I will be doing a livestream with Tony who was a beta reader for Caveman Theory tonight in about three hours at 21:30 Rome Italy Time on my Youtube channel here.
There will be also a generic Q&A on it so you can ask questions and as the topic is one I get a steady stream of email on, if there is enough interest and say at least 20 subscribers that have ideally read the book, I will to subscribers only livestreams where specific questions get answered.
For the braver we can maybe even do short interviews either to share their positive experience of using the Caveman Theory concepts or the issues they are having in their relationships.
Yes… terrible as it may sound, we may be straying into Kurgan as agony uncle territory!
If that doesn’t deserve a Horror Film/Law and Order style Dun, Dun, DUN! I don’t know what does!
There has been a long and quiet suffering by many Catholics (sedevacantists) that goes beyond the mere situation of the Church presently with regard to the non-Catholic, Freemasons, Satanists and impostors presently occupying the Vatican. After all, that situation is easily understood by anyone that cares to look into Vatican II and is in any case prophesied in the visions of many saints as well as in Revelation, so really, there isn’t much to worry about.
The situation concerns the growing gulf between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists.
If you are interested in the details, you can either read my Reclaiming the Catholic Church, available on Amazon in paper format, or for less in digital format, direct from my E-Store.
Or you could read the argument as presented here, which is essentially absolutely correct.
I was unaware of the “Totalist” position, when I wrote my book, but logic is logic, and I made it clear in that book, as well as the reasons why, the only nod to the word sedeprivationism that I acknowledge was that technically it was a better name because the chair of Peter is not actually empty, but filled by an impostor that needs to be thrown off it on his ear ASAP.
But that is not what Sedeprivationists mean when they use the term, and they try to hold onto the completely outmoded and outdated theory of Cassiciacum of Father, and later Bishop, Guérard Des Lauriers. As I stated in RTCC, des Lauriers’ theory was a very charitable and possibly briefly “valid” idea to present to the world so as to give the more timid and cowardly clergy of the day (1965 to 1978 or so) a chance to speak up or at least take a position that did not promote the completely heretical Vatican II event and all those associated with it.
The Code of Canon Law of 1917, and simple logic a child can arrive at, is clear that since Roncalli was invalidly elected on at least three separate counts:
He was a Freemason, which means he was not, and could not be, a Catholic.
He was “elected” only after Giuseppe Siri was actually elected twice, and blackmailed into not accepting in order to protect what otherwise he was told would be a massacre of Catholic Bishops in the Communist East. Blackmail and any event that forces a non-free vote automatically renters the election invalid.
Even if you ignore those two points it cannot be contested at all that Roncalli approved and signed off on the first two documents of Vatican II, one of which contains direct heresy in a number of ways and the other though not containing direct heresy was a document that said the heresy of Vatican II should be spread throughout the world by every means possible, so it was heretical in intent if not actual words of the text itself. This even was and is absolutely enough to designate Roncalli an antipope and as such completely invalid.
Montini came up after Roncally, and produced the remaining 14 documents of Vatican II every one of which is replete with heresy and inverts catholic dogma. He also changed the mass, which is absolutely not permitted so there is absolutely no doubt he too defected from the Catholic faith as per canon 188 part 4, and that if we are so generous as to assume he was a valid Catholic to begin with, which is questionable at best.
Every claimant to the Petrine see after Montini continued to promote and promulgate Vatican II and its manifest heresies, meaning they too at best defected from the Faith, but in any case had already done so by not denouncing Vatican II. And the same goes for any supposed clergy that does not reject Vatican II and its fake “Popes”.
This is not a matter of opinion, but one of Canon Law.
The position of the supposed Sedeprivationists is essentially a modified form of “recognise and resist”. On top of which Bishop Des Lauriers’ thesis, which I have in the original French, and have read, is also really doing quite the disservice to Aristotle, using concepts of form and spirit or material and formal that clearly Aristotle never intended to be used that way and which really have no place in Catholic theology.
Nevertheless, I can understand the wish to give some kind of a charitable “out” to people who might have been on the fence in the tumultuous times of the usurpation of the Church from 28th October 1958 to say the end of 1965, after Vatican II finished, but even if we generously allow for a period of say ten or twelve years after that, surely, by 1978 everyone that was going to call a heretic a heretic had ample time to do so, and those who did not and worse, continued to promote Vatican II, like the cowardly Vigano, who even has a doctorate in Canon Law, confirmed themselves as Heretics too, falling foul of the same Canon 188.4.
This is really not hard.
The Sedeprivationist clergy seems bent on “hoping” for a miraculous conversion of Bergoglio and the other pedophiles, Satanists, cocaine-driven homosexuals busy doing gay orgies in the Vatican and so on. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, the rule is that a reformed heretic should have authority over absolutely no one and should spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance, so even if the miracle of conscience, repentance and truth hit every one of those miserable scumbags in the head and they honestly converted right there, they would STILL not be allowed to act as clergy, perform sacraments or do anything else that clergy does, as Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio makes perfectly clear and which is still referenced by Canon 188.4 which in any case is moot since it was an ex cathedra pronouncement valid in perpetuity and was in any case the rule before it ever needed to be spelt out by Pope Paul IV in the 16th Century.
So, by all possible perspectives, the Sedeprivationist view is in error. And while the clergy espousing it are absolutely valid priests and Bishops, no one is questioning that, they are in error. And as this error has now been perpetrated for a long time, with increasing grumblings from the lay people that is reading shores that go from America to Australia and even in Russia, where there are sedevacantist communities that all are starting to realise that you cannot square this particular circle, it becomes incumbent upon the laity to correct the clergy.
We are in the current shameful state because the clergy of the Church in 1958 was weak and the laity initially deceived and when it became obvious that an usurpation had taken place, the clergy demonstrated themselves to be in the vast majority of cases, absolutely weak and cowardly where they were not actively Satanic Freemasons involved in the corruption of the Church for decades.
