would I want to inflict that on a poor innocent child of mine? That is how I thought and therefore, although I did look for one woman to share my life with, When that didn’t work out after my best and repeated efforts, several times in a row, I simply decided to not bother, and I then spent some years just going through a number of women. In most cases, I didn’t even bother trying to have any long term relationships anymore, as soon as the woman in question irritated me beyond a certain point, I simply moved on. After a few years of this, I realised that I could spend the rest of my days this way, or try a new challenge. I was in my late thirties by then, and only after I passed 40 did I think it might make sense to have and raise a child. While I had developed a certain skill at being with women that appealed to me from a physical point of view and even found a few that I could get along with intellectually, my first choice of woman to procreate with turned out to be spectacularly the wrong choice. After that exploded in my face in one of the worse possible ways, it was then that I had a true Road to Damascus moment that changed my life-long Zen-Agnosticism into something far stronger and more personal, though, it did take a few years to evolve into it. After four years of intense study of Christianity and Catholicism in particular, and once I had changed my whole perspective on the spiritual aspect of life, against all possible statistical odds you might think of, I ended up finding that woman that I had essentially no longer even assumed was possible to find. A thought I had as certain for several years at this point. And yet, here was the miracle.
We got baptised together, and I then married for the third time, but the first and only time in Church as a Catholic. We are now 3 children later in only 5 years of marriage. And not only am I not concerned about the terribleness of the world, but rather, I will be doing my utmost to ensure my children have the best possible chance to thrive, in whatever world awaits us all.
Part of that process includes writing this series, because the higher the number of people that agree with me, and the more of those people live near me, the more they create similar situations wherever they are in the world, the more likely that my children, and theirs, will grow up free and happy; instead of chip-implanted, insect-eating, wage and sex slaves of the psychopathic satanists that meet in Davos regularly.
So that’s just presenting you the limits of the frame with respect to family: From lone-wolf, monk-like, ascetic, to large family Catholic patriarch.
As they say, take your pick. You can still do good wherever you are on this spectrum.
But assuming you plan to have children, then, understand that you really need to try your best to have the top level choice from part 1 and a distant, but very important second, the best situation you can muster from part 2. It is certainly easier to achieve those things as a single man or a young couple, quickly and “good enough”, than with 3 or 4 small children to care for. After all, a single guy can live in a tent for a year or so while he builds or restores a smallish cabin, then makes it bigger to accomodate a family. Doing that in winter with small children would be foolish at best if not downright irresponsible.
But the point is, if you are NOT going to have children, then at best you are a “helper” but you are not a “builder” of the future. Your contributions may be great and awesome and absolutely necessary, and there is certainly a huge sacrifice in that, priests do this, and it is absolutely noble, but then be at peace with that choice and know this is who you are and choose to be.
If you do choose to have a family, then, it is important that you understand and have —as best you can and above all— the mental and spiritual determination to do the best you possibly can for your family in a joyful and tireless fashion, with the best possible life partner that who understands that this is for life, until death do you part. After which, the next most important thing is like-minded (old) family, as long as they are supportive and on the same page, and your friends.
Friends
As the old car sticker I used to love said: Friends help you move. Real Friends help you move bodies.
Over the last three years I think we have all had the opportunity to better appreciate that saying. You want the kind of friends that would help you move bodies, not just the ones that are happy being your friends while things are good, but the ones willing to dig a foxhole next to you. The more such people you can surround yourself with —within walking distance of each other’s homes ideally— the better. And such relationships are naturally easier to form in small rural settings. And contrary to popular belief, can be formed from scratch, as long as you know how to fit in there. Which once again, goes to you picking your spot as per part 2 well.
Interlude on Geography (Part 2 element)
This, of course, brings up a point that perhaps many younger people, with a dream of exotic travel, might not appreciate. If you are born into one of these small rural communities, you may already have pretty much everything you need right at your doorstep. Giving it all up for some hedonistic wish to travel and see exotic places, might not, in fact, be all it’s cracked up to be. Personally I come from a long line of explorers, and fighters, our family roots are traceable to the crusaders returning from the Holy Land in the Outremer, and being Venetians, perhaps it’s in our DNA to have been travellers and explorers from a very young age as far back as I can find of the history of my ancestors.
I have indeed travelled most of the world, and seen many countries and places, and vastly different cultures, but as a result, I was able to set aside the wealth to purchase a property only rather late in life, and then only with the help of my father. Had I spent my twenties and thirties saving prudently and investing, I could probably simply retire in a similar property as I own now, with passive income from other properties. But I did not live that way. I am lucky, in that I lived as both grasshopper for a time and yet had enough brain, luck and help, to morph into an older and battle-scarred ant later in life. But most people will not, and cannot, have such a life. By any definition, I am an outlier, and while I certainly don’t regret my life, please trust me, it is not for most people. You need to be able to survive life-crushing blows on a regular basis, be both talented and lucky, and it is a very hard way to live. In such a life, not only do you exist with no guarantees of the future, but rather with mostly only the certainty that all you have before you is the unknown, usually no safety net to speak of, and most steps are bad ones. Like running through a forest blindfolded.
Keep in mind just two data points of my own life:
I am 53 years old and have moved home 54 times. I have started from zero multiple times, losing both material possessions and any roots I may have had in a place more times than I ever thought about in detail.
I have been married and divorced twice, with one child in the middle of that second one, and then I finally married a third and, as far as I am concerned, final time, at age 48 and had three more children since, while moving into a rather run-down property 2 years ago.
If you think you can keep that sort of pace going throughout your life, think again. I don’t say this in any way as some way to present myself as “better” or more capable than anyone else. I say it as a real warning to those unfortunates that share my mix of real curiosity and general lack of fear. It’s a combination that invariably will get you in big, big, trouble. The upside is that you usually don’t have any chance to get bored. But then, neither do people getting shelled while in trench warfare. Or, as some would say, fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.
Forgive this long aside, but I wanted to try to give a bit of realism to younger people romanticising the life of “adventure”. Adventure is usually defined as an unplanned for disaster, that if you’re lucky, you survive. And even if you do, for the most part, all you’ll have to show for it are some scars and retrospectively funny stories. If you’re really lucky, you might get to tell a few of those stories to your grandchildren and then only when they are very little, before your final long sleep. But even that is not sure at all.
End of interlude on Geography (Part 2 element)
While in certain settings and for a few more years to come, you might be fine as a lone wolf, or even a lone family, hidden in the forested mountains of some rural spot, sooner or later, if the wolves come to your door, you’re not going to fare well. Regardless of the original intent and nature those wolves, you will be an outsider to them with no links to them. They will have no incentives to take care of you or your family.
Like it or not, however much the average humans may feel to you as the apes in planet of the apes, you need to have enough friends to give you a better overall chance, to both your family as well as theirs. And this can only happen if there is a coherent group of you. And the best coherent groups tend to have the same spiritual foundation. It is true that you can get a smallish group composed of a zealous Catholic, an honourable heathen with samurai ethics, and a hardcore schismatic Orthodox, to work well and co-operatively for years even under tough conditions, but they will be far easier to fragment than a cohesive group that is composed of only one of those three ideologies and philosophies. Friends can and do mutate from one ideology to another if they see benefit to it. We are personally aware and to one extent or other, “responsible” (the glory is always only of God, we merely act as His instruments at times, I think) for the conversion, engagement and marriage of more than a couple of people. And they in turn, I am sure will be responsible for further conversions. Sedevacantism by the way is growing very fast, and the acceleration seems to be if not exponential, at least far more than linear. And you have the added advantage of knowing that real Catholicism has an unbroken history of two millennia of being able to create, defend, and expand, the best communities for human beings that has ever been produced on Earth.
Supposing you have managed to have a good spiritual and hence mental foundation, a good physical and geographical situation, have a good family and even a few like-minded friends all living next door to you. Are you now secure from the zombie, SHTF, apocalypse, end-of-the-world scenario?
In a word, no. But you’re a lot likely to fare better than most.
But the title of this series if how to beat clown world for real right? Right.
And I do not aim to be hyperbolising or bullshitting you.
I mean that for real. Now, clown world can and does come at you in multiple ways. And it’s time we take a look at a few of these and why parts 1 to 3 reduce your exposure to the attacks from clown world, but it will be only in part 4 that you will begin to see how to actually be able to push back against clown world. Before we look at the ways clown world comes at you, we need to examine that border between you and clown world.
Acquaintances
The truth is that you don’t really know who your acquaintances really are until the proverbial, really does hit the fan. Here is a few interesting historical points for you.
In most sudden and violent revolutions throughout history, people went from perfectly friendly neighbours to people that would kill your whole family. Because they had a different ethnicity, a different religion, or a different political ideology from you. And sometimes just because they were assholes. And these things happened overnight. Moderate Muslim neighbours suddenly killed your children. Happy-go-lucky dope-heads suddenly rape your wife and murder you for cash and booze.
It happens. Humans are nasty monkeys when there is no one with a big stick to enforce the rules. Now, if you have a decent family, preferably a large one, and have solid friends, then even in most apocalyptic of scenarios, you’re going to probably fare ok. But sadly for some of us, the zombie apocalypse is not the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario is what is happening now:
They tax you from the air you breathe to everything else. They imprison you for thought crime.They poison your feed and your water, and introduce poisons in your food source. GMOs are everywhere, and trading in heirloom seeds is becoming more difficult than trafficking in drugs apparently. They want to outlaw wood stoves and gas stoves. They want you to eat insects and meat made from plastic. This is how they grind you down, and even if you are an off grid, super prepared family, surrounded by a dozen like-minded families and a hundred close-by friends, ultimately, you are still, from a military point of view, a dot on the landscape. You will be isolated and in time ground down over a decade or two.
Acquaintances are to be considered the generic NPCs (Non Player Characters) of the game of life. Drop mind-seeds, be polite and helpful, educate gently, and sound them out for ideology, religious convictions and so on, and begin to categorise where they would fit in a SHTF scenario. Make your core group of friends aware of potential allies and potential enemies, and have them follow up on your own positive seed-dropping and helpfulness to potential or actual allies and seeds of, fear, uncertainty and doubt, (FUD) to your potential enemies.
Learn to influence the acquaintances so they eventually take a stand. Remember, even Jesus said that those who are not with him are against Him. And nothing has changed here. Learn to at least have a general sense of who would fall where in an eventual SHTF scenario.
In part 4 we will bring all the last 3 parts together, and hopefully you will then see why this is the best way to ensure victory, regardless of what clown world, homoglobo narratives, and bankers’ efforts and force gets applied against you. But I really hope you read and internalise and appreciate parts 1 to 3 first, and then maybe go over them again once you read part 4 tomorrow, to appreciate why I have produced them in this order. Going from step to step, gradually, logically, to tie it all together in a final part 4, coming tomorrow sometime, where hopefully you begin to see you can only achieve these things by in fact taking these steps.
1. That 9/11 was the result of islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings and not done by people linked to Mossad.
2. That mRNA genetic serums are vaccines.
3. That mRNA genetic serums are not going to alter your DNA; and that of any children you may have after it.
4. That Epstein killed himself.
5. That Epstein was not a Mossad asset used to blackmail a bunch of pedophiles into doing whatever Epstein/Israel wanted them to do.
6. That John Podesta just happened to have pedophile/satanic symbols on his hands and similar reference in his emails by coincidence.
7. That Hillary and Bill Clinton are not responsible for multiple Arkanicides.
8. That Barry Sotero (Obama) was born in the USA, is not gay and is not muslim.
9. That the USA was not founded by freemasons with freemasonic principles from the start.
10. That freemasons are not satanists and knowingly so at the higher echelons.
11. That child sacrifice in satanic rituals is not happening at very high levels of government/s and billionaire gatherings.
12. That the Bilderberger group and Skull and Crossbones and the the Carbonari and Freemasonry and the Illuminati and the “freethinkers” and the Rosicrucians and the Novus ordo fake Popes and their fake Bishops, fake Cardinals and fake Priests are not all just different versions of the servants whose names are legion, of the Prince of the Air.
13. That all versions of “Christianity” will bring you salvation.
14. That the American government as well as many (most) others has never done terrible, deadly experiments on ita own citizens.
