James Lovebirch – enemy of truth, exposed.
The little intro before the taking of yet another gamma head here is for benefit of those new to this game.
Beating gammas like dead horses can be entertaining if done with a view to educate those they try to fool with their assumed “superior intellect and knowledge”.
More importantly, it teaches people to think clearly and see through their never-changing methods, which can be listed as follows:
- Conflation – mixing two or more topics together in an erroneous fashion in order to come to some new fake “conclusion” that pushes their narrative.
- Sophistry – the endless arguing about the exact meaning of a word or phrase with a view to twisting it into some abomination if not its exact opposite. The general conflation of words and meanings to try and produce a new and false narrative that supports their lies.
- Appeal to false authority – “I have a PhD in physics (or nose picking) therefore my ideas on physics (or nose picking) are correct” – No. No they are not. Correct ideas are correct. Wrong ones are wrong.
- Appeal to authority falsely – “Jesus said homosexuality/raping children/sexual slavery by Saracens/whatever perversion suits me personally is just fine” – No. No He did not. Not even hinted it might be ok. And specifically stated the opposite.
- False Charity – “Well, we can’t PROVE the man who raped that child to death meant harm. It’s an accident, we must be charitable” – No. Burn him at the stake.
- Outright lying – This one is hard for normal people to actually believe because the lies can be so outrageous and in your face that it’s hard to believe anyone sane would even say such things. But they range the full gamut and can be subtle but insidious or blatant. And very often are based on the conflations and sophistry they laid down to begin with.
- Gamma Forever – The general endless arguing without ever settling anything in order to frustrate as well as give the impression that the topic is too complex for normal people to care about or alternatively be able to follow. This activity can’t actually be helped by the gamma. They NEED to get the last word in no matter how obviously and thoroughly they have been shown to be wrong, liars and fakes, so that in their own minds (and nowhere else) they “won” and can continue being the secret king!
With those educational purposes in mind let us now reduce the “argument” of James Lovebirch, to rubble. James is a gamma who has overstepped his wisdom by taking me up on the challenge of publicly putting his name and any argument against sedeprivationsim on a public blog. Here is the archived link so you know I haven’t changed any of his words.
My commentary on it below is in the same shade of blood red that his spanked arse will look like from the gamma rage butthurt that will follow.
The Strange Commonality Between Sedevacantists and the IRS
First I want to talk about a fascinating book by Pete Hendrickson called Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America, which explains United States federal income tax law.
Here the Gamma tries to plant the seed of something that not only has nothing to do with the facts at hand, but as we will see is in direct opposition to the truth with how it will be used in a little while. Wait and see.
The truth is the majority of Americans don’t have any obligation under law to pay federal income tax. Such a law directly taxing the wages of all Americans would be unconstitutional, hence the gnashing of teeth and strange history of tax protests here.
As I’m sure most people are aware, just about all respectable Americans pay income tax anyway. What happened? The IRS has spent many decades undertaking a disinformation campaign. What they have done is teach normal Americans that tax law is written in everyday English. Pete Hendrickson gives a simplified example of this on page 57 of my copy:
If language such as, “For purposes of this paragraph, the term “Fruit” includes apples, pears, and oranges,” is used, it can only be understood as restricting the definition to those things listed, or no definition would be required
As he goes on to explain in the book, words like “income”, “wages”, “employer” and more are legal terms in USA tax law. These legal terms have specific, extremely limited meanings, and their definitions are stated in disparate parts of the body of tax law. To reuse the analogy, “fruit” in tax law only refers to apples, pears and oranges.
If these terms had their everyday meaning in the tax law, the federal income tax would be unconstitutional. This is why there is nothing inconsistent with the US Supreme Court upholding the federal income tax on multiple occasions.
I’m not going to explain tax law to you. Read the book. If you’re an American, it could save you a lot of money.
And here it comes:
Even if you’re not, this book is a great layman’s primer on the way law works.