And when that began t come to light, the laity had been slumbering in complacency and also in weakness and comfort and cowardice and did not call out the corrupt, fake, impostors nor the weak cowardly clergy.
We cannot allow a similar situation to stand today, when the clear error of sedeprivationism continues to be perpetrated with inevitable consequences of further error and ultimately confusion, error, discord and possibly even defection from the faith, as any error or deviation from the truth ultimately results in.
As I am used to being the lightning rod for such discussions and debates, which are not a schism, I want to make it clear, but simply a more perfect ordering and understanding of Catholic dogma, I am presenting the first instance of this discontent among the laity here on this blog.
A more formal and combined public open letter will in due course be presented to those priests or Bishops, that are in error. And that error is the result of one of the following:
In good faith but erroneous understanding, some have not studied the Catholic position in sufficient depth.
Habitual obedience to Bishops even when they are in error and have no authority, since without a Pope there is no authority beyond that of performing sacraments and performing the usual duties clergy does when in an interregnum (between Popes).
They are Bishops of Power instead of Piety and are overreaching their mandate from heaven, authority on Earth and over the laity in their misguided efforts to create a “bigger, stronger” renaissance of the true Catholic Church.
I have extremely good reasons, and plenty of evidence, to suggest that almost all and possibly really all, of the laity falls under points number one and two, above. Possibly many clergy that subscribe to sedeprivationism fall under point two, as well, although it is also clear a few are simply not as educated about Catholicism as they should be and are in fact in error as per point number one; undoubtedly in good faith, but error nevertheless.
More concerning is that Bishop who is acting as he is acting, in flagrant error of Canon Law and with imperious ego, because acting under the impetus of being a Bishop of Power, as defined by Rodney Stark in his History of the West How the West Won.
In brief, a Bishop or priest of Power is one that pushes the advancement of the church for the satisfaction of his own ego or worldly machinations. Despite the natural inclination one may have to see these people as evil egomaniacs, a couple of points need to be kept in mind.
Firstly, in some cases, while their ego is certainly ever-present, their intent may be to genuinely increase the spread, power and resilience of the Church. And in their minds whatever little “rules” or dogmas they may need to trample over are justified by the increased “glory” of the church. This in itself is an error of category, since it is the kind of error that laity, if anyone is supposed to be “okay” doing such things, should be taking on more than the clergy. it was crusaders that went off to war and Catholic knights that defended Malta, not priests and bishops taking up arms. So, whichever way you look at it, they are still in error, but their motives may not be as strictly selfish as one might at first imagine.
Secondly, even if they do happen to be egomaniacal narcissists that want to live in luxury, have big homes with servants and gold goblets to drink from, or whatever, the reality is that as a collateral side-effect, in the history of the Church, such despicable creatures nevertheless enriched the Church which permitted its expansion, the creation of amazing cathedrals and an increase in the faithful. Yes it was kind of a collateral effect, but it is a real thing anyway. So, even if at a personal level such clergy would be vile, God, historically, has managed to make at least some good flow from them, because at a worldly level, the use of funds and commitment towards creating more seminaries, more cathedrals and so on, and increasing the number of faithful, obviously has a positive effect.
As a result, I don’t necessarily object to some of the practices of priests or bishops of power, as long as:
They do not break canon Law of Catholic Dogma.
Their intent is not personal but for the benefit of the Church and this can be demonstrated by their personal living situation and so on.
Many other laymen and women are not as “charitable” as I am in this respect, and the grumblings at grassroots are becoming a low-level murmur reminiscent of an impeding avalanche or earthquake.
And such a thing we would all like to avoid. So, consider this simple, somewhat brutally direct, blog post to be an initial canary in the coal mine, in the hope that certain clergy takes note, some laity make them aware of it and they perhaps take note and begin to adjust accordingly, with all dignity and process due, and thus without any scandal or strife between the various faithful, be they clergy, or laity alike.
In my opinion the hope this will work on the relevant clergy of Power is absolutely remote, but, as our Lord tells us, we should first try quietly, then kindly, before we definitely call people to account.
This situation has been building for years, it’s not a flash in the pan, and it needs addressing.
I pray to our Lord that it gets resolved quietly and expediently by those responsible. And if not… well… we, remnant laity of the Catholic Church take our lead not from the timid types our grandfathers generation but rather from that of the Normans and Franks of 1095, from which, incidentally, on a personal level, my family line originates and can trace itself back to.
Glória Patri, et Fílío et Spirítui Sancto, sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculórum. Amen
And the Incidendal Drawing and Quartering of Rollo Tommasi.
Adam has recently posted a couple of somewhat interesting articles that consider the prospect of sex before marriage, fornication, and the PUA mindset in general.
The key message I personally see as most relevant in the first one is the partial quote that derives from the reading of Goldwin Smith (a 19th Century historian) by the author of the piece Adam links to, JM Smith, which he however presents only in part, and I think deserves a fuller version of it:
He [Goldwin Smith] was appalled by the prospect of women’s suffrage, correctly foreseeing that it would make democratic politics even more emotional, and that Anglo Saxon men would be to soft, silly and spineless to stop it. He explained this as the dolorous result of gynæmania, a “disease” of the Anglo Saxon male that was characterized by a morbidly excessive craving for the good opinion of women. The word gynæmania was first coined as a scientific name for satyriasis, or a morbidly excessive craving for carnal knowledge of women, but Smith saw that slavery to sex was becoming slavery to the female sex.
The emphasis on Anglo-Saxon is mine, and I maintain it remains the key point of the article, as it was indeed in the post by JM Smith, and indeed Golden Smith’s original work, even if Adam did not seem to focus on it particularly. So keep this point about the Anglos in mind for later, we shall return to it.