15. That evil, sadistic, pedophiles cannot possibly exist and be active at all levels of government, the judiciary and especially the entertainment industry, primarily in the USA but also the UK, Belgium, France, and many other countries.
16. That climate change is killing people of “suddenly” instead of it being the result of the mRNA genetic serums.
17. That the damage done by the genetic serums, the whole COVID “pandemic” and the incoming economic collapse was not all pre-planned years in advance.
18. That the intention to depopulate the planet is just a paranoid “conspiracy theory”.
19. That Covid was not studied, created and elements of that research patented in a laboratory.
20. That JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.
21. That Hitler died in a bunker in Berlin by suicide.
22. That the destruction and murder of the royal houses of Europe was not an organised, intentional ploy by the same forces that eventually infiltrated the Catholic Church and created Vatican II and placed heretics, non-catholics and Satanists on the Papal throne since 1958.
23. That Joe Biden was legitimately elected by the democratic process of voting in the USA.
24. That the Talmud does not permit sex with little children.
25. That Talmudic Judaism hates the Catholic Church (the real one, not the Novus Ordo fake “Catholics”) and has been behind every attack on it from the time of Jesus to today.
Despite what many detractors think of me, the reality is that the title of this post is being extremely charitable. I am assuming error where Bp. Sanborn himself refers to the VAERS results and states that (paraphrasing) “we don’t even know if the adverse reactions are related to the vaccines” That is PRECISELY wrong. The VAERS site exists specifically for listing adverse reactions within a certain period of vaccination. But perhaps you are one of the utter morons that believes that 108 professional athletes collapsing on live television in the field of games like soccer, basketball, etc etc in the last few months, something that has NEVER happened before in the entire history of television, is —as the newspapers would have you believe— just “coincidence”. If you are that limited in your powers of observation, then perhaps, you might actually believe that all the sudden deaths from Cardiac Infarctions, Pulmonary and Brain Embolisms, and other noted side effects directly related to what is known as the “clot-shot” are not related to the non-vaccine, genetic experimental Pfizer, AstroZeneca, etc “Covid-19” injections at all. You may of course, also believe that there is no correlation between you walking in the rain without an umbrella and getting wet.
But let’s start at the beginning.
UPDATE: As it turns out, the ACTUAL Numbers of people who have already died from the Covid Deathshots are a conservative 300,000 in the USA Alone. Watch this video interview between Joseph Mercola And Steve Kirsch. There are not two yahoos on the internet. Steve has spent approximately 6 million US dollars to ensure the science done on the Covid fake Vaccines is correct and he USED to be a strong advocate FOR them. But like any honest man, when confronted with the truth he corrected his erroneous position. It’s a VERY interesting video and not a second of it is boring. I strongly suggest you watch it to understand what is really going on.
The Video in question from Bp. Sanborn is on Youtube here, and I have saved a copy just in case. It’s 34 minutes long and I will time stamp the more relevant portions. Before all this however, let me begin with one glaring omission. Bp. Sanborn states it is not a mortal sin to get “vaccinated” with these clot shots, yet he never addresses or mentions in any way the fact that tissues from murdered babies has been used in the creation of these demonic injections.
The sophist media and pharmaceutical companies make a big deal of the fact that (according to them, if you are inclined to believe them) there are no actual murdered baby cells in the clot-shots themselves. Great news, right? Well… not so fast… every single one of the non-vaccine clot-shots have been created thanks to “research” done and developed using murdered baby cells and tissues. So… it’s like saying…
“Hey, when you eat a McDonald’s burger… There is no murdered baby meat in them at all! None! Great right? And oh, yeah, we figured out how to make burgers by creating all the “research” using murdered babies to cook a bunch of meat until we came up with the burger shape to fit our buns. But it’s all just cow meat now, honest!”
And here is an archived page that explains a bit more about that.
Now, even given the example above, would it be a mortal sin to eat one of those “all cow” burgers? Or take the “no baby parts, honest!” clot shot? I’m no Bishop, and no Priest, just a simple layman, but here is my take:
If one is wholly ignorant of the entire process, when one has the ability to find out at their fingertips, then one is at the very least guilty of sloth.
You’re going to inject yourself, or worse, your children, with something that has NEVER been tested in humans, and that when tested on animals resulted in 100% death of all the animals after the 4th or 5th “booster” shot, (I forget the exact details, except I think it was on Gibbons) but you’re not going to learn ANYTHING about it? When the internet exists?
I suppose that’s ok, if you’re some barely literate person in some country with little or no access to the internet and so on. I am not saying that such levels of ignorance don’t or can’t legitimately exist. I am saying if you have access to the Internet and an IQ about 100, and you DO NOT find out for yourself what is in the things and where they come from, then you are guilty of sloth. At the very least.
Secondly, if you ARE aware of the murdered baby “research”, again, I am not a Bishop, or a Priest, but I, personally will have nothing to do with anything that I am aware of comes from doing any research on murdered babies. I just can’t see myself facing Jesus one day and saying, “Yeah well, *I* didn’t murder them myself, and you know, they were already dead and the research had been done, so it was kinda fine, right? Wouldn’t want to waste it…” But maybe you’re comfortable with it.
My question here for Bp. Sanborn is: Why do you not address this issue at all?
Now to the points he DOES mention, which I feel are grave errors.
Right from the start he states that he did not want to comment at all because he felt the issue was political. I find this astonishing for at least two important reasons.
Firstly, by this very admission he is clearly recognising that the entire Covid clot-shot circus is POLITICAL and has nothing to do with health, yours, mine or anyone else, and therefore is, by default a MORAL issue, which leads directly to the second point,
If it is political, how can you not comment on it, given it literally affects people’s lives and they may be confused about their moral and theological obligations concerning this POLITICAL issue being forced on the whole of humanity? At the very least it looks like cowardice to me.
At about 1m 25s he states: We clergy are not competent to make scientific judgements.
In the first place, this is again, a matter of sloth. You don’t have to be a scientist to use your God-given reason and ability to read and count to figure out quite a lot really.
In the second place, while I accept him at his word that he may well not be competent in the field of general science or even the specific field related to the vaccines, that is a failing of his own. Not one I feel he should be criticised for, let me be clear, but it most certainly does NOT apply to ALL clergy. I personally know priests that studied biochemical engineering before becoming priests. And some of us laymen are very well qualified to be able to interpret, understand and even correct so-called scientific data.
Thirdly and even more importantly, if Bishop Sanborn is not able to even verify for himself if the scientific method has even been applied at all regarding these clot-shots and the entire circus around them, then I seriously question whether he has the ability to do basic logic at all, and my personal opinion concerning listening to much of anything he says on that basis would be extremely seriously compromised thereafter.
At 2m 15s he states: We have no authority to declare the vaccine sinful. He goes on to state that a declaration of that nature would pertain only to the Holy See (which, being currently absent a valid Pope, is therefore a moot point). Again, I find this to be not just astonishing, but utterly wrong.
In the first place, ANY clergy, and in fact ANY layman, for that matter that has the mental capacity to do the work involved in finding out the details of something, has the right to personally and as his or her conscience dictates, decide for themselves what is or is not sinful, but they absolutely also have the right to tell their brethren what they have concluded. Of course, from a layman, this holds no imposition on other laymen, but if from a valid Priest or Bishop, and they have done the relevant work, why on Earth would they not be able to tell you what is or is not a mortal sin? That is the entire point of their existence! Bishop Sanborn is in absolute error when he states that pronouncing something a mortal sin or not is a jurisdictional issue! Canon Law is very clear on this. During an Interregnum, it is true that the clergy has no jurisdictional authority, and this affects many things, but it does NOT affect a clergyman’s duty to point out issues that are clear in divine law. It would be like saying that because there is no Pope a Priest cannot say that cutting off the left leg of 3 year olds to fit them with a robotic exoskeleton leg that will “benefit them later in life” is fine. Why do I pick such a weird example? Because it is something new, never tried or done before and supposedly all for “our benefit”. But I assure you, doing such a monstrous thing would offend God and absolutely be a mortal sin. And I for one, fully believe and agree with that clergy that states that using murdered babies to do ANYTHING with it, is a mortal sin.
In the second place, if you refuse to agree that using murdered babies to create ANYTHING is a mortal sin, then please go ahead and show your working out. Bishop Sanborn has not done so at all.
What Bishop Sanborn is doing here is essentially taking the position that whether or not using murdered baby parts to create something down the line that does NOT contain murdered baby parts directly is or is not a sin is something only the Pope can decide. I suppose it could be a complicated legalistic argument for some. One might discover for example that say aspirin was originally invented thanks to the use of murdered babies and now after decades that aspirin is produced without any dead babies whatsoever, and most of us have no idea how aspirin came about anyway, are we committing mortal sin if we take an aspirin? But the point is that this is happening NOW. It is not some decades old thing. The dead baby parts may be from 1973 in some cases, but again, we KNOW this NOW. I wasn’t around when aspirin got invented and it had been around for a long time when I was born and did not use any baby parts at all at least since then. This is not the case here. So, if you are inclined to be on the “it’s all cow burgers now” team, I suppose you could agree with Bishop Sanborn that it is a “mystery” for the present time. Well, guess what the Church strongly advises you to do if something is suspect: HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. In fact, the entire Cassiciacum theory, which states that the current fake Popes are Popes only materially but not spiritually, by that very reasoning makes it absolutely clear you are to treat the current impostors as completely invalid Popes even if you might choose to not call them heretics. So even in the classical Sedeprivationist thesis Bishop Sanborn by his very existence KNOWS we are to absolutely avoid anything that is suspect. And anything coming from murdered babies absolutely fills that minimum barrier of being at least suspect! So to put this point down to “error” is truly stretching my charity to its very limits, and frankly, somewhere beyond it.
From 4m in he states that all that the clergy can do is present the moral rules that exist (as per the existing infallible magisterium of the Church). Great! I agree! So please do that. What, EXACTLY is the Catholic position for using murdered baby parts to build something that supposedly later benefits us even when we stop using the murdered baby parts to physically put it together? Because I’m fairly sure even a dumb layman like me has got that one figured out correctly. So why is Bp. Sanborn NOT doing his duty here? I am genuinely curious. I’d like to know. Because the answer can only be one of the following:
Invincible ignorance. He has not taken the time, is not capable of, does not have the mental, or moral, or both, requisite faculties to investigate the issue or even be aware of it. I personally find this possibility absolutely unlikely, but, if this is the case, then it is worrying in the extreme that this person is a Bishop and that anyone listens to him.
Sloth. Despite feeling entitled to make this video Bp. Sanborn has not bothered to investigate the matter at all and is completely unaware of the murdered baby issue. Again, I find this at the very least unlikely and in any case, if this is the case, again, absolutely worrying. I don’t want any of my Bishops to be slothful, sloppy and arrogant to this extent.
Complicity. I again find this likelihood absurdly unlikely. I cannot believe that Bishop Sanborn, whatever his human failings, would knowingly be on board with the likes of Bill Gates and his cohort of demoniacs to achieve the ends of the elite.
Personal Ego. This, unfortunately, from past occurrences, and in fact, even just more recent events I have blogged about in detail here, I do find most likely. That is, if I had to bet on it, and I would not like to, but if I did, my bet would be that Bishop Sanborn is somewhat himself caught up in the narrative, might be a little fearful of death himself (God only knows why, as Catholics are not prone to fear of death, but I suppose he may have plans to do much more than he has done (and he has done a lot, no doubt)) and being of boomer age, is susceptible to boomer ways of thinking and believing, it is only human of course, nevertheless, this would be all in the service of error and not Catholicism.
The point of leaving the faithful in something of a limbo regarding the murdered baby parts in the creation of the non-vaccine genetic experiments is not one that Bishop Sanborn himself misunderstands. He wrote on his blog a lengthy entry clearly pointing out that either one believes the Pope is legitimate or he believes he is not, but in either case “opinions” is not the correct path in theology. His post is here. The point here is clearly that in theological matters, “opinionism” and indeed opinions themselves, are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the dogma of the Church and in this case a clergyman (or even a layman if none other will do it) needs and should point out the correct rules concerning such a matter. Currently however, Bishop Sanborn has remained silent on the matter of the murdered babies. Certainly in the video being discussed. If and when he expresses his official stand on it, I may well require to correct this entry when I become aware of it. And of course, if it needs to be revised, I will absolutely revise it, as charitably as possible.
