Posts Tagged ‘sedeprivationism’

Stop being lukewarm

Revelation 3:15-17

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.

No related posts.

By G | 13 May 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

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.

Jerusalem Creed Catholic Church (Sedevacantist) CreedNotes
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.

  1. 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.
  2. I see no relevant difference. Heaven and Earth assumes the entirety of creation in Catholic Dogma.
  3. No relevant difference.
  4. 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).
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. No real difference but the Catholic version is more precise.
  9. No real difference.
  10. No real difference.
  11. No real difference since the eternity of God’s Kingdom is assumed in Catholic Dogma, but the Jerusalem Credo is more detailed.
  12. 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.
  13. No real difference. The Catholic Church Dogma is that there is only one baptism and it does remit all sins committed before it.
  14. No difference.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. No difference.
  18. No difference.
  19. 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:

  1. I do not assume Vox takes the position that Mary was not a virgin before the birth of Jesus.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

No related posts.

By G | 3 March 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Social Commentary

How to really take on and beat clown world for real

Part 3 – Family, Friends and Acquaintances

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.

No related posts.

By G | 28 January 2023 | Posted in Social Commentary

You are either an idiot or completely ignorant on the subject if you believe…

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.

No related posts.

By G | 13 September 2022 | Posted in Social Commentary

The Errors of Bp. Sanborn

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.

No related posts.

By G | 29 November 2021 | Posted in Social Commentary

« Older Entries

All content of this web-site is copyrighted by G. Filotto 2009 to present day.
Website maintained by IT monks