The second article can be summed up as a strong and unequivocal advice —almost an order, really— to men, to not indulge in sex before marriage; and he takes a post by Rollo Tommasi as his jumping off point. Tommasi is somewhat “revered” in PUA circles as being one of the grandfathers of the PUA movement. Personally, though I have weird hobbies, and looking at PUAs and their thirst for raping incels’ wallets was one of many such entertainments, I have never found Tommasi to be especially insightful of much of anything. And the article Adam links to is definitely of the stupidly degenerate category, although my take on things is considerably different from Adam’s in many respects.
Rollo’s post is a car-crash of bullshit and lies and simply illogical nonsense and deserves a point by point take-down even just on its own (non-existent) supposed merits. And… because… you know how I said I have weird hobbies? And typing doesn’t hurt me, I’m going to do just that right here below, between the fancy page breaks. If you don’t care (which is absolutely fine), or if you can’t hold a key point in your mind for more than 3 minutes, or are particularly pious and find vulgarity distatesful, then avert your eyes and skip the Rollo Tommasi take-down below, and scroll to the second fancy page break.
The key points by the way, so far are:
Anglos are weird about caring about what women think of them, and,
Rollo is full of shit. The detailed takedown below is for those not experienced/logical/clear-headed enough to see why Rollo is full of shit, and I am here to help! [insert sociopath smile here].
Rollo in fog-fart grey background your friendly host in standard text.
Rollo, do you think “Body Count” matters?
Absolutely. And the higher, the better. I need a girl who’s DTF (down to fuck) from the jump. For guys after 50, all that pretentious bullshit about long-term commitment should melt away to sexual expediency. It’s not about experience or some contrived want for a virgin bride. It all comes down to guys who fuck and guys who don’t. If we’re talking from the perspective of evolutionary effectiveness, women (and men) with higher body counts are effectively proven commodities in a sexual economy.
The sexually unfulfilled and deprived Rollo tells us several things right in the first paragraph:
He is over 50 and not married or settled down, still chasing the ever elusive “high” of some sex with a random “hottie” (but at over 50 I am fairly sure he’ll take whatever bone is thrown at him).
He in fact has given up on being “pair-bonded” as the PUAs call it, to one woman. He tries to cover it up with absolutely false bravado and machismo, but it is painfully obvious he is in pain from this. Whether his pain is always conscious or not is not clear yet, self-deception in people like Rollo is over 9,000 and also eleventy.
UPDATE: I stand corrected! He’s been married since he was 28, which means I was completely correct about his being a fraud with regard to his “experience” with bedding women, it’s literally all made up theory. And since I did not “correct” any of the subsequent points after this point, you can verify immediately that I really did not know anything about this guy besides read maybe 10 lines of his stuff over the last decade and concluding he was irrelevant, and secondly, that my dissection of his nonsense post is spot on, despite this.
He talks absolute nonsense with regard to “evolutionary effectiveness” because banging as many random women as possible, or, for a woman, even worse, as many guys as possible, throughout human history was only a recipe for absolute disaster and death, and the end of your genetic line. Staying together, regardless of the difficulties, and ensuring the survival of your plentiful children was the only successful strategy, and it still is. The obvious idiocy of his thinly veiled self-justification/rationalisation is clear to anyone with a functioning neurone or two.
“Oh, oh! but you say he is sexually unfulfilled and deprived, when he clearly has (or had) sex with a lot of women, you’re just bitter!”
No, young Padawan, pay attention now:
Firstly: PUAs LIE. And Lie spectacularly about their “body count” trust me on this, I looked into the subspecies of “male” that labels themselves as PUAs in some depth. Feel free to use the Search Me button on the right there. (heh… in light of my not bothering to research Rollo at all and then it turns out he was married the whole time he pretended to be a “player” this is kind of hilarious.)
Secondly: Let’s in any case ass-u-me Rollo does indeed still have regular sex with random hotties every week. Even if that were the case, considering by his own supposed “reality” he has been doing that for 30 years or so, you have to wonder… what can he possibly still be chasing? As regular readers of this blog will know, I am no stranger to the female form myself, and went through a lot of women in a short period of time after I gave up essentially on long-term relationships. And after a few years of it, I tell you, I was essentially bored of it. And no, I am not a guy with low T or lack of energy or any difficulty in securing a regular flow of pretty, usually above average intelligence, women to my bed. I assure you, my pointing this out comes from having lived that way and not any kind of misplaced envy, lack of understanding, or inexperience at the “thrill” of a new woman under me. The fact is that only a man that has yet to fill the hole in his soul can continue to behave this way, in the erroneous belief that if he just beds enough women, somehow, at some point, he will feel fulfilled. Don’t get me wrong, there is some truth to the fact that if you become able to essentially pick up women for sex almost at will, it does give you a certain… I am not even sure what to call it, but I guess… level of general life confidence would be it. But in reality it has little to do with how many women you take to bed and more with your attitude when with a woman. There are men that have this sense of confidence innate to them and only marry and stay with one woman for their entire lives, and there are men that may go through some women to realise they have it already. It’s a little like martial arts. There are guys who never take a class but in a certain circumstance will not hesitate to fight back, and there are guys who need to go training for a while to feel strong in their sense of justice, or whatever. The reality is that a man who forever chases sex with an ever growing number of women, is simply a malformed man. He is not, I assure you a self-actualised man, to borrow a Maslowian term. He is like the perennial teenager, still trying to be “cool” at 70. Or if you prefer, he’s like the Boomers, who keep insisting 80 is the new 40, or whatever. And that is no way for a grown man to be.
Third: Remember that point about the Anglos being far more desperate in general for female approval than say, well, your average dago, spic, South American, Greek… oh look… it’s a divide between Protestant and Catholic or Orthodox religions… again. Things that make you go hmmmm, eh?