At about 7 minutes in he is asked his personal opinion and he states that he does NOT think it is a mortal sin to take it, and that in his view it all boils down to one (and only one) question, and that being how much do you trust the “medical science” involved.
I put “medical science” in inverted commas because I want to be clear, first of all, of the point that this is NOT the only question at all, as the four points above demonstrate, there is the murdered babies part, which Bp. Sanborn avoids entirely.
But in the second place, while I have great trust in the scientific method when it is correctly applied, I can state with absolute certainty that the scientific method has not come within a light year’s distance of anything the media or the politicians have presented us with concerning covid.
THAT is scientifically absolutely demonstrable to a level of certainty that approaches something more certain than the sun rising in the East tomorrow morning. So if Bishop Sanborn thinks the clown show that has been presented to us for two years now is “medical science” then I have to absolutely be clear that anything this man says from here on is something I am absolutely unlikely to pay any attention to, because someone so absolutely devoid of the most basic ability to do logic, has no business whatsoever leading souls at all.
At 8m25seconds or so he states that in comparison to the number of people that have taken it, the adverse reactions are a minuscule portion. Here I will give Bishop Sanborn the benefit of the doubt and assume that due to his boomer sensibilities he simply takes the mass media numbers at face value without having bothered to do any checks himself. This benefit of the doubt however does reinforce a staggering level of lack of preparedness, logic and willingness to do the work when considering the importance of the topic. Nevertheless, let’s look at the perpetrators’ OWN NUMBERS. Even according to them, over 30,000 people have died of it. Here is an archived link to some official figures.
Keep in mind the MSM has lied to you about literally everything, so why would this be any different, but even so, these are based on VAERS (official Vaccination Adverse Reaction) numbers. Here is the thing though: Not all patients fill in an adverse reaction forms, especially since there is in any case no recourse because all the big Pharma are completely immune from any fault if you die like flies from it. So what’s the point? But even more interesting, even if you DO report it, the doctor in question has no obligation to pass it on. In short, it has been known for decades that VAERS data is from 10 to 100 TIMES under reported. Which in real numbers means that from 300,000 to 3,000,000 people have died of the clot-shot. And some 10 to 100 MILLION are likely having some adverse reaction to it, many of them life-threatening and permanent.
I think most people now know personally someone or multiple someones or are related to people who have died or been permanently damaged from the clot-shots. I personally know of two so far and I am not counting friends of friends etc. These numbers are going to keep being impossible to hide in the coming months and years, especially for the booster takers.
He states that the VAERS numbers, show it has a very, very low incidence of death or serious injury, wait… so… he IS aware of the numbers as reported above then? Or is he just parroting what the MSM tells him on TV? But even more astonishing, he says that we don’t know the VAERS numbers are even related to the actual (non) Vaccines. I mean… that is the WHOLE POINT OF VAERS. It tracks adverse reactions from vaccines! It not only is directly related to the non-vaccines, it was created for the very purpose of monitoring such adverse reactions and keeping track of them. Once again, I will put this down to invincible boomerism, but that’s not a good thing, whichever way you slice it.
At 9m 50s or so, after discussing vaccines and his own experience of taking the polio vaccine he repeats that this is Nothing new at least twice. This is a gross error. First of all, the current clot-shots are NOT vaccines, have never been vaccines and never will be. In fact, they went and changed the definition of Vaccine in online dictionaries because people started to become aware that this is GENETIC MODIFICATION shots. And for those of you that think that mRNA doesn’t change or affect your DNA, look, let me make it simple: Unless you understand the actual biochemistry involved, be silent. And secondly, it makes your body produce spike proteins according to the people that produce this monstrosity. Yes, it DOES change you at a fundamental cellular level and there is a reason that it does that. It’s designed to. There is even beginning to be some evidence that clot-shot babies, that is, babies born to people who took the clot shot and somehow survived both the pregnancy as well as the birth and did not have one of the many, many, many spontaneous abortions that the clot shot induces, seem to be of a different type of human altogether; with physical abilities that take place much sooner than normal babies. A development that generally means stronger physical specimens but with comparatively lowered IQs. There are also several reports of graphene, and other parasites possibly of an artificial nature in the clot shots, but even if you ignore totally all the let’s say more fringe parts of this story (but with plenty of evidence), the simple fact remains that these clot shots are NOT vaccines. So this IS something new. Something completely new, untested and global in scale. Furthermore, while presenting himself as technically incompetent to discuss vaccines, here he speaks authoritatively on them? That is in itself a contradiction.
at about 14m he begins to answer a question relating to the Cassiciacum theory and states that sedevacantists have a problem if they state that the seat is empty of any kind of legitimate Pope because they then have to account for how there could be a break in the dogmatic position of the Church that there has to be, and I quote: “An unbroken succession of hierarchy, that is Popes and Bishops, from the time of St. Peter until the end of the world.” Once more, I am stunned at the theological error here. First of all it is clearly NOT Catholic dogma that there has to be an UNBROKEN SUCCESSION (of Popes) because if that were the case, then the Church would have ended immediately after the death of St. Peter, before the next Pope was chosen. It is TRUE that there needs to be an unbroken hierarchy, but this is preserved by the living Bishops EVERY TIME A POPE DIES. And they keep this hierarchy in place, in a sort of jurisdictional emergency mode, until a new Pope is elected, REGARDLESS OF HOW LONG THAT TAKES. While this is the LONGEST period without a valid Pope the Church has ever experienced, it is not the ONLY time the Church existed without any Pope at all. There have been periods of a few years before that had no Pope at all on the seat. And there were approximately equal length periods as the current one, of some seven decades, when one could hardly be sure WHO was the real Pope because up to three at a time claimed the spot and it was only resolved after their deaths in many cases. Plus, we have had over 40 antipopes before 1958, so his theological rhetoric is just plain wrong on the facts. The unbroken succession of hierarchy continues to exist right now and Bishop Sanborn is part of it. As long as a single Bishop exists, as St. Irenaus pointed out, there is the Church. And we have more than just Bishop Sanborn. Which frankly, given these grave errors, is a relief.
He goes on to state hardly a minute later that the notorious, public heretics occupying the Vatican have no authority within the Catholic Church but have legitimate titles to hold those positions. This is once again, a glaring error of huge proportions. Canon 188 part 4 is very clear on the point: ANY office, of a public, notorious heretic is lost by the very fact that they act as a public notorious heretic. And you can’t be more public and notorious than the fake Popes and fake Bishops promoting Vatican II heresy for the last 60 plus years since the documents are supposed to be for all mankind. Add to that that MANY of these vermin were exposed as actual Freemasons by Mino Pecorelli and others (Mino paid with his life for it) and the troublesome fact that Freemasons cannot be Catholic, and it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Sedevacantist position is correct and that the original Sedeprivationist thesis, put forward by fr. Gerard de Lauriers was a charitable way to permit some still honest Catholic clergy of the time that may have resided in the Vatican to try and make amends. To hold to such a theory now in the hope that a confirmed aider and abettor of pedophiles, actual pedophiles themselves, cocaine snorting homosexuals who perform orgies with each other, or some other foul Satanist, “converts” and fixes the Novus Orco dumpster fire, is frankly, not just absurd, because it is, but it is, once again NON-CANONICAL. Even IF such vile creatures did, genuinely repent and convert; by canonic law, as clearly detailed in the ex-cathedra pronouncement of Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio of Pope Paul the IV they are to have authority over NO ONE, and spend the rest of their days in seclusion in perpetual repentance and penance. And the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the only valid code in existence for catholics, clearly refers to it:
The Latin version of the Code definitely lists Cum ex… in its footnotes, also recorded by Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s in his Fontes (sources). This is true not only for Can. 188§4 but also for several other Canons dealing with heresy, (Codex Iuris Canonici, Peter Cardinal Gasparri, Newman Press, 1957.) The Code lists Cum ex… as a source not only for Can. 188§4, but also for Canons 167§3, 2264, 2314, 2316 and 2317.
The error here in theology is monstrous. It literally puts people who believe this totally illogical stance in the position of being at the mercy of pedophiles, homosexuals, freemasons and satanists, hoping that they “convert” and then, AGAINST INFALLIBLE CATHOLIC DOGMA, go on to lead the Church back to health. It is not just absurd, it is literally impossible. Even if God were to save and cleanse the souls of every single satanist in the Vatican and make them repent, by DIVINE LAW, they would NOT be permitted to lead anyone or anything. Sequestered for life in a monastery in perpetual penance does not mean, become a fully legitimate Bishop or Pope able to lead the masses back to real Catholicism. And this is IMMUTABLE and perpetual law. Infallible law at that. So, once again, the error here is of catastrophic proportions.
This takes us to not quite half-way of the entire video, but I believe I can rest my case here, as none of these points get resolved, fixed or addressed in any way that can be considered exculpatory later on.
So, while Bishop Sanborn remains a valid Bishop to date, his errors of theology and morals are gigantic and a Catholic should not and cannot remain silent in the face of them. Remaining silent when clergy goes on a merry ride to Hell in a sledge of broken theology that contradicts canon law at every turn is how we got here in the first place.
I was not around in 1958, but I assure you, there is no way in Hell that I will keep silent when clergy are acting improperly, teaching in error and ignoring the infallible magisterium of the Church, whatever their reasons, be it ignorance, sloth, stupidity, giant egos, personal power, or even power for “the greater good” or, God-forbid, actual complicity with the enemies of God, our Lord and the Church, I will speak out, and tell them to their face if need be.
As God is my witness.
And I pray in earnest that may He see to it I never, ever, falter in this regard as long as I draw breath, and then after too.
So Bp. Sanborn has made this video, which is short enough and to the point enough I suggest you watch it if you are at all interested in the Catholic Church and the Sedeprivationist vs Sedevacantist positions and why both are valid and Catholic. The Video is here.
The Newsletter from Bp. Dolan he is responding to is here. And the part that offended and was read out by Bp. Sanborn in on the third page on the left hand side.
Now some ground rules and truths:
I have some direct experience and knowledge of Bp. Sanborn and his behaviours, both public and private.
I have no knowledge or experience whatsoever of Bp. Dolan and the only behaviours I am privy to at this point in time is the newsletter referenced above. This will naturally tend to give Bp. Dolan somewhat of an advantage in my view of the disagreement/s that may exist between these two men and that, as far as I can tell and as far as the video by Bp. Sanborn himself seems to indicate are being made PUBLIC, by Bp. Sanborn himself, not by Bp. Dolan. If this is indeed the case, as I suspect, then this alone in and of itself is a strike against Bp. Sanborn, but I reiterate that as I have no more context other than the single newsletter referenced above, I may be in ignorance of other potentially public communications that Bp. Dolan may have made that are more specific than the ones present in the newsletter.
I am a layman. Normally, in pious times of the Church’s light shining across the globe powerfully, my opinion would be merely one that would be discussed among other Catholic friends as we argue amicably for this or that perspective, not to hear the sound of our own voices mind you, but to find the closest way to the absolute Truth that we can, by prodding each other’s brains, as good friends and good Catholics should. However, given the confused, confusing and ever present snakes of deception pretending to be Catholics while trying to lead souls to Hell (see for example my exposé on the Freemason Milo, the charlatans, EM Jones, Taylor Marshall, Church Militant and their Opus Dei sponsors) it is incumbent upon every Catholic man to stand firmly against any such practices or deceivers or deceptions. In this case, I want to make it clear that as far as I am concerned:
BOTH Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan are VALID Catholic Bishops. As such they are princes of the Church. And as such a modicum of respect for their courage and position is due.
That said, they are both human beings and as such, inevitably both will have their flaws, as, of course, do I and no doubt mine are far more profound and numerous, nevertheless, my shall we say rather debased position does give me some advantage in a few respects, firstly, I fear no man, nor any man’s judgement, I submit and subject myself wholly and totally only to the Judgement and Will of God the Father, Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit. I may and I do, submit to the requests, observations, judgements, edicts etcetera, etcetera, of VALID Catholic Clergy that is:
Validly ordained and in good standing with the infallible magisterium of the Church as presented in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.
Issuing such pronouncements in accordance with same.