The lie begins. No. At most what that book MIGHT do is explain how AMERICAN law works. As anyone who cares to know or can find out in a few minutes, American law departs from the basics of common law jurisprudence quite broadly. Why is that relevant? Because to assume that American law is based in common law to the extend that pretty much any European country is, is absurd. At best it’s a category error of comical proportions. This is why for example, the Americans need a set of rules that is about a metre and a half tall and comes in multiple volumes to cover something like the federal rules of acquisition for construction projects. American law has to block off and consider pretty much everything that is not specifically stated, with very few exceptions and even those can be challenged. While in say UK law, that is broadly speaking based on common law, you can never sign away certain assumed natural rights and are broadly speaking more protected by what in law is referred to as the reasonable man principle.
Why does this matter? Because common law originates from Roman Law. Because the Romans essentially invented a set of laws that pretty much ruled the world longer than any other empire in history.
And guess what… Catholic Canon Law is written in Latin, originates in Rome, and has the foundational principles of Roman Law far more deeply engrained than any other system of law on the planet, especially since it still uses the same actual language, which by the way is extremely precise, to identify legal principles. So, to recap, at BEST, Jimmy TreeLover is making a stupendous category error based in ignorance of the basics that a high schooler in Italy would not make. Or even any partially educated and reasonable man, since an educated one would know these basic facts and a reasonable one would check before shooting his ignorant fool mouth off. But that’s not how Jimmy rolls.
It reveals one of the most amazing feats of wizardry in modern times, and it also teaches us an important principle of law in civilized countries that is often forgotten: you must define your terms and reduce ambiquity as much as possible, ideally to zero.
In civilised countries (which the USA demonstrably is not by any stretch of the imagination) words already have precise meanings and at most what is required is a precision of use when one word may have multiple meanings.
Now let’s go back to the Sedevacantists, specifically those that would attempt to argue a Pope is invalid post hoc by citing snippets from Canon Law.
And here is the very point of the monstrous lie. Trying to pretend that the Sedeprivationist position hinges on some misquoted snippet of canon law, much as an Atheist does when taking verses from the Bible out of context and cherry picked to support a bed of lies. Or you know, how the unhappy Churchians of Orthodoxy, followers of their guru Vajay Drier, just lies and make shit up out of whole cloth like here.
The Catholic Church’s position has ALWAYS been that a Pope, even validly elected, who then becomes a public heretic automatically vacates his office and ALL his decrees and edicts become null and void. Always has, always will be. It is of course enshrined both in words via Papal Encyclicals like Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio or Quo Primum, and of course Canon Law of 1917 and specifically the canon that acts like a stake through the heart of fake Christians, canon 188 part 4.
But also through actions since there have been more than 40 fake Popes (known as antipopes) in the history of the Church before the current era of fake Popes begun on 28th October 1958 and currently still ongoing.
In other words what Jimmy TreeLover presents as some weird idea based on false interpretation of a snippet of legalese is actually a foundational principle of Catholicism that anyone who is not actually mentally retarded understands as obvious:
A heretic, an apostate, a non-Catholic, cannot, obviously, be Pope. Or any other kind of Cleric in the Church, or indeed be called a Catholic, since, you know, they are not.
And since Catholics are NOT Protestants we also don’t suffer from the mental idiocy of assuming that “once saved always saved”. So while a person can be legitimately Catholic and even a Pope, they can certainly stop being one, and do so immediately once they publicly defect from the faith. (Privately too but that’s not the issue at hand).
In any such argument, you must demonstrate the terms mean what you claim they mean. Let’s go to the example of Canon 188.4, which states in Latin, then English paraphrase:
Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: …4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.
No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church. For the faithful to know this fact and refuse obedience, no formality is required: neither sentence passed by a court nor any other official pronouncement, nor a formally expressed resignation accepted by some official. Defection itself from the Catholic Faith constitutes resignation.
Source: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=12&catname=10
No need for lengthy and verbose paraphrase. Remember how I said that Gammas will try to pretend something is far more complex and only they can see it than it actually is. This is a classic case. The English is just as easy and simple to understand as the Latin:
Canon 188
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
[Items 1 to 3 omitted for clarity…]
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic Faith;
All of these terms must be defined.
No. The meaning of the words is absolutely clear, not used in any kind of legalistic “American” way (the concept is in fact foreign in Roman Law) and there really is nothing ambiguous. But of course Jimmy belongs to the Bill Clinton school of “thought” where the very meaning of the definition of the word “is” has to be clarified, apparently.