Are you starting to understand what I mean by deprived and unfulfilled yet? (It seems clear he wishes he was a “player” which he clearly is not, and never was so…)
Guys who don’t fuck spend lifetimes consoling themselves with moral high-ground narratives to explain why they don’t fuck. At least 80% of guys don’t fuck, so there’s a lot of narrative inbreeding and self-congratulatory bullshit passed around among them. This bullshit has been de rigueur for millennia, but in the social media age, it’s an obvious cope. We’re just more aware of it now.
Of course, the best narratives are the ones that make guys who don’t fuck feel good about not fucking while simultaneously making guys who do fuck feel bad about fucking. This disqualification tactic is one of the many forms of bloodless intrasexual competition tactics that 80%er men have consoled themselves with since the Middle Ages. If you can make your intrasexual rival feel guilty about fucking – because God hates fucking for any reason besides making babies – then you have a tactical advantage in the sexual economy. It works even better if you can gaslight a superior sexual rival to believe he (or she) is going to Hell if he pursues his biological imperative to his fullest potential.
Good God. Talk about gaslighting. If you take him at his word, Rollo is saying that fucking, just that, fucking, not procreating, not making children, just fucking, as many women as possible, is what makes life worthwhile. I have met men like this. Several PUAs are like this, and let me tell you, they are absolutely pathetic. They are a kind of Gollum about pussy in general. My Preciousssss they say, obsessed, salivating, masturbating furiously, whether alone or inside someone else, and that is all that their lives revolve around.
He also further blurts out obvious absolute lies, imputing 80% of men in the Middle Ages did this thing: which was about telling you that way to live (that he thinks is the epitome of existence) is a shallow, discivilisational, unfulfilling, unhealthy way to exist, and not live at all, and they did it to prevent other men from having sex with lots of women. This is complete nonsense, since most men in the middle ages got married, did not have lots of partners, and raised children with their wives, and in the Catholic world at least (which was the ONLY Christianity), most marriages lasted literally until death parted them.
According to him, the entire structure of the Catholic Church was set up so the celibate priests could get all the poonani. It’s ridiculous on its face, ahistorical, and frankly smacks of Gollum-like backward rationalisation that would make a crack whore trying to justify her habit blush with shame.
Generally, lesser men cannot openly challenge greater men (men who fuck) in physical prowess. So, more intelligent men who don’t fuck contrived forms of social gaslighting to improve their chances of reproducing. Smarter lesser men have always devised workarounds to solve their reproductive problems. It’s actually one of the strengths of our species. Nothing sparks innovation quite like a man solving his proximate need for sex and his ultimate need to reproduce. And nothing has been more expedient a tactic than convincing a greater man that he ought to disqualify himself from the sexual economy.
According to Rollo, the Gammas have been “successful” throughout the ages at getting Alpha men to not reproduce. Oh, no, sorry, to fuck, for the sake of fucking alone; reproduction be damned. Once again, anyone who has actually been successful with women over a period of some years, can tell you this is absolute bullshit, and it makes me suspect Rollo, like so many PUAs after him, is likely also full of shit about his supposed sexual prowess with women. It doesn’t matter what the Gammas do. Alphas and Sigmas (that are that way inclined, some Sigmas are not) will be with women sexually even if you imposed the death penalty for doing so. And they would still find ways to get away with it. Gammas have never been very successful at anything really, except being annoying, redundant, and getting women to avoid them like radioactive plague. And notice also that for Rollo the sole qualifier of what makes a man “great” is how high his body count is. Truly it is so pathetically ridiculous that it makes me laugh at both the stupidity of it, and Rollo’s own intrinsic amoeba-like existence. And while he wants very much to paint my view of this as some sort of “envy”, there really is absolutely zero of any such intent or reality in my perspective. It is genuinely the somewhat ironic mild amusement one gets from watching a complete fuckwit trying to be clever and spectacularly showing his ass to the world for the fuckwit he really is.
The problem is, guys who fuck are usually too preoccupied with the logistics of fucking to be bothered by the self-loathing moralism of guys who don’t fuck. At least, that’s how it’s been in a post-Sexual Revolution sexual economy. If it ain’t broke, fixing it isn’t even an afterthought. When you watched the now infamous AMOGing scene in The Wolf Of Wall Street where Leonardo Di Caprio swoops Margot Robbie from a trust fund yuppie, you’re really watching the intrasexual combat between a guy who fucks and a guy who doesn’t. It’s how human males lock horns over sexual access in rutting season. The only thing a guy who doesn’t fuck has in his arsenal is his cunning and nerve.
The emphasis is added by me to point out yet again another logical fallacy. The men who are successful with women do not preoccupy themselves with the logistics of fucking at all, beyond possibly getting their maid, sister, or slutty FWB, to change their semen-stained bedsheets from the night before, because they have a new girl coming over. Literally every man I have known that was… well… a “guy who fucks” like Rollo wants to put it, gave his interactions with women less consideration than he did his enjoyment of a film with a good friend, or his sport of choice, or reading a book he was into. The fact Rollo does not know this, again, makes me suspect he is not quite the lady-killer he presents himself as.
This is why body count only matters to guys who don’t fuck. Their moral crisis isn’t about their inability to find a virgin bride. Guys who don’t fuck couldn’t give two shits about whether a woman’s ability to pair bond with him is impaired by her body count. All they really want is the kind of sex women give to guys who do fuck but never need the ‘value added’ benefits he had to qualify for to get her to fuck him. You see, the gaslighting goes both ways – outwardly towards a sexual rival and inwardly to convince himself that his purpose is righteous. Moralizing over body count is as much about the guy wagging his finger at women as it is about their indiscriminate fucking. There’s actually nothing indiscriminate about it, but sour grapes and making your necessity a virtue are necessary to make Strategic Pluralism an unfalsifiable sexual strategy.