Issuing such pronouncements in accordance with my own conscience once I have carefully examined it to ensure it is not my ego, pride or other human flaw impeding me to obey such pronouncements.
It is a scandal and a shame if these two men cannot put their differences aside and regardless of their personal opinions, permit each other to work together against the enemies of the Church. I would therefore implore them to BOTH make a public statement of tacit support for all the LICIT efforts made by the other party towards increasing the reach of the remaining Catholic Church and saving souls, and to keep their personal misgivings of one another private and if possible to resolve them in private too.
Given the times, anyone sufficiently learned in the matter should point out errors, but to keep these private if possible and make them public only when necessary. In this specific instance, I am undoubtedly skirting the edge of the abyss, but for whatever reason, it seems I live there, on that edge and always have, I pray, that whatever failing I do in this, God forgives me. Whatever my errors may be they are, in this, I am quite sure, not of pride or ego, but of genuine wish for all Catholics and all would-be Catholics, to rise up as a wave of light against ALL the current darkness. That all said, do not, for one second, hesitate to think that I will tell you exactly where to go, if you think I was kidding about point n.2 above. Critique all you like, but if it is not licit, expect both barrels. To the face. Twice over. It is not a time for pussy-footing around as Catholics.
Now to the video and newsletter. First the “offending” part of the newsletter, here it is quoted below (7 minutes in):
Friday’s St. Martin I suffered exile and a miserable death rather than accept the heresy of only one will in Christ. It sounds obscure to most, doubtless, but we must hold the whole Catholic Faith without compromise. Even the best today want to make us believe that bad though he be, Bergoglio is the validly elected pope, and that the Novus Ordo, One World Church, is identical with the Catholic Church. That’s a theological error, and savors of heresy. As we honor the anniversaries of our churches, we remember that there is only one Church, the unchanged Catholic Church. If people would only understand this truth, so much confusion would be dis- sipated, so much peace—though at a price!—would ensue.
Well, taken on its own, as I specified above, I am doing, I see absolutely nothing wrong with hat paragraph.
Now, it may be that the “best” in question IS directed specifically at Bp. Sanborn and the sedeprivationist position in general, but if that is the case, I certainly cannot say that from this newsletter or this paragraph at all. And unless it is specified elsewhere, someone self-identifying with those “best” would, by their OWN choice, be falling in precisely that category as described by Bp. Dolan.
There is, however, a principle of distinction between Sedeprivationism and Sedevacantism that absolutely needs explaining and precision if we are to understand things properly.
Sede vs Sede?
The Sedevacantists essentially state that the current occupiers of the Holy See, from fake Pope John the XXIII (henceforth known only as Roncalli) to today are not Popes in any way, shape or form. In fact, they are not even Catholic, being public, notorious heretics, so have absolutely zero standing in the Catholic Church, they are impostors, fakes, Freemasons and Satanists (I repeat myself) and as such deserve only our contempt. It is the position I too hold, though I call myself a Sedeprivationist, the reason for which I explain below.
The Sedeprivationist hold with the Cassiciacum theory produced by Father Gerard de Lauriers. It is available in the original only in French by a publication that will not allow reproduction of it. I have read it (yes I read French quite well, thank you) and in a nutshell it states that the fake Popes could be assumed to have been validly elected as Popes in a material sense, but not in a spiritual sense and especially given their behaviour as public notorious heretics, they could not be considered legitimate or valid Popes nor obeyed as such. This position was not unreasonable at the time it was formulated because the takeover of the Vatican by Freemasons was for many (especially laymen but also some pious clergy) so sudden that one dared not initially believe almost the entire Church had been converged to heresy and handed over to a bunch of heretics (and in fact much worse, never-were-Catholic, Satanists). Using the principle of charity and benefit of the doubt, Father De Lauriers, who was an outstanding theologian proposed that even IF the Popes had been validly elected, by supposedly valid Cardinals and so on, their behaviour precluded them from being actual Popes. It was a charitable, pious, best case scenario thesis that in my opinion hoped to reconcile, correct and bring the Church back together. Unfortunately, the rot was so deep and the very weapon used by the enemy is our good natures in order to get inside our guard to stab us, that the thesis, in hindsight, was clearly over-charitable. And given what we NOW know about the entire process, the level of Freemasonic infiltration etc it is patently obvious that the Sedevacantist position is the correct one (if you do not know, read my book Reclaiming The Catholic Church, which unlike the fake Catholic Taylor Marshall’s book Infiltration I wrote myself and has actual verifiable facts in it). There is one tiny aspect that the Sedevacantist position ignores however, and that is that the Chair, technically speaking is NOT empty (which is what sede vacante means). It is filled by an impostor PREVENTING it being filled licitly and validly. Hence my slightly subversive use of the word Sedeprivationist. I do this for two reasons:
The sedevacantist position is undoubtedly correct.
The charity of Fr. De Lauriers should be lauded, if, at times, ignored. Particularly by people like me and my brothers in arms against lies, deception and Satan’s little helpers. My current position is that if we could get rid of all the fake clergy we also got rid of 100 genuine men that aspired to be real Catholic Priests and were merely deceived, well, so be it. God will sort them out. Leave all retards behind. We will cross that bridge and burn it, so we can only march forward. People like me are the tip of the spear. We will make errors. We may seem at times uncharitable or cruel. We are neither, and although we may well be thought of as a necessary evil, without men like us, Christendom would have been swallowed by the hordes of enemies long ago. So… God must at least in some way, deem us necessary, since I count people like Bohemand, Tancredi, Jean Parisot le Vallete and so on among our number, and pray I can only measure up to those men. YET, in the name of tempering our fiery natures, it is good to remember (for better times at least) that Piety, Humility and Charity are great virtues, and only Courage bridges those three with the ones of Fortitude, Justice and Reason. And those who operate on the first three are generally better men than those who operate in the latter three. So I use the term yes to co-opt it, but also to remember its founder as the honourable and charitable way to do things, being always higher in intent than our own, more practical ways.
Now that you know these things, let us move to the video of Bp. Sanborn.
What Bp. Sanborn gets right
Bp. Sanborn is absolutely right concerning the differences between Sedeprivationist and Sedevacantists being essentially irrelevant in terms of taking the Church forward. There is indeed no higher authority to decide between them, and the errors of one or the other position when compared to ultimate truth must be for every man to decide for himself. Given the history we know, the details we know, the facts we have to hand, personally, I have zero doubt that the sedevacantist position is closer to correct. Nevertheless, the Priest who baptised me and was there for my confirmation and marriage and has been outstanding to our family is a Sedeprivationist, and we have indeed discussed this very topic at some length. I absolutely respect his position, his advice and his counsel and I have no doubt he is one of the best human beings I have ever had the good fortune to encounter. Undoubtedly a much better man than I am. Even so, I disagree with him on his position and he has stated that my technical position is correct. It cannot be assailed, but for his ultimate devotion to charity. And make no mistake that this priest is “soft” in any way. He is not. The point is that he is a priest of piety. Possibly one of the very few who would rather die than break the confessional seal as an example.
Bp. Sanborn is correct that Sedes of either name should and do work together and that their theological disagreement is not one that should cause strife or division. We both agree the fake Popes are fake. One is more charitable to the way they got there, the other is more logical. Given the current situation, there is simply no logical way that Bergoglio or Ratzinger can even be considered Catholic at all. In fact the Sedeprivationist position is that you should absolutely treat these people all as heretics, their only difference is that they say that charity should prevent you from stating it outright. I interpret it as basically the whole “we are too polite for that”. Well, I am not. My behaviour is roughly the equivalent of at a prestigious gala of famous dignitaries, some guy charging in, calling out one of the guests of honour as a disgusting pedophile, dunking him in the punch-bowl and dragging his semi-conscious body out by dragging and kicking him to the exit where he goes on to curb-stomp him. It’s not pretty. It’s not polite. But… if you’re one of the kids he raped, or one of the further ones he was going to rape if no one stopped him, I absolutely believe, it is necessary. And if I were a spectator, I would simply stop a waiter and ask that a new punch bowl is brought on and can they please cover up the blood splatter, before continuing my conversation before I could sneak off to congratulate the “barbarian” for his style and efficiency.
3. But that’s me and my weaknesses, and we are here to try to reconcile differences. And in that respect Bp. Sanborn is also correct in his closing argument when he says that there should not be trouble made.
4. He is right that the usurpers are using the structures of the Catholic Church to promote their heresy, but it is not just heresy and error they are promoting, they are, in fact, ushering in, Satanism, which is a religion and a very old one, so while technically it is not a new religion, Bp. Sanborn is, however, being too charitable in simply saying or believing that the Novus Orcians are simply promoting heresy, as if it was just a big, bad mistake. It’s not a mistake. It’s intentional and malignant with evil intent at that. So, TECHNICALLY right about Novus Orco not being a NEW religion, but it is pointless to say that, since it is certainly NOT Catholicism either, but its most ancient enemy.
What Sanborn gets wrong
BUT he also says that (about not making trouble) after making a very public and very specific accusation video, based, from what he himself presents in the video, heresay (that may well be true, but is not public as far as I can tell from the video. I heard…He said…or…this guy told me…is the definition of heresay) and one newsletter that has zero direct attacks. Does this mean Bp. Dolan has not made public attacks? I don’t know. I haven’t looked and I probably will not. But based on Sanborn’s own video it is not looking good for Sanborn.
On Bp. Dolan calling Covid cowards “girls” for bowing to the worldly laws instead of doing their priestly duty on the further point of Bp. Dolan not offering money for doing it to pay for eventual lawyers or bail. Errr… sorry, you are a Priest! You have CHOSEN to devote your life to God and sacrifice yourself to the world for the sake of the realm of God. If you need to go to jail, by all means try to avoid it, escape, lie to the worldly authorities (it is NOT a sin to do so when necessary, Jesus Himself lied to the Pharisees after all), do the Holy Mass in secret, whatever, but to bend to the worldly will as a Priest and claim you did it to avoid some jail time? Really? You dishonour the very frock you wear. It’s like a cop saying he will not enter a school with an active shooter because he is scared he might get shot! It’s your JOB! MOVE YOUR ASS! Unlike soldiers, cops and Priests don’t get drafted, they chose it. So, no. Bp. Dolan is 100% correct and he SHOULD shame such cowardly Priests. Rightfully. We need direct, in your face, face in the punchbowl truth these days.
He states that Bp. Dolan is accusing him and his seminarians of holding the position that Bergoglio is a validly elected Pope. And in the very next sentence he states that Bergoglio is a validly elected Pope and thus a Pope elect but that he is not Pope. At the very least Bp. Sanborn here does a poor job of explaining what I explained above in the Sede vs Sede section. I am not even sure most Sedeprivationist hold that Bergoglio WAS (even potentially) validly elected at this point in time, but it was the POTENTIAL position of the original theory of Cassiciacum. In other words that even IF the (fake) Pope HAD been validly elected, it would only be a valid MATERIAL (Worldly) election and NOT a Spiritual election, necessary to make one the Vicar of Christ on Earth. It is, a rather rarefied, super-abundantly charitable theological theory. And it was this back then already in the late 1960s. To hold it today is to my view absolutely in error. BUT, technically it IS the Sedeprivationist position. Now… IF Bp. Dolan then went on to MISREPRESENT the situation by further saying that the Sedeprivationist hold Bergoglio to actually be a valid Pope to all effects, then THAT is indeed a lie. But if all he said is that the Sedeprivationist hold the Bergoglio to be validly elected MATERIALLY ONLY. Then he was perfectly correct. And if, as I suspect, Bp. Dolan did not clarify the position, then, well, we can perhaps accuse him of being a little less charitable, a little bit more “pragmatic” in his fire and brimstone in order to avoid confusion, but we can’t fully call him an outright liar. The Cassiciacum position was ALWAYS a very fragile, ethereal thing and frankly, while we should pay homage to Fr. De Lauriers, it is time to move on and reclaim the Church.