In this particular case, the most crucial word is in English “defection” and Latin “defecerit”. It must be demonstrated that these terms encompass–in their originally intended legal meaning–ratifying, upholding or teaching post Vatican II doctrine, and this must be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt if you are trying to be rigorous in proving the legal case that the Pope is not the Pope.
No. Again, this is completely false and an example of the gamma’s ability to lie without any hint of conscience or shame. It is absolutely and patently clear that producing heretical documents and trying to pass them as non-heretical is a clear and public act of apostasy. What Jimmy TreeLover is saying here is the legal equivalent of saying that someone who sodomises a three year old in the public square is not actually guilty of child rape unless we first demonstrate that the word “rape” “child” and “sodomises” actually mean what it is clear to everyone they actually mean.
Why use such a graphic image of wrong-doing? Precisely so that for those of you who are not Catholic, the clarity of the error becomes obvious. You may (naturally) feel that the crime of child rape is more important than the pretending a law doesn’t say exactly what it says, and I agree, but can you see that allowing the fake “interpretation” of very clear laws eventually leads to the letting of actual child rapists to go unpunished? It’s inevitable if you just think about it logically. And also why organisations like NAMBLA and the pederasts of the Novus Orco Church continue to exist without normal men dragging them out in the public square, tying them to appropriate posts with kindling and firewood, and after the passing of the correct legal judgment, burn them at the stake.
Instead, what most Sedevacantists do is insist defect means what we would think it means in everyday language.
It does. And it means precisely that. Romans are not American wormtongue lawyers, and never were, nor ever will be. Roman law was created precisely so that everyone would know black is black, and white is white.
Because Vatican II and the ensuing Popes do so many things that on first glance appear questionable,
No. There is NOTHING that “appears” questionable. It is an observable and demonstrable fact that the Vatican 2 documents are absolutely heretical. Again this is obvious to Catholics because like the Romans, we call a spade a spade. The Protestants however have had 500 years of brainwashing themselves into believing 40,000 different “official” interpretations of the plain gospels and a practically infinite “personal” number of interpretations beyond those. There is no ambiguity in the Catholic position as to what does and does not constitute public heresy. The only way you can even BEGIN to question it is if you are some kind of Churchian raised in Protestantism or the fake Novus Orco impersonation of Catholicism. And that is what the deceivers, the wormtongues, the enemies of the Faith and gammas (often all one and the same) rely on to confuse the issue for those who are genuinely only guilty of ignorance. A fault that is easily cured with a bit of research and reading.
possibly even heretical,
Nothing “possibly even” about it. “Absolutely” is the word you need here Jimmy.
in the context of the Roman church’s entire history, that means they defected from the faith in the legal sense.
Here is a subtle example of the confusion gammas thrive on. God is not a lawyer. It’s not as if you can defect in the legal sense (of something that is absolutely true) and not be guilty of it in every sense that matters. The disconnect once again originates with Protestantism and the legalism (in its pejorative sense) that false position naturally must entail. Consider: if the Catholic Church is true then anything that deviates from it must necessarily be false and as such the only way to pretend otherwise is by using false arguments steeped in legalistic bureaucracy and sophistry. In short, everyone knows that the laws of lawyers and the truth of justice are absolutely not the same, and since the Western world has been corrupted by the same legalistic, Protestant mindset, almost everyone now accepts that a “legal” case doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the truth. But this is diametrically the exact opposite of what Catholicism is and how it works. Only a Protestant type of thinking would even consider that one can defect “legally” but not “factually” from one’s own true and only Faith. But here Jimmy pretends “the legal sense” is somehow inevitably different or separate or something different than the sense that matters. Which of course is complete nonsense since the Code of Canon Law was put together PRECISELY to very clearly define the actual things that matter and how to deal with them.
The legal part is key, that’s what I’m questioning.
What nonsense. But do tell Jimmy, what “other” part is there? Come on, we’re all ears.
I’m not here to argue post-V2 Popes aren’t satanic anti-popes.