There is a hint of truth to this paragraph, but it is presented as the only absolute, which, as usual, is nonsense. Most men in general actually do care about body-count for any woman they would consider as a long term partner, and at times even for ones they would consider only for a temporary fling. The fact Rollo does not know this, is a clear indication that he is still at the teenager level of sexual immaturity.
Strategic Pluralism Theory
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value in the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring (guys who fuck).
In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities (guys who don’t fuck), is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits (true hypergamy). Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues (guys who fuck). Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
Guys who fuck are usually typified by physique. Usually.
All that theory says is what has been known since the dawn of time. Women want the fittest and most successful male to breed with, and those types of men have unlimited options so tend to make use of them. Also, water is wet.
Much as I despise Destiny, the guy DOES fuck. Maybe not like Justin Waller, Jason Momoa, or Mike Sartain, but he certainly ruts like a feral animal compared to Ben Shapiro. Guys who fuck don’t sit around comparing dick sizes or bask in the glow of the imaginings of the third-party validation they get from filling a void in their souls/egos by fucking. These are tropes that guys who don’t fuck tell themselves to explain why guys who do fuck are fucking the women they’ll eventually fuck because those women ran out of options. The concept of fucking for some ephemeral form of validation is part of that gaslighting I mentioned above.
Here we see a rather convoluted bit of chaff-firing, self-delusion and gaslighting in order to justify and rationalise both to himself and the world, his ultimately meaningless way of existing.
He says guys who have his (supposed) lifestyle do not worry about their image which can be “true” to the extent that some men do not care how their womanising makes them look to other men (or in some cases to women too) or society in general, but they tend to be the exceptions, most Alpha types do care about the way they are perceived, and in any case, they all care at least about what women, or at least any given woman in particular, at a point in time, thinks of them, if only to get them in bed. It is also generally true that men who are successful with women do not tend to over-analyse themselves (unless they are PUAs) but the fact remains there is a deeply unfulfilled part of them, whether they realise it or not consciously, that has quite a lot to do with needing to feel loved, and paradoxically, their womanising tends to almost ensure they are ostracised from that very sensation they crave (consciously or not).
But ultimately he ends with yet another nihilist absolute. According to him, such men (as he presents himself to supposedly be) fuck for… just the orgasm I guess. They don’t do it for any self-validation, they don’t do it for love, they don’t do it for procreation, they don’t do it for long term companionship… right Rollo, nice of you to finally admit (if passively aggressively like a whiny bitch) that all people like you do, is really masturbate themselves to death, and it really makes little difference if you do it alone or with a human you empathise with about the same as you do with your no-doubt well-used fleshlight.
It’s intended to get your genetic superior to disqualify himself by contemplating his filling the void of existence with meaningless sex. Meaning plays another big role in the game of guys who don’t fuck. “Meaning” is a container word. It’s a term you can subjectively fill with anything you like. Even fucking if you’re clever about it. Meaning is intentionally ambiguous, and that’s what makes it so effective in being unfalsifiable. As a rule, gaslighting depends on unfalsifiable concepts, but meaning is one of the capstones. Any time you listen to some child on the Fresh & Fit podcast prattle on about how she’s living her truth, you’re listening to a variation of the meaningfulness horseshit.
And here Rollo doubles down on the idea that his life has no meaning. None whatsoever. All there is, is the fuck, for the sake of the fuck, the ultimately masturbationary orgasm for the sake of the orgasm itself, not any other reason. Not self-validation, not self-improvement, not marriage, not reproduction, nope, nope, nope, just the ever omnipresent “fuck”.
Do you see why I compared him, and people like him, to Gollum?
Guys who don’t fuck, like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, are actually the ones who need validation. Because soul-void fulfillment means confronting the reality that they’ll never enjoy the uninhibited feral lust their wives reserved for the men in their past who fucked. Men who never had to prove their value-added bona fides to fuck the women who would become their wives. Men who don’t fuck live lives of ceaselessly qualifying for a desire they know their wives were capable of with other men but can’t seem to provoke themselves. This is why validation is a thing for guys who don’t fuck – and women who need a Jungian term to explain why guys who do fuck won’t fuck them.
And now he takes the doubled down absolute idiocy to truly stupefying levels. According to him, the men who “fuck” are the be-all and end-all of life, the utter epitome of manly manness. Yes, there is some truth to the self-soothing half-truths and lies men and women tell themselves for not being as successful in the sexual marketplace, but what Rollo tries desperately to shove under the carpet with his tracer-firing barrage at what he considers “inferior” men is the question: What, exactly, are the men who “fuck” better for, or at, in life? And the ONLY thing Rollo keeps coming up with is the purpose of “the fuck” itself. Which is, of course, either ridiculous or nihilistic and pathetic to a suicidal degree. And we know more than one PUA has gone the suicide route too. (And as it happens, Rollo himself turns out to be one of the guys who “does not fuck”, in his own terminology, which according to him, makes him the same as Ben Shapiro. Well… I got nothing, the man is entirely a fraud whichever way you look at it.)
Guys who don’t fuck are the dutiful, loyal, supportive, and nameless husband who Rosehad children and grandchildren with, yet pined for Jack (a guy who fucks) and dropped a priceless diamond to the bottom of the sea in the final moments of her life at the end of Titanic. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the moral crises and ethical concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Validation and body count are just two heads of a conjoined twin. They haven’t gotten the memo that their 20th-century moralism-as-strategy is meaningless in a 21st-century sexual marketplace.
Ah yes. Using Titanic as the masterpiece of philosophy that it clearly was, and making the vapid, stupid, callous, utterly self-absorbed narcissist Rose, the “heroine” of the piece, because she throws away a fortune she could have given to her progeny, in quintessential, wicked, super-boomer format, is indeed, a bold strategy, Rollo! Not a good one, valid or sensible one, but certainly “bold”. As in the same kind of “bold” that would stick his dick in a bar-cutting industrial machinery to “prove his manliness”.