Bp. Sanborn makes the comparison between thugs who have hijacked a car to describe the Novus Orco clergy and pointedly calls them Heretics. Yet he refutes the point that the Novus Orco Church is a different Church from the Catholic Church. This is patently false. While he hides of the fact that the usurpers are using the infrastructure of the Catholic Church, just like a car thief has now taken use of your car, it is obvious that:
The car/Church does NOT belong to them
The uses they are putting it to are not only NOT legitimate and criminal, they are in DIRECT opposition to the licit uses YOU, the rightful owner were putting it to. The analogy would be you going to take your pregnant wife to the hospital so she can give birth, getting the car hijacked and the thugs using it to drive to the hospital to murder newborn babies while they leave you by the side of the road. It’s all well and good for you to say that the car is the same car, (the Cathedrals too are indeed still the same, as is all the worldly structures of the Church) it is, but the purposes, intent, use and drivers of it are in direct opposition to everything that car/Church was meant to do. You can hardly say it is not a “New” Church. Physically the structures remain the same, but they have been defiled, they are being used to perpetuate crimes against should and bodies and pervert the truth. The Novus Orco are NOT Catholic. Their religion is NOT Catholicism. There is literally no point at all to not call them out as a fake, new, different religion, because that is what the Novus Orco is.
Arguable Either Way
Assuming it is true that Bp. Dolan characterised the Sedeprivationist position as a tentacle of the Novus Orco Church, and let’s for argument sake ALSO assume it was a PUBLIC statement, which, in fairness, I think is assuming quite a lot. It sounds to me as if the statement by Bp. Dolan may have been made in private conversation, in which case, my explanation here would have even more weight. An argument can be made, that by this continued excess of charity and not simply labelling public notorious heretics as such publicly, the Sedeprivationist faction is unwittingly (and unwillingly) helping the Satanists to continue their wearing of the Church structures like a snakeskin for their demon-infested Church of Moloch that it really is. IF this was the intent, then the characterisation might be unfortunate or lead one to perhaps rushed conclusions, especially if taken out of context, either about Sedeprivationist or about Bp. Dolan, or both. Nevertheless, it has a certain sound logic to it. And, if we are going to be charitable, as Sedeprivationist indeed are, then, surely, this interpretation would be the more correct one.
Ok about the fake “Old Catholic Church” having failed, true, but it is also a fact that these people were intentionally trying to destroy Catholicism and Bp. Sanborn states it clearly himself. The Freemasons/Carbonari/Satanists did this intentionally to take over these structures so as to fool the masses. So how can you say that the present usurpers are not a “new” Religion that is separate from Catholicism? It seems pedantic and irrelevant.
Bp. Sanborns Questions:
Q1. When did this Novus Orco Church begin?
A1. Worldly, on the 28th October 1958 when Roncalli was invalidly elected false Pope John XXIII. Spiritually, when Satan and his third of the host were driven from heaven. Simple. Not sure why he is unaware or pretends to be.
Q2. Was Bp. Dolan not part of the NO originally?
A2. Let’s assume yes and the answer will follow below.
Q3. Was Bp. Dolan not ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre?
A3. I believe he was. Fuller answer below.
Q4. Was Bp. Dolan not part of the SSPX which had as its stated purpose the reconciliation with the NO Church?
A4. I believe he was. Fuller Answer below.
Q5. When did you (Bp. Dolan) make a public abjuration from the NO Church? And here Bp. Sanborn states that as Bp. Dolan says the NO is a separate Church, a public adjuration must be made as if one were previously a Lutheran say. It is a kind of twisted logic and if it were valid then one could accuse Bp. Sanborn, by the same logic of actually BEING a Novus Orco Church guy. Here, I believe, we see the crux of the matter and I think it boils down to something neither side has mentioned and possibly that neither side understands consciously. Here it is, the Answer to the above questions:
A2,3,4 and 5. Being ordained by a man who was trying to navigate the absolute carnage of the Vatican II era while trying to preserve what he thought he could salvage or repair of the Catholic Church is not a sin. Nor is the ordination invalid. Bishop Lefebvre was indeed in error in trying to reconcile with what in all likelihood he had either not recognised as, or didn’t want to believe were Satanists within the very church he loved. But being in error does not make you a heretic. It does not prevent you from validly ordaining Priests other Bishops in good faith. Nor does being validly ordained by such a man and you yourself genuinely believing you are doing your best to navigate the same storm make you a heretic. merely in error. And we all are to some degree or other. Importantly though, like Bp. Sanborn, Bp. Dolan corrected his errors and eventually left the now essentially logically bankrupt SSPX.
As a result of the above, there is absolutely no need for an abjuration, because one never stopped being Catholic. Never belonged to the Church of Satan that the impostors clearly belong to. So there is no need to say you don’t belong to it!
Let me make an analogy that is easier to understand. If a bunch of Nazis decide to wear US army uniforms and infiltrate the trenches of the US Army and start murdering American soldiers in their sleep, are they now US Soldiers? NO. Clearly not. And if a US soldier in the trenches calls these Nazis out and says they are not Americans but Nazis in disguise, and belong to a different army, is he wrong? Does he now have to swear that he has no allegiance to the US Army because THE OTHER GUYS ARE WEARING THE SAME UNIFORM?!? It’s idiotic and ridiculous. Of course not. He is a US soldier and has to abjure or swear fealty to no one he hasn’t already done so. And he is doing his duty by calling out the impostors as belonging to the enemy army and NOT the US army. Simple. Again, I want to be charitable but Bp. Sanborn is not, I believe, stupid, so this, to me, stinks of sophistry.
Bp. Sanborn further embroils himself in deception when he asks who lifted the presumed excommunication of Bp. Dolan since he was originally “Novus Ordo” and this according to Bp. Dolan is a different Church. But this is an inversion. To return to the soldier analogy. Bp. Dolan never took off his uniform. He always was a US Soldier (Catholic) and if the leadership of his Army now tell him to shell his own positions and he does, in ignorance, in obedience, in essentially innocence, he is NOT at fault. Especially since, once he realises that his superiors are in reality Nazi spies in disguise as US soldiers, he stops following their fake orders, raises the alarm and calls them out as enemies. There is not guilt he has to expiate. There is no “nazi loyalty” he ever gave to the impostors. IF he did anything wrong he did it in honest error and by being fooled. He certainly does NOT need to once again swear loyalty to the US army. Whenever left. The other guys infiltrated into it. His conscience is clear. As it should be. In short, I think it is a deceptive and disingenuous question, a straw man. The same applies to deceived Novus Orco lay people who then become Sedes.
But it gets worse. He asks who now has the right to lift the excommunication of all those NO priests who have not yet refuted the V2 NO fake Church. The answer of course is no one and the answer as to whom, if any are potentially t least valid clergy, the answer is almost certainly none. The reason is simple.
Most of them were NOT ordained by valid clergy.
Most of them were not ordained validly. (1 and 2 here are two different things).
Of the tiny proportion left that we might assume have been somehow validly ordained, these must be exceedingly old and therefore utterly aware of the heresy of Vatican II yet have remained silent for decades. Case in point: “Archbishop” Vigano. Such people, are by definition, public, notorious heretics in word and deed. They promulgated the V2 heresies for decades and as such fall foul of Canon 188.4. They are public notorious heretics and indeed there is no one who can forgive them their heresy, but even if there were, their lot would be t spend the rest of their lives in secluded penance with authority over no one.
In conclusion then, even if there WERE any valid NO priests that could potentially become forgiven or be assumed to be Catholic, their lot is to have authority over no one, and hence are completely irrelevant to the future of the Church. This is a good thing, because it precludes the infiltration of any of these supposed “Catholics” into the actual, growing, resurgent, real, Catholic Church.
Conclusions
Bishop Sanborn is certainly a valid Catholic Bishop, nevertheless he is a Bishop of Power, as Rodney Stark labels such people. He is interested in the material aspects of the Church. He wants to “win” so to speak, by having more seminarians, more Churches, more laypeople contributing money to more structures being built and so on.
I do not know personally, and I am not accusing Bp. Sanborn of doing or being this way for personal gain. For all I know he may be, but I absolutely and without reservation give him the benefit of the doubt in this as I always did from the beginning. In fact, I’ll go a step further and state categorically that from my perspective, such clergy are, at times, required. The worldly aspects of Church buildings, funds for seminarians and resident priests and so on are realities of the world, and someone pushing to get these things is required and useful. Often such men can get corrupted by the power they wield. They can become gluttonous, or proud, dictatorial, revered in their cult of personality, and I have reason to suspect that certainly Bishop Sanborn has at least some of these flaws to whatever degree or other. As, I remind you, we all have flaws. That said, his errors will tend towards those that in ancient times were labelled as the avarice, gluttony and so on of the proud, power-hungry, worldly Popes.
I do not know Bp. Dolan at all, and never interacted with him, but judging from his tone and assuming the things Bp. Sanborn said about him in the video are true, it sounds to me that Bp. Dolan is more a puritan sort, which we may refer to as belonging more to the Church of Piety. The errors of such clergy tend to be either excessive charity (which got us where we are today) or, sometimes, a zeal bordering on Donates where if anything or anyone has the tiniest flaw then they are expelled for heresy.
In short, if these men are Power vs Piety, they will invariably disagree and nothing good can come of it. So I hope they put it all behind themselves and move on in a positive manner. Some form of public reconciliation, however superficial, would firstly demonstrate both men are willing to submit their ego to a higher need and secondly, for that very reason, be welcome by all Catholics I believe.
Aside from the fact that your favourite Freemason is currently literally trying to normalise cannibalism —in the usual Freemasonic way of pretending to be “edgy”, which frankly, is a bit disappointing coming from Milo. So 2016. We’d expect better from the leader of the Freemasonic wing tasked with leading young men of fighting age astray— we must contend with the usual level of stunning hypocrisy of the Freemasons. I mean, yeah, we know, Satanists lie, but it’s the level of bald-faced-in-your-face level of lies that is so blatant most normal human beings just blink and their brain pretends that no, no, surely it cannot be, too obvious. But that’s just what it is. They think you are a dumb, ruminant. A cow in a field. Oblivious to their machinations and laughing at you about it.
So here it is. First, the casual “edgy” cannibalism (which by the way is simply pinched from the Netflix series of Hannibal, so not even original. Which series is, of course, also laden with homoerotica fetishism, cannibalism is a known sexual deviancy of homosexuals of a certain Dahmer type).
But that’s just a by-the-by noticing of his day-to-day task of perverting, fetishising, and normalising absolute deviancy.
He is also, trying VERY hard to pretend he is NOT a Freemason right now, you see. The reality is that these little posts and my continuing Chinese water torture trickling out and exposing of his Freemasonic credentials, intent and work, IS slowly but inexorably, as these things do, gaining traction. It is unlikely it will be directly credited to me, but I don’t care about that. I care about the results, and the more this deceiver is exposed and more people become aware of it, the better. I don’t care how it happens or who takes credit for it. As long as the enemy encampments are exposed, destroyed and the Earth they were in salted, it’s all good.
So what better way than to prove how non-masonic he is than piling it on to one of the “luminaries” that, if my Freemason radar has anything to go by, is currently having to go through a bit of a humiliation ritual himself (though he’s the type that probably enjoys these)? That’s right, Milo the totally non-Freemason ex-gay good boy, exposing the evil “doctor” Fauci.
See? Milo exposing Freemasonry right? I mean, it’s true, you can’t do that by coincidence, I agree.
So… Can you explain all these coincidences Milo?
And… Milo… what’s that round your eye? Do tell us.
That’s quite the set of coincidences. Right up there with Monkeys on typewriters writing Shakespeare.*
BUT DON’T WORRY!
Milo is like… TOTALLY reformed. Like To-OOOTS. Totally. Yeah man. Super-straight “Catholic” now. You can just tell, can’t you?
I mean, come ON! What’s more Christian that a few “jolts up the ass” for your elders? You know, good “Catholic” Elders. Maybe like Gary “Michael” Voris, also ex-gay, totally super-straight “Catholic”. He’s bound to enjoy a few jolts up the ass now and then, and Milo is there to help.
Seriously, those of you who STILL can’t see that the fake, Bergoglian, Church of Moloch is a wide road to hell pretending to be the “Catholic” Church, are probably beyond help. It’s Sedeprivationism (aka CATHOLIC!) or GTFO. Forever.
*It can’t be done by the way, there is not time enough in the Universe since the Big Bang to even do a paragraph of Shakespeare that way. Seriously. Do the math.