And yet, that is PRECISELY what you ARE trying to do. Badly and stupidly, it’s true, but here you are all the same. What ELSE, prey tell are you supposedly doing here? Do tell. Again, we’re all ears. (Pro-tip: Jimmy will be entirely confused by the question because gammas are entirely incapable of understanding cause and effect. Action and consequences, especially when removed from an immediate and direct result, which is all their adversity-challenged agmydalas let them worry about, rushing from one ego-destroying fire to the next without being able to look ahead and see the inevitable consequences of their idiotic actions).
It’s possible that Canon 188.4 applies to them, but this is never demonstrated in a legally rigorous way.
Here we see more of the outright lie in your face approach again. Of course it has been demonstrated as clear as water being wet. Fake Popes produce heretical documents professing heresy as good and change the mass that is clearly stated shall never be changed by anyone forever for any reason and any such attempt is a direct attack on the Church by enemies of it. Jimmy thinks that using important sounding words like “rigorous” makes him look and sound smart and thus beyond reproach. You know, as if someone like me crudely calling him a fucking idiot and a liar would invalidate the claim because it’s so brutal and vulgar a way of putting the absolute factual truth. Catholics are not deceived by pretty words used wrongly boy.
To my mind, the relevant legal definitions would either be in Canon Law itself or a separate Catholic legal dictionary, and that’s the level of proof we need before feeling certain any such argument is true.
And here we now spin off into the absolutely absurd of course. And that’s true even if you were charitable and assumed Jimmy TreeLover was just abysmally stupid and not an active deceiver (he’s both of course). What he is saying here is that a system of law that is literally the bedrock of every other system of jurisprudence with the arguable exception of Islam, that has stood the test of more than two millennia of time and the principles of which have functioned perfectly well, and continue to do so wherever and whenever used, needs to be overhauled to fit his specific notion of how American Law works. It’s absurd on its face at every level of course. But the gamma speaks it as if it were a revealed truth everyone should accept as a result of the gamma’s natural wisdom and genius. Aren’t you impressed?
If such proof does not exist, that would mean the Sedevacantists are running the same racket the IRS runs to defraud millions of Americans out of billions of dollars. Don’t be a sap.
Notice the crappy rhetorical attempt at tying it all back to an emotional issue that has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand. Sad.
And this exposé, ladies and gentlemen, done for your illumination and entertainment, now explains why it is my considered opinion that there is absolutely no need for anyone to ever listen to anything Jimmy TreeLover has to say on Christianity. Well, except perhaps to mock him by referencing this post.
And lest you think I am cruel for no reason other than being the Kurgan, let me assure you that the only way a gamma could possibly ever reform into perhaps a low-lying Delta is by having to brutally face the reality they not only avoid so desperately, but also try and delude others is not as it is in order to satisfy their pathetic narcissistic need not to have to face it and thus dealing with their squealing, underdeveloped, amygdalas, which need much training to evolve into acceptable human behaviour, or at least enough discomfort that they not speak of things they are either wholly ignorant of or actively lying about.
Tags: sedeprivationism
“Jimmy will be entirely confused by the question because gammas are entirely incapable of understanding cause and effect. Action and consequences, especially when removed from an immediate and direct result, which is all their adversity-challenged agmydalas let them worry about, rushing from one ego-destroying fire to the next without being able to look ahead and see the inevitable consequences of their idiotic actions”
This helps explain a lot, thank you.
The rest is also excellent, it reminded me of reading newspapers as a child, I didn’t understand their techniques the way you describe it so I remained confused and annoyed.
[comment removed]
Long-ass wall of text complaining that the socio-sexual hierarchy is just unfair and wrong (despite it being excellent at predicting behaviour) and shouldn’t be used to judge Harry for marrying Meghan, by obvious gamma has been deleted so he knows never to come and comment here again.
Don’t any of you operate under the wrong assumption that this is a free speech zone. It is not.
You either comment relevantly on the topic in an adult and coherent manner and answer direct questions without sophistry or avoidance or you get ignored or banned.
I noticed something while reading Birch’s arguments, his way of thinking is binary, each variable can have only one value at any given moment, and said values can not be inferred from known variables.
He is exhibiting a computer like stupidity.
This lead me to a realization, binary thinkers are, to an extent, programmable, and this is what a programmed man looks like.
That is an excellent observation, and very well articulated too.
As an aside to his wrap-up, the IRS hardly could be said to be defrauding anyone when it does what it does at gunpoint.