Body count only matters to nameless husbands who don’t fuck. It doesn’t matter to anywoman because they would rather fuck a lot of Jacks on a sinking ship than be bothered by the purity (paternity) concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Guys who fuck don’t care about body count because they know women hate guys who don’t fuck, and those guys care about body count.
Again, it is quite obvious that Rollo protesteth too much here, as he has throughout the entire vapid, ageing PUA post.
Rollo is the male equivalent of a post-wall woman who has ridden the cock-carousel so long she is now left on the shelf. And Rollo is the post-wall “bad-boy” (assuming he ever really actually was one at all) who is left with spent cigarettes, a ruggerised fleshlight, wrinkles, and increasingly creeping despair, at the beginning of the end of a life wasted on ephemera.
FINAL UPDATE: As I said right from the start, PUAs lie, and as it happens Rollo lied about pretty much everything concerning his supposed “ability” concerning women, and he advises men to do the exact opposite of what he himself has done, which is to stay married to one woman for 26 years. If he had been the ladykiller he presented himself as, the above vivisection would be absolutely correct, and as it happens, remains so, regarding the fictional would-be Rollo. And since he is an absolute fraud that advises others to go down a path he knows nothing about and leads to nothing good long term, one can hardly imagine anything he has to say is relevant or worthwhile. Even by his own (retarded) “measuring stick” Rollo himself is the exact guy who “does not fuck” that he so denigrates in his post. And yet he also advises against being married. So… what exactly is Rollo, what does he actually have to say that is relevant, or true, or valid?
Right, now after that vivisection, let us return to the original points, which are that:
Anglos are weird about caring about what women think of them, and,
Rollo is full of shit.
And seeing what that says about men who chase after women for sex and so on in general terms and in spiritual terms.
First of all, I think the point about Anglos being afflicted by gynæmania is a real thing. The English speaking world of the Anglos is indeed, culturally, regardless of whether British (though these are the epicentre of it) Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, or even the more Anglecised parts of America, tends to be irrelevant, as a people, they tend to be grossly united by the Protestant Zeitgeist and a kind of fear/intimidation/shyness of women in general.
Certainly none of the Catholic countries suffer from this to anywhere near the extent the English people do. And it has been this way for centuries. The writings of Italian travellers to England recounts the same view of things that we Southern European tend to have even today of the English men and the English women.
I believe in part it is due to the nefarious influence of Protestantism, as it is an invariably mechanising of humanity and the minute you do that, the first errors will be with your understanding/handling/appreciation of women, because human females are in a way the very embodiment of the chaos of humanity at its best and its worst, and any reduction at binarium pensierum (binary thinking) will invariably produce vast errors in your model of reality with respect to women. And as such they will become only more mystifying, unpredictable and dangerous for you. The other part is due to the fact that as a rule, the Anglos tend to be a logical and shy people, neither of which quality lends itself particularly well to being easy-going in relation to women, who as a rule are not logical and only pretend to be shy in the company of men, if at all.
For such men, the eventual “ability” to bed a lot of women does in fact begin to become a form of validation for them. It remains essentially a false one, but one they believe in and buy into as much as the people they try to convince around them.
These are the men that despite having slept with a hundred or even a few hundred women or more, remain nevertheless prey to their own desire for women and susceptible to how they are perceived by the women they are attracted to. They invariably appear as what the Zoomers call “cringe” to men who have the self-assuredness internally that these Anglo types seek perennially, and hardly ever find. I have known men that only had two women as sexual partners, the first was their wife and the second also their wife, after the first one died, and yet these men would have zero problem genuinely attracting almost any woman they set their eyes on, and they would do so free of the anxiety and self-doubt that plagues the supposed ladies men with hundreds of notches on their belts.
For me, discovering I was able to get women to have sex with me successfully, was not self-actualising in any way. It was more like discovering I had a natural aptitude for fencing, or skiing. A kind of pleasant surprise about something I never really gave much thought to one way or the other. And a good part of why I was successful has very much to do with the fact that that is pretty much how I treated it, not because I wanted to pose as such a person, but because I am such a person. And I cannot with certainty say what makes a man that way or not. I think at least some of it is genetic, but life experiences probably formed in childhood also has something to do with it.
And if I had to give it my best guess, I would say it is probably mostly due to whether your relationship with your parents, and primarily your father, was honest and direct and loving or not. The English sense of “logical detachment” I think is ultimately damaging to children, which is why the entire Anglosphere is a fucking mess of feral youfs with no sense, no honour, no dignity, or discipline to speak of, and increasingly illiterate at that.
The more instinctual and visceral love of an Italian father, who may well kick your ass, literally, for some small or even wrong reason, but who would unquestioningly jump into a harvesting combine to save you, is a far healthier way to be raised than the cold logic of the Anglo-Saxons. And instills in you a profound sense of self-assuredness that I think nothing else does. And that sense comes through to women like a lighthouse in the dark, whether they are aware of it or not consciously (mostly not).
I hope this explains the reason why some men, regardless of how many women they have slept with, ultimately remain on some level… uncertain. Doubtful. Unfinished. And women can in fact sense that.
Now, let us get to the concept of fornication in general and so on, which in fairness, was the topic that Adam was trying to cover, and to which, my extremely long preamble above is merely introduction to give you my context.
On Fornication
First of all, let me state unambiguously that yes, in an ideal world, the way that the Catholic Church says we should behave, both as men and women is indeed, the best and ideal way. No question. I unreseveredly agree.
That said, being as I am Catholic, and being as I lived like a heathen for at least 43 years of my time on Earth, and given that I made no attempt to resist temptations of the flesh in that time, I think I can say with some authority that:
We live on a world that is decidedly fallen and very far from ideal.