Milo wrote the article archived here, on September 9th and posted about it on his telegram channel multiple times. More so than anything else I have seen him do in the last few months. Wonder why? well…allow me to take it to pieces, one scalpel cut at the time.
Keep in mind that the whole theme of this entire post is to show how Milo is a freemason whose job it is to keep those who are waking up, beginning to question reality, the fake “Catholic” Church and all the satanic crap going on, from seeing clearly and, eventually, after doing their own research, coming to the only sane conclusion: Catholicism. Which means Sede (Privationist or Vacantist) because anyone and everyone linked to Vatican II is literally a satanic freemason, most likely gay and most likely a pedophile.
But Milo is not a Ben Shapiro or a Jonah Goldberg, or a Jordan Peterson, he is going after the shrinking hardcore of actual people still mostly able to do logic who may not be able to see it all but know instinctively that the narratives are complete bullshit. And in PARTICULAR, he is trying to dissuade, young, able-bodied men. Straight ones at that, but because young, still tolerant of a homosexual and especially an “ex” homosexual who supposedly threw his “sodomy stone” engagement ring worth 150,000 USD into the sea. Titanic-style. Riiiiight.
But it works to an extent, and young, straight, disillusioned (but still fighting) men is his target audience. Because if even a few of them become objectively convinced, crusading Catholics… weeeeellll… that is how historical reversals have been done throughout human history. Thanks to a small but completely dedicated bunch of zealots.
Think the 300 of Leonidas.
Or better yet, the 600 Catholic Knight of Malta in 1565.
THOSE are the types Milo is tasked with gatekeeping. And if he offends a few thousand fence-sitters or “right-wingers” who in any case are action-shy, well, no real harm done.
So let us look at his latest offering, hoping no child sacrifice ritual was involved in its writing.
He titles it:
WHY I WELCOME THE COVID TYRANNY
Right there in the title, using counter-intuitive juxtaposition of ideas he plans to draw his young readers in with the natural curiosity such a title would generate in the slightly more naive than yours truly. It’s not his best work though, it does have that Jonah Goldberg/David French/Ben Shapiro-ish quality of “the Republican case for why being sodomised is manly and right for the right” kinda feel doesn’t it? But let us continue. His words in fat bold, mine in fit, normal-sized font.
I keep getting panicky texts from right-leaning friends about Australia, a country whose COVID restrictions have become cartoonishly severe.
I doubt this very much. If he does they are not friends, and most likely his texts are from his handlers complaining about why there was a blip in his traction lately. But I admit, this is mostly just speculation on my part. I’ll keep it to a minimum from now on though.
Australia used to be an independent country, but it is now something akin to a vassal state, since the Chinese bought off its politicians and acquired controlling interests in all its infrastructure and major corporations.
Nice way to blame the Chinese. No Soros or Gates foundations involved at all. No Australian politicians mentioning live on air the New World Order with impunity. Nope. It’s the slant-eyed Chinese, nothing to do with any other tribe that Milo may belong to of course, no sir.
Western liberal democratic values are being replaced by child-snatching and a totalitarian surveillance state that is testing the limits of what the global European diaspora will endure.
Nice touch there at the end; Global European Diaspora. Should be capitalised really. Not a subtle way to make all the “fellow white people” of Europe sympathise with that other, small-hat wearing “Diaspora” of people Milo is a tribe member of. Not at all. Surely not. Just a word-coincidence. Besides we have all those shared Judeo (Talmudic, child rape is ok as long as they are 3 years old or less)-Christian (Fake Catholic, no, no, you can rape kids of ANY age, it’s fine) values.
Thousands of Australian children were recently grabbed from their parents, rounded up in a giant sports stadium and forcibly vaccinated.
Not quite correct. I am told by several actual Australians that as far as they are aware most parents dropped their kids off there themselves. So, not quite the child-snatching it was supposedly reported as.
If you think that’s scary, there will shortly be a smartphone app in Southern Australia — compulsory for all citizens — that will randomly ping people and demand that they prove they are in the location they’re supposed to be. If you don’t reply within 15 minutes, the police will be dispatched to issue fines, and probably custodial sentences for repeat offenders. “What if they do it here?” my Republican friends are asking. “Are they the test case? Are we next? Would we even resist?”
Admittedly it does look like Australia is the test-bed for the Satanic deep states running things, and it is probable that once they see Australians doing what Australians always do, bend to their knees, mouth wide open and hands behind their back with not even a gag reflex in sight, they will justifiably think the rest of the world will follow suit.
The thing is, I just can’t get upset about it. Because the fact of the tyranny doesn’t scare me — only that the wrong people are in charge.
Right. No, not really, it doesn’t scare you too much, because like in RPG games like Call of Chthulu, you, being a lieutenant of the satanic forces, expect to be eaten last-ish.
And it occurs to me that the global police state currently in deployment could be a powerful force for good.
Pay attention young nationalists of every type! This is the whole point! Don’t you worry about anything at all. The tyranny is good! Because soon YOU will be wielding it. Seriously, that is his whole shtick.
Now, let’s leave aside for a minute that only psychopaths actually WANT any such tyrannical things in place. Personally I am very happy putting all the freaks like Milo in a camp, but it would be a fairly big camp, and they would be left to their own devices to do as they please. I’m thinking Australia can fit them all in and is already mostly populated by his sort anyway.
But as I say, let’s leave aside the absurdity of his premise, or the possibility of me becoming world Emperor and for a brief period actively enforcing a few things that would get rid of Satanists for a very loooooong time.
Let’s see HOW he thinks this wonderful, wonderful technology of tyranny will come to fall in YOUR hands, comrade, yes YOU!
With all your crusading instincts, hate for the LGBT-Pedo agenda, lies, fake “vaccines” that are genetic “therapy” and all the rest of it. And don’t forget to hate the Chinese through it all by the way, because in any case, even if you DO become emperor, with about 2 billions of the little fuckers, you’re hardly going to create any “holocaust” that makes a difference, but it gives you an outlet for your rage right? A safe outlet, you see. Not looking at any other tribe of devious infiltrators…nope, nope. Stop right there. Let’s just see HOW you get to be tyrant ok? All will be well then!
We just need different people running it, which, if you look at history, now seems more likely than unlikely, as populations the world over begin to crave populist, nationalist right-wing governments run by charismatic strongmen. It seems to me only a matter of time before the tools “globohomo” has created fall into the wrong hands. Our hands.
Right. By magic. Just magically, the same forces that made the United States of America, the most powerful Super-nation on Earth become a banana republic whose elections made Zimbabwean ones look free, fair and carefully vetted by impartial observers, are just gonna take over the planet then hand YOU the rains. Of course. Logical. Obvious. Why, you must be dumb if you missed it!
Democracy isn’t quite dead yet,
Really? Hahhahahahaah oh, so we will be voting out the satanic pedophile elite that were all elbow deep up Epstein’s backside before he didn’t kill himself? Of course. Of course. Slap your own head. HOW, oh HOW did you miss it? We’ll just vote Trump back in. In August. With a time machine, and then the power rangers will win. With Grrrrll power ™. Sure. Obvious. We really are so dumb for missing it.
and the electorate is fed up with conventional politics.
You mean a few of the retards are starting to suspect PERHAPS CNN isn’t telling the WHOLE truth? Why say it is not so!
In America, particularly, there’s a sort of late-1920s-Germany feel to a lot of the right-wing discussions online.
Utter bullshit, but he’s trying to make a parallel between Weimar Germany whose economy was in shreds to present day America in the hope it is leading the few neo-nazis, Alt-retards, as well as more sane, erudite and potentially good men who still have a spine and testicles attached (I don’t consider the neo-nazi alt retards as possessing either) to think that a new “Hitler” is the solution. And that it will actually happen.
Might they do the unthinkable and vote in someone truly toxic? I mean that as a compliment; I’m thinking of an unashamedly Christian, family-values semi-dictator type.
Oh, you mean like Trump? With the time machine? Or maybe Jimmy Swaggart? More your style that, Milo.
The sort of person the media imagines Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán to be, but in real life. Someone blissfully untroubled by the howls of pain from heretics hanging from city hall, and with just the right amount of Inquisition spirit.
This is the funniest and most unbelievable fan fiction I have read in some time. The premise is so absurd it could not be made into a film because no audience is stupid enough to even buy the premise that voting someone actually Christian into office is even a long-shot at this point.
And then, once you have a smartphone infrastructure that can demand responses within 15 minutes to ensure COVID compliance, how hard is it to repurpose that for more virtuous ends?
This is like those articles that try to convince you that as a straight young male, giving your male friend a blowjob doesn’t make you gay at all. It’s just a bit of stress relief. So, to recap. Submit to the anal swabs with facial recognition in place because automagically, soon, a little bit after your 15,000th anal penetration for Covid-19 purposes, YOU will own the technology and then YOU can anal swab everyone else. Right. As the rest of this piece, it’s entirely obvious, logical and above-all based in how the real world works, right? you can see that, right? Anyone? Right?
Especially when America’s most ferocious feminists are leaning into social conservatism all by themselves. If you don’t believe me that authoritarian tendencies are ideologically promiscuous and easily untethered from their original belief systems, consider the feminist reaction to Texas’ new abortion law.
Ah yes! Let’s take the reaction of Alyssa Milano, to not being able to abort more babies as the normal effect of society and how things go when she says she will no longer have sex with men to fight the ban on abortions. See, ye of little faith, the logic… steel trap mind right there buddy. See Milo the saviour, comes to the rescue. Don’t you worry about a thing. Feminists will give you the tyrannical power.
(Please bend while you read, anal swab testing is required every 5 minutes. Just relax please.)
In response to a viral Twitter inquiry this week from someone called “Erie Siobhan is Vaxxed to the Max” who asked, “What advice would you give to young women in Texas right now?” a respondent wrote, “If it looks like a guy is going to rape you, just shoot him. It’s easier and cheaper than an abortion, and Texans seem okay with that form of ‘protection.'” Congratulations, sweetheart, you now understand why people want guns. I speak for all conservatives when I say we are totally comfortable with you shooting a rapist’s nuts off or capping him in the knee.
Look at that! Manly! See? Milo loves guns and the second amendment and makes fun of dumb feminists! Aha! Totally straight, ex-gay, not Freemason Milo is on our side. And teamed up with totally straight, ex-gay, Gary Voris to show you the way to the real (fake) “Catholic” Church, broseph. The “Catholic” Church that is not gay or pedophilic at all even if Bergoglio has protected priests who have raped 30 little girls aged 10 or less while having AIDS from so much as being defrocked. Go on, suck off your broseph friend, that’s not gay at all. It’s Milo-level Catholic! It’s edgy, don’t you know?! Just like Milo! Go for it!
Androgynous imbecile Rachel Maddow, pontificating on the same subject, stumbled into accidental genius on her MSNBC show when she produced the novel idea of financial consequences for men who knock women up. “If they make abortions illegal,” she intoned, “they should make it illegal for men to desert women after getting them pregnant. If women can’t back out of pregnancies, men shouldn’t be able to either.” Well done, dear! You just invented marriage.
This line by the way is about 6 years old, but it’s fine, it’s just Milo flashing his Totally-Straight-Manly-Catholic Credentials ™
Best of all was the Reddit user “walrusgambit,” from whose screen name a body mass index of 35 or more can be inferred: “Starting today I refuse to have sex with men. As a person with no control over my reproductive organs, I simply cannot safely engage in sex with men. #IWillNotHaveSex #NoAbortionNoSex.” Conservatives everywhere will be weeping tears of joy today at this outbreak of chastity. Poor liberals. They can’t seem to catch a break.
Milo makes fun of feminists. Yay! So brave. Much Catholic. Crusade next year in Constantinople. #Add-your-edgy-meme-here.
I’ve heard it said that American conservatism is liberalism driving the speed limit. But there are no brakes on this new right-wing strain of frustrated feminist.
AND DON’T YOU FORGET IT STRAIGHT MAN WITH A POSSIBLE POTENTIAL TWINKLE OF ACTUAL CATHOLICISM IN HIS EYE! Your “Tyranny ™” will be handed to you by Feminists! Because like natural enemies, it’s what they do! Logic! Mullet! #Look-at-my-hair
If it were up to me, children born out of wedlock would be put into foster care and the mothers sent to nunneries.
Except he’s also been railing against deadbeat dad Fed-rique Tarrio and supporting the single mom who was left with the child. So, yeah, outright lie right there. And don’t get me wrong, it’s good for that woman to get some cash, but it’s also a pretty cheap way for Milo to score GOOD GUY POINTS ™. #compassionate-hardcore-catholic-(ex-gay)-with-a-heart-of-gold.
By the looks of things, today’s Left isn’t far behind me. They’re starting to sound positively reactionary. And that is why, as I watch our Western liberal democracies slide into tyranny, I’m not gripped with horror, but rather with excitement.
Well sure, you will enjoy the horror while thinking you’ll be eaten last. But…yeah…even in Call of Chthulu, there are sometimes these pesky investigators (accused of insanity, often enough) who sometimes just screw up ALL you molochian plans even when you are a well-funded agent of some demonic entity like Freemasonry.
The ugly truth about human nature is that schoolmarms, scolds and petty administrative tyrants — mostly women, obviously — don’t really care what they’re enforcing. They just want to enforce.
AHA! See? It will be one easy swop from enforcing Covid-19 Plandemic suicide gene-therapy to enforcing Catholic Dogma in government and burning pedophiles at the stake! #one-simple-trick!
The trick is to replace the godless tyrannies of fascism and communism with a pious theocracy of the kind that is being discussed in right-wing Catholic intellectual circles.
Good God. He ACTUALLY wrote “The Trick”. I swear on all that is holy to me I wrote the paragraph above this one before I wrote #one-simple-trick!
Milo, buddy, you used to be wittier than this. What happened? Lack of ganging orgies got you down while you pretend to be “Catholic”?
But let us get to the “Catholic” “Intellectual” Circles.
He means here his peeps. Gary “call-me-(Saint)-Michael” Voris, E(mo) Jones, Taylor “Tay-Tay” Marshall, and the others funded by the same Supernumerary (Marc Brammer) of Opus Dei. The equivalent to “Intellectual-Dark-Web” that was supposed to reign in Republicans and right-wingers of every type, like Shapiro, Petersen, Golberg, French and other molluscs dredged up from R’Yleh.
Fake Catholics, Talmudic Jews, Meth addicted pathological liars and so on. Good guys all of course, Milo says so. And you know he probes deep and often with his investigative journalism.
Snobs have been scoffing at Thomas Crean’s thrilling book Integralism ever since it came out, as though it’s utterly inconceivable that we might reorganize society according to the strictures of the Catholic Catechism.
Oh, I may have to look up this latest addition to the “Catholic” “Intellectual” Circle when I have time to notice him, but so far, the only thing I am sure of, is that these people, are indeed, in a circle. What they are doing to, and with, each other in that circle, I’ll leave for you to imagine.
But that, mutatis mutandis, is precisely what is already being done for us by the global elites. Once the mechanisms of authoritarian control are in place, they will be nigh-on impossible to remove. And guess what: Subjected to Weimar levels of elite decadence, people choose fascist remedies over communist ones every time.
Oh, man. Again. I wrote the bit about Weimar parallels up above before seeing he had to spell it out here. Seriously, I think Milo has washed up as a writer.
Socialist regimes have to be installed by force. Hitler was voted in. I’m not a Hitler fan, obviously, I’m just saying! All we want is traditional family values, kiddy-fiddling clergy dunked in hydrofluoric acid and maybe some snazzy uniforms. Is it so much to ask?
So join me, friends, in praying earnestly and eagerly for the future I know we all want — a future that’s closer than it might seem and which, by God’s grace, will resemble Gilead from The Handmaid’s Tale, only with less kindness shown to unruly women. Gilead, wrongly maligned by critics for decades as a hellish misogynistic dystopia, is, in fact, the most perfect vision of the ideal society yet imaged by a novelist. I dream of a land where no matter your race, sex or disordered sexuality, you will be put to death equally for blaspheming Jesus Christ.
If you’ve ever read the book (which I will not blame you for not doing because it is painful drivel to read) it will become quite clear that Freemason Milo here is paying lip service to what is most likely another Freemason who hated Catholicism with the burning fires of Hell.
Rejoice! For the New Holy Roman Empire is surely nigh! Our enemies are already building it for us — they just don’t know it yet. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we can have a ruthlessly intolerant theocracy, with feminist heads on pikes on the castle ramparts and pedophiles castrated live on national TV every Sunday straight after Latin High Mass, if we want it badly enough.
Sure. Because the Feminists and Pedophiles in charge will just hand it to you after the next free and fair democratic vote. And no amount of militarised police action in your face with rubber bullets or live rounds can stop it! See? #Simples!
(A note to the doubting and/or terrified architects of Weimerica: We do want it. We really, really do.)
No. YOU want it, Milo. Because tyranny, enforcing a religion by death or the threat of it, is the exact OPPOSITE of Catholicism. But Freemasons, being Satanists, prefer the way of Islam for conversion, clearly. The profoundly ignorant take of a “Catholic” tyranny demonstrates Milo not only knows little of Catholicism beyond what he needs to use to fake you into thinking he knows something about it. More importantly, he fully expects YOU to be so ignorant of it that you don’t see the glaring galaxy-wide holes in his “argument”. And to be fair… he may be right about that last part.
Pick up a Catechism of Trent, boy.
I can’t figure out what everyone’s so upset about. We all agree that limp-wristed Western democracies have been tried and found wanting. Now we have a chance to replace them with something better. Why aren’t you all more excited?
Because your lie is a lie Milo. But don’t worry. There will probably BE an uprising at some point. Whether it will be enough or not, time will tell, but either way, WE win in the end. Because we know how the story ultimately ends. And you, whether you will be eaten last or not, you WILL be eaten. We may die horribly, but none of US are going to be eaten by our master.
Mr. Yiannopoulos welcomes correspondence from readers. He can be reached at [email protected].
Well, they SAY he does, so it must be true. So I sent him a link to this blog post. I eagerly await his response. I’m not holding my breath though.
We launched on 26th August, a Thursday, with 14 videos and 4 trailers, and today at the end of the first full week we have 20 videos up (and the 4 trailers), so as promised we have added 4 videos a week and we will continue to do so.
The History series is divided into 5 parts by eras, so the numbering is as follows:
We are doing well with the uptake considering this blog is read by 3 people plus disaffected Milo supporters and anti-catholic orthobros. But we’re hoping a few of the Russian hackers spread the word!
In all fairness, we wanted to give the loyal supporters the best chance to get the deal available only for the first 100 subscribers and we think that has probably been done now. In the next week or so, time permitting, some people who are into some pretty strong marketing fields are going to push the button on Kurgan TV, so if you’re still on the fence about registering I suggest you get to it because if we have got to nearly 50% capacity by just my measly efforts alone, when the big guns come in, I expect those remaining 50 spots or so to disappear very quickly.
All the feedback we have had to date has also been positive, so we’re happy on that front too.
The most popular series so far seems to be the Lies You Have Been Told – History series, but time will tell.
We already have plans for two new series and we may also introduce material from other creators in due course, but those conversations generally take some time.
We are on track to exceed 160 videos for the period to August 26th 2022, as promised.
Thank you to all the people who are supporting us. You are making the Physical Kurganate become more achievable every day by making the Digital Kurganate a reality already, so thanks and remember:
Thanks to a little exposé of Milo I did yesterday, here, there has been a rather instant level of response, including on his telegram chat. Milo himself posted a link to the post, with the clear intent of pretending it was so insignificant it didn’t bother him at all. He did this though, only after someone posted a link to it in one of his chats, so it could be said his hand was forced and he took the only possible route he can take denial and attempts to pass the information off as “laughable”. No actual response to the facts presented in any way, shape or form, as you will see.
It has been interesting to note the reaction from Milo, because he’s been far from his usually composed self. While Milo has fielded all sorts of “attacks”, even on live TV, with aplomb, I have never seen him quite this at a loss for coherent response other than denial, avoidance, subterfuge and outright censorship of the topic. But before I get to him and his own reactions, allow me a small pleasure in exposing the retards he has working for him.
The funny part is that his own moderators didn’t exactly help the situation when they made attempts (predicted in the original post I wrote), to cast me as some poor desperate “gamma” seeking Milo’s attention. An attention that was not forthcoming because obviously I am just some nobody and he is… well… Milo: International Sodomite; or maybe Milo: International Ex-Sodomite now Pretend-Catholic. Or something.
This was such a predictable accusation that I prepared for it. Mostly because I was sure the morons who would launch it did not pay attention to the fact that while I initially approached Milo, he was VERY receptive to reading RTCC and so on, emailing me back pretty instantly. It was only after he received the book, and I assume realised “this guy is not for sale”, that he then went “I’m too International-(Ex?)Sodomite-busy for you” silent.
And yes, there have been attempts to buy my Catholicism by so-called “Trad-Cats” and no I have not mentioned them publicly, but I have recorded them and turned them down repeatedly.
Anyone with an ounce of sense would have figured it out but not this idiot:
Paddy and I have had a few run-ins before, mostly because I called him on his bullshit, and probably because he also forgot where he planted his potatoes or something, but even without knowing about Milo’s email reaction (see further below), it should have been obvious from the instant reaction to the post that Milo was not QUITE as busy as he wanted to appear, and judging by the liberal use of the ban hammer in that chat, not as nonchalant either.
A few of the bans:
Some of the bans were so instant and the comment made deleted so fast that not even the loyal Sodalitium types keeping tabs on Milo got a chance to screencapture them. One in particular committed the evil sin of simply writing:
“How is he wrong?”
That was an instaban and the comment deleted immediately. No dissension was permitted at all and anyone questioning Milo on the obvious Freemasonic signalling was silenced faster than Stalin deleted people from photographs.
What was his supposed reason? Here:
IT’S BAD FAITH QUESTIONS GUYS!
Right. Except they are questions he has NEVER answered. Never even TRIED to answer. There is only one response to them and it’s always the same. Ban, silence, eject.
Except wee-eelll… when it’s persistent little old me doing the asking then he does the only defence he has left if one assumes he is actually guilty.
Think about it, assume he is a full-blown Freemason intent on deceiving the small percentage of the population that is no longer fooled by Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, but in their quest for truth, God and a real Church is still on the fence about Emo Jones maybe, or thinking Church Militant are actual Catholics and not funded by Opus Dei hook line and sinker. If you make that assumption then Milo has no options left except to feign my facts are unimportant rumblings of some attention seeker, far too inept or relevant to even merit a response by our flamboyant, worldly, newly chocolate-dick free “Catholic” hero. Right.
And why is that? Because do you know what the punishment for being exposed as a confirmed Freemason is? Do you know about their code of silence despite all their signalling? They signal because they think of us as dumb sheep and cows that will do nothing, understand nothing and be led to slaughter by them. Yet… the only penalty for revealing the Freemason secrets is death. And death by some rather gruesome means. Don’t take my word for it. Google is not your friend, but it can still dig up some stuff on this.
So here is my take: Milo always was controlled opposition. He was the pied piper to the young ones. The Millennials yes, but more importantly the Zyklons. His rebellious, flamboyant and apparently disrespectful nature was captivating to young disaffected people who wanted to burn it all down. And he fooled a great many of us. Me included for a time, though I was early on to say that he would crash and burn or amount to nothing and eventually fade into obscurity long before his pedo-scandal from the Joe Rogan interview. So what happened?
He upset his masters in some way. Which is why he was burnt down and had to suffer humiliation. Keep in mind that Milo was funded by some of the same people who backed supposedly “right-wing” things like Parler. Then that money was taken away. And after the due process of Freemasonic ritual humiliation and “renewal” (he literally has it in his bio, mockingly: Ex-Gay, good boy) he is being given another shot at it.
By teaming up with the other supposedly also Ex-Sodomite Gary Voris (Who tries to go by Michael and who started up a business called St. Michael with Opus Dei cash, not freakily narcissistic at all, of course).
So now, some bastard Sedeprivationist who can’t be bought is exposing him. Right at the start of his new venture. What do you think his lords and masters will do about that if it gets traction?
In a way, this explanation may save him. Perhaps it will even increase the funds they pump into him. Because if he was found with his throat slit and his entrails pulled out (the penalty for breaking the oath), it might be a tad suspicious, so if instead they bury him in cash and boost him even more, maybe I will just be drowned out by the noise and the ruminant cows will still flock to the fake “Catholicism” that leads to the same pit of Hell of the other fake religions.