Every one of us is utterly flawed in many ways even after we see and realise and accept the truth of Catholicism.
Men who have yet even to see the truth of Catholicism cannot, in all likelihood, even begin to see why what are known as the sins of the flesh are even bad, never mind actual mortal sins.
So, if unmitigated fornication is the equivalent of a blind and deaf man walking towards a cliff-face, how can I possibly begin to even make him aware of this truth? The temptations of the flesh after all are not a fairy tale. They are very much real, and they certainly never felt bad or sinful to me when I indulged deeply in them, nor, do I expect they feel that way to the average 20-something or even 30-something year old male that is “finally getting some!”
And while Adam and people like him, including Catholic Priests and Bishops are absolutely correct that it is a damaging thing, it’s not as if I had not heard that sort of preaching when I was indulging deeply in fornication and then some.
And my reaction to it all was usually, something like, Eh, poor bastard isn’t getting any and he either doesn’t know what he’s missing, or maybe would like, much as the feminists, everyone to be as miserable as him.
And I expect any young man that has got this far (if any have) in this long post, is probably thinking the same thing, and they also do not have a counter-example as a reference frame. Not one they have lived certainly, because that counter example you only get once you are married, and fully committed to one woman, and she is to you too.
It sort of feels like a lie. Oh, don’t you have any fun now, boy, you just wait and just take the ONE sweet, and only that one, for the rest of your life, and trust us, it’s better this way. With all the bullshit you have ingested by age 20, and your at least seeing some of it (if you are not completely retarded) one can hardly be blamed for thinking this too is a massive lie.
And because I am Catholic, and because I have also the example of my own life, and the awesomeness of a real priest that Baptised, Confirmed and presided over my Marriage, and had the benefit of his wisdom and kindness, I also understand that fallen as we are, erroneous as we are, mistaken as we are, we are not necessarily evil or shunning God. We are just wrong. Badly, desperately, tragically, sadly, wrong, but mostly just wrong, not intentionally evil. And we are sad, weak, feel unloved and uncared for by anyone and we try, like drowning rats, to scrabble some sense of worth and love and kindness, wherever there is any illusion we might find some. And so we make mistakes.
And most of you reading this who are unmarried will be in the midst of those mistakes, and I am not here to chastise you, or rain thunder and fire and brimstone and judgement from God on your weighted and desperate heads. Far from it.
I was one of you. I walked your path deeper and longer in the swamp of godless life than most. So, young man, if you will, after this very long set of words, take a seat near my camp-fire and let me tell you a story and may it help you navigate your own swamp, and may it be shallow and brief.
So you are fornicating. So you may even like a girl you are with and be boyfriend and girlfriend, and you may even be thinking how it would be nice if it will last. Or maybe you’re so infatuated with the sensations of sex that a new girl every week or every day or two, or whatever, is intoxicating and draining all your thoughts and actions, wallet and testicles. Whatever the case may be, listen to this and think it over:
What do you want for your life? What do you want to think about your life when you are 99 years old and on your rocking chair and you can see the grim reaper finally walking towards you? And you’re fine with it and smile at him even, recognising that this supposedly terrible and fearful boogeyman is nothing more than a tired and misunderstood boatman, taking you across the veil (or the river Styx if you prefer).
Do you think you will be pleased reminiscing over your 287 sexual conquests, aided by your printed out spreadsheet in large letter format, because your eyes are no longer what they used to be? Playing out the sex tapes on the projector of your study to remember better what you did or felt or what they did? Or who they even were? Do you think that will warm your heart as you face the final journey?
Or your sporting achievements?
Or your financial ones, absent children and grandchildren to leave it to?
Tell me, young man, what do you think will make you able to face the final boatman with serenity and peace?
I’ll tell you what it is for me now and what I hope it will be for me at 105, but I say only 105 because I started late, otherwise 99 would be perfectly acceptable to me too. And yes, I know I’d be lucky to get there.
It is the idea of my children grown up and married and with children of their own, and doing well, and if God grants me the energy and the fortune to do so, the idea of leaving them as much as I possibly can, to make their lives and those of their children good ones.
It is the idea of watching my grandchildren and possibly even my great-grandchildren (hence 105!) running around nearby, screaming and making noise and playing joyfully and laughing full belly-laughs and thinking my sons and daughters and their wives and husbands are good women and men who will be with them to the end of their days and help them raise the next lot of joyous Crusaders for God, Truth and Justice, as my family line has done since the literal original First Crusade.
Now you may have a different religion from me (because you’re still young and stupid, heh, heh, heh) but I don’t think it changes the equation. I don’t think it changes it at all.
And here is what else I think. I think if what I just told you is NOT what inspires you, is abhorrent to you in some way, then I hope very much it’s only because, as I said, you’re young, and really fucking stupid, and you have bought in to a lot of Boomer-era lies, And I sincerely hope you grow out of your mental retardation.
And if not, if that is who you really are, then fuck you. I hope you die young and rid the world of another noxious creature that only spoils the Earth and everything on it. And I’m not talking about climate change, you fuckwit.
Now, if you get the impression that I am a kind of bastard for an old man, I would say, fuck you at the “old man” I can probably still kick your ass at 54 if you are in your twenties, depending on some factors, but that aside, yeah, I am not the most pleasant human being. I don’t like humans much because mostly they are weak, and because they are weak they lie. And they lie a lot. They lie to themselves first and then to everyone else around them. And the lies cause the harm. They cause ALL the harm. Which is as the god of this world wants it. Because this Earth is under the dominion of Satan. And no, young man, I don’t give a shit if you think “The Devil” is a superstition. He is more real than the heart-attack all the poor imbeciles that took the genetic serum are probably facing in the not too distant future.
Oh, and this is just a side note, but listen up: The Earth is NOT Flat!