Or he might just get a heart attack from covid. It’s hard to say with the servants of the one-eyed “shepherd”.
And anyway, I’m just some unimportant “gamma” not worth responding to right? Except oh…ooops…note the times on these emails.
Cool, Calm and Collected Milo… or maybe not quite
And, it wasn’t really a “forwarding service” that I delivered the book to. And even if it had been it would not take months to get to him. The “forwarding service” (a lady called Kathleen) also summarily ignored perfectly polite emails concerning the book which she had not done at all before its arrival, which she confirmed.
No replies at all to perfectly polite emails but instant replies to these ones. Literally not even a minute after I sent the first one the reply arrived. And the rest followed in rapid succession.
Not sus at all.
Just perfectly non-Freemasonic behaviour through and through.
The Creed – Battle Royale Theology Remix
Now, as you all know by now, if you read here at all, the nickname given to me by others: The Kurgan, applies not only because of my happy-go-lucky and sunny disposition, but also for my intolerance of heretics. We all know: There can only be One (True Church).
What started as some kind of internet bumfight between theological retards, Jimbob and Owen Benjamin, has grown, as an avalanche started by their simultaneous thundering fart, to include the questioning of the very nature of the Trinity by scores of autists across the web.
And prompted Vox Day to clarify his position, as he has often been (incorrectly) accused of denying the Trinity.
The resulting discussion from Vox’s post on SG actually had some interesting commentary (as well as also the “thoughts” of various drooling retards).
So… although the topic is of very little interest to me personally, since my position is pretty ironclad, I thought it might be interesting to others, or at least entertaining. And perhaps they might find some historical background, or some logical thinking related to it, or, ultimately, my personal position, useful.
In that vain hope then, allow me to quote The Creed as the (real, Sedevacantist) Catholic Church currently has it:
Credo
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem caeli et terra; et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus únicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus et sepúltus; descéndit ad inferos; tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis; ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis; inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos. Credo in Spíritum Sanctum, sanctum Ecclésiam cathólicam, sanctórum communionem, remissiónem peccatórum, carnis resurrectiónem, vitam aetérnam. Amen.
Which, translated into English for you heathens, heretics and schismatic is:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day he resurrected from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father; He will return to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting. Amen.
And that, of course, is the only Creed you need or should care about, since it is the one of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, which, I remind you, is infallible and will remain with us until the return of our Lord The Christ.
However… let me now take you through the various iterations and why this is so.
Beginning with Vox’s preferred credo, which he clarified is the one of the “Faith of the 150 Holy Fathers” also known as the Nicene Creed, of 325 AD, but which I believe he clarified (and I hope he corrects me if I got this wrong) meant the first version, as used by St. Cyril who was a catechist in 345 AD, and is also known as the Jerusalem Creed because this is where St. Cyril taught.
There are two forms of this. The first, a very abbreviated form used for the baptism of a new convert:
I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
And the second one, which was used when they made their vows of renunciation and faith before the whole congregation, in other words, when they were essentially confirmed as adult members of the Church.
It reads as follows:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father, very God, before all worlds, by whom all things were made, and was incarnate, and was made man, was crucified and was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and is coming in glory to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets, and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life eternal.
Given that the second one was the one recited formally by the baptised adult (or at least of age of reason), it is obvious that the first is a condensed version just identifying the most important points, and the second one is a more complete version. That in and of itself already makes it clear that a so-called “revision” of the Creed, is acceptable; because it is not a revision or corruption, but merely a more complete and detailed version of the first one. So in principle, the one used by the Catholic Church is perfectly fine.
But far be it from me to deprive you of the thrill of a larger internet bunfight about theology. In essence then, what, if any, is the difference between the Credo I subscribe to and the one Vox subscribes to?
I posit it is very little. Let’s see them side by side and concept by concept with some commentary by yours truly. Always keeping in mind, I am not a priest or Bishop, merely a layman that submits to the infallible magisterium of Holy, Catholic, Mother Church.
And here is my commentary then, see the note number above for reference.
This then, to my mind, puts to rest the appreciable differences that I might have with Vox’s theology, and to sum up, what are they, as far as I can see?
The bolded portions, at first glance.
I have not asked Vox his position, as I wanted to write this first, and then let him comment on it if he choses to, so any assumptions I may make on his behalf are subject to correction, and if he lets me know where I may have made a wrong one, I’ll be sure to let you know and update.
Right then, on point number 5: There are potentially up to three issues:
On point number 7: I doubt Vox believes Jesus did not descend into Hell, but I suppose he might. Even if he does, I don’t see how that would affect his day-to-day actions or belief system. It would be an error as far as the Catholic Church goes, but I fail to see the consequences of it at a practical level. At a spiritual level, of course, having such an erroneous belief would diminish the work done by our Lord for those souls that remained in purgatory or limbo until he freed them, as well as diminish His power and ability to do, go and act as He deems required.
On Point number 15: Here may be the only real differences. I am not sure what Vox’s views on the need for Holy Mass, transubstantiation and the communion of (dead) Saints. As he is of a generically Protestant non-denomination, I assume he probably does not subscribe to transubstantiation. I assume he believes there is a need for going to Church, though I am ignorant of what aspects of what passes for Holy Mass in Catholic Churches is replaced by any specific beliefs Vox may have in this regard.
Overall then, I would sum the possible differences between Vox and myself, as far as our theology goes are probably limited to transubstantiation, the need for confession and it being a sacrament, an item that is not even mentioned specifically in the credo of either side (though it is implied within the context of Catholicism, by point number 16), and the possibility of asking for intercessionary prayer from the departed, including Mary.
Potentially, at a stretch, we might even guess at some unspecified difference of opinion or view of maybe women or mothers in general because of his Protestant leanings versus my Catholic ones, but frankly, I doubt it. And if there is, I doubt it would be very significant in practical terms. Lastly, and this only from a very brief conversation I had with him on the matter a few years ago, I believe that he may take the position that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God (I am not sure whether he means from God the Father only, like the Eastern “Orthodox” do, or from both God the Father and Jesus the Son) that He sends to us, rather than a “third person” as such as is generally conceived by most people who call themselves Christians.
Adendum: A commenter helpfully referenced this post from 2013 which sheds more light on Vox’s position. To summarise it then, he questions the change from the original Nicean Credo regarding the position of the Holy Spirit. My understanding is that he does not equate the Holy Spirit with having the same quality of Godhood as Jesus or God the Father. Specifically, he objects to the description of the Holy Spirit being as “the giver of life” since life was already present and eternal as the result of Jesus’ arriving before the Holy Spirit (I assume here that Vox means that those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah even before Jesus was baptised were already given life eternal). Interestingly, Vox seems to also hold that the Holy Spirit must be able to proceed from both the Father and the Son. I am not certain, however, since he also, reasonably enough, states that God the Father and Jesus the Son cannot be wholly and totally interchangeable at all times, but he does not specify if he thinks the Holy Spirit precedes only from the father. I do not think that the position that Jesus and God the Father are both God, yet not exactly interchangeable at all times and in all ways is heretical. the very fact there is a distinction means there are differences. Similarly, being Catholic, it makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, as is, in any case, made quite clear in the Bible. As for Vox’s contention that the Holy Spirit is later raised to a status that is quasi identical to Jesus and God the Father, I honestly abstain from having an opinion on the matter. I don’t see it changes anything one way or the other how this aspect is viewed, and personally, do not even see that it makes a difference if the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Triune God as Vox interprets it or as he assumes the Catholic Church interprets it. I mean… it is literally a mystery, so I find the quibbling over it to be a complete waste of time in practical terms, and at most, a personal point of curiosity as to how another human being might perceive it, as observing such things often can give us new insights.
On this last point, I am not sure if it even makes a difference even at a dogmatic level in Catholic thought. I mean, I know that the Holy Spirit is presented as the third part of the triune God, but as to the exact specifics of the nature of the Holy Spirit, I really and truly believe such speculation is well above my ability or even concern to know. I am perfectly happy to submit to infallible Church dogma, whatever it may be, on the matter. And honestly, I cannot see that in practical terms as far as the way Vox may or may not act it makes any difference at all. For all I know such a belief may well land him in Hell, but I honestly have no knowledge of that, nor understanding of why, and more importantly, no concern at all to find out. As I said, like the great philosopher Harry Callahan, I know my limitations and am perfectly happy to take the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church on this subject.
So, that takes care of the view Vox has of the Trinty.
Now for the others…
This is a much simpler issue.
Owen Benjamin’s take on the Trinity has, without any doubt, been utterly, completely blasphemous, since he compared the relationship between God the father and Jesus the Son as a homosexual liaison with the Holy Spirit as the ejaculate. And no, I don’t for one second accept the cowardly excuse that he was “only joking.” Let me put it this way: Jean Parisot de Valette, who eventually became the leader of the knights of Malta and was possibly the man who single-handedly might have been most responsible for Islam not putting the whole of Europe to the fire and the sword, once beat a lay member of the order of Knights nearly to death. Allegedly for blasphemy. For which he did four months in prison. I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. And in fact, if nearly killing a man for blasphemy was requiring of four months in the hole (it was literally a hole in the ground in which food and water were lowered to the prisoner) that seems about right to me. And if such laws were implemented across the civilised world, we would soon return to a saner, cleaner, more respectful and kind world.
In short, Owen’s take is absolutely retarded, blasphemous in the extreme, and he had best keep such an idiotic idea to himself. Especially is he’s ever near an actual Catholic who might have a temperament similar to good old de Valette.
It does need to be stated that if Owen holds such a belief, which I charitably doubt, or even just whatever belief allowed him to make such an absurd and blasphemous statement, it is quite clear he has a disordered mind, and that, at a rather obviously deep level of degeneracy to even come up with such imagery. Which, if what I am told about his streams by others is even only partially accurate, would also be obvious since apparently he spends a goodly part of his hours long streams referencing homosexual acts, male genitalia, or ejaculation, in graphic detail. Clearly, not the sign of a healthy mind.
But in any case, no one that made the comments he made concerning the Trinity can ever be taken to be a Christian of any kind, not even of some random version of absurd Churchianity like Mormonism. We can therefore only define Owen as a complete heretic (assuming he was ever validly baptised, which I don’t know). And if he was not validly baptised, then he is simply some kind of deranged non-denominational heathen or pagan. In short, we need not concern ourselves with his take on any aspect of christianity, theology, or frankly, much of anything else, since it is wholly irrelevant.
Whatever Jimbob’s take on the trinity is, I have no clue, as I have never watched any of his videos or read anything from him except the odd cartoon he draws, of which, I am not a fan. I just don’t like the look, but that’s a matter of taste and of no consequence. I really do not know anything at all about his view of the Trinity, but I am led to believe that Jimbob considers himself and Eastern “Orthodox” if this is the case, and if he holds the classic views of that schismatic sect, then the most likely difference he would have with me is that being as the schematic “Orthodox” don’t read their Bible very well, he assumes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone, when it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both if one can read in normal human context. In any case, if this is the extent of the discrepancy between us, it is, again, of rather little consequence at a practical level and I doubt would lead Jimbob to act in any specifically degenerate fashion. As I said before, it might lead him to Hell spiritually, but as to the details of the how or why, beyond the fact it goes against Catholic Dogma, I do not profess, nor care, to know, I am happy to simply submit to the Catholic Church’s view on this.
Conclusion
So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. The only interest I have in this whole topic would be Vox’s specific views, and that purely on a personal level, because I find him interesting and his views usually present facets of reality I might not have considered before. From a personal theological perspective however, whatever Vox’s views might be in their detail, it is extremely unlikely to change my own. It might, possibly, add some level of detail or nuance though, I might not have considered before, and as such, it could be interesting.
The views of Jimbob and Owen on the Trinity (or pretty much anything else) are completely uninteresting and utterly irrelevant to me in the extreme. As are pretty much anyone else’s, unless I find your takes on a number of topics and your level of intellectual thought experiments to be engaging.
I now take my leave of what, no doubt, will be further fuel to the Internet Trinity Bumfight Dumpster Fire of 2023.
No related posts.
By G | 3 March 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Social Commentary