And if you think it is you are a stupid bastard and I really don’t care what happens to you and with a level of stupidity that high it is definitely a better thing if you do not pass on those retarded genes at all.
Back to my story, now.
So, if you agree with me so far, then you also must realise that you get that kind of old-age satisfaction only if you make children and raise them well. And this means finding and marrying a woman that will also want to be with you until one or both of you die and raise children together. No matter what difficulties you will both face. No matter if you are so fucking stupid one day to fuck your secretary, or hire a prostitute, or become a heavy drinker, or make a bad business decision and lose your shirt. And conversely, no matter if she is so fucking stupid to spread her legs for the sexy postman, or her co-worker, or the neighbour, or she becomes a heavy drinker, or more worried about what the neighbours think of you and her than looking after her husband and children, or she splashes out on stupid shit and drives you to the brink of bankruptcy.
So is it easy to find such a woman? No.
Is it easy to stay married to such a woman, delightful as she might be? No.
Will you come across things in life that will hurt you in ways you never imagined, and that would seem to make leaving her a better option? Yes.
More than once? In all likelihood, yes.
And will she come across such things? Yes, without shadow of a doubt, and probably even more often than you.
And if you are thinking right now, Well Old Man, this is a really rosy picture you’re painting for me, what the fuck do you want me to do, and is the light at then of the tunnel also an oncoming train?
I say this to you:
Firstly fuck you twice for the Old Man again, you wet behind the ears know-nothing. Secondly, it’s not rosy. It’s just how it is, so you know what you’re facing. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. What I want you to do is immaterial. It’s what you want to do, or not do, that matters. Realise whether you pick something, or pick nothing, you’re still picking something. So choose, and choose consciously, because at least then you got no one to blame but yourself.
Oh, and yeah, in the end, the light at the end of the tunnel is always an oncoming train. Sometimes it’s got a boatman riding up front. Smile and run at it, because fuck the train. Live like a man and die like one too if need be.
So now you might be thinking, Ok Old Man, so how do I find such a woman?
And I say to you, firstly, fuck you three times for the Old man. Secondly, unless you have uncommon good luck, unless God for some reason decides to send you an Angel in disguise as a human woman, most likely, you cannot find such a woman walking the Earth today.
Young man stares blankly at me.
You have to build her.
Young man says: What?
You have to build her, boy. You find one that is as close as you can find to a finished product, and I sincerely advise you to find one that is in your category of looks. If you are a 7 don’t try and stay with a 9. You’ll be so worried about keeping her that you will fuck up a myriad things and she will end up fucking your “best friend”, the neighbour, your boss, her boss, and if you did marry her, she will take the kids and your house too when she inevitably divorces you.
Take your time in your courtship. Learn who she is and pay attention to what she does and how she acts in various situations and feel free to almost totally ignore whatever she says she is like. You can really only go badly wrong if you believe her when she describes all her good qualities. Pay her words no mind. Observe her actions instead.
If you feel you have enough to work with (at least 51% good is a minimum) then begin to go about leading by example. Do NOT request of her efforts or sacrifices you are not willing to exceed. And yes, some things are not comparable on a like for like basis, because she is a woman and you are a man, you can no more give birth or breastfeed your child than she can write the alphabet in the snow when urinating, and don’t think the one is equivalent in value to the other, but realise that as a general rule, women can provide three things to a man:
So do your part and gently show her the way, so she feels better about herself, as women invariably do when they begin to act in accordance with their God-given, biological imperatives, that have been subverted by lies for the last hundred plus years or so.
That’s about it, boy.
And if you are still wondering where this puts you in the fornication scale, well, to not put too fine a point on it, according to the Church, until you marry and commit, your fornication is going to send you to Hell. So I would hurry up and get to finding that woman as quick, yet also as careful, as you can. And try not to get hit by a bus until you get married to her and repent and foreswear your heathen and fornicating ways, you miserable sinner.
And if you have any brains at all, about now, young man, you might be having a little smile at the apparently hypocritical, arrogant, bastard, old man in front of you.
That’s why I no longer describe myself as a libertarian. Not simply because I have rejected the ideology, although I have, but because I no longer believe that most ideologists, past or present, are even remotely interested in, much less connected to, truth and objective reality. Despite its grandiose and universalist pretensions, ideology is the detailed rationalization of an identity group’s immediate interests, and it will always be subject to further modification and mutation as that group’s interests change over time.
It is the mark of one of the vanishingly small number of men who are capable of changing their minds based on facts when a man admits to in fact doing so, and it is one of the reasons I respect Vox’s often apparently contrarian thoughts. And of course, anyone reading this is probably thinking “from what pulpit comes the preaching!” because as contrarian as Vox may at times appear to be, I think I am the only man on Earth that has been labelled as responsible for the need to create an entirely new class of role-playing game character: The Theologian-Berserker by a Hugo nominated author.
The reality, however, is that neither I nor Vox are actual contrarians for the sake of being contrarians. I believe we are simply men that observe the world and try, to the best of our ability to interpret and share, our honestly objective conclusions or theories based on the available evidence.
Even as a much younger man, when I was not even remotely Catholic, I always rejected the concept of ideologies. In fact, in the Villains section, I specifically explain as the very first point, why all ideologies are ultimately an error.
All ideology is ultimately dehumanising. This is of course a broad statement but it is a mostly accurate one. The moment you make something become a rigidly fixed “belief”, almost regardless of what it is, it will ultimately become a tyrannical yoke on the neck of natural and honest human beings. If you need a good example and exposé of this, you should really read the essay The Power of the Powerless, by Václav Havel. He basically predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire at a time when the collapse of it was essentially thought of as mostly unthinkable. He did this because of an intrinsic understanding of the human spirit and the nature of such a spirit. Human souls are born to be free and joyous, not oppressed and repressed by dogma. Modern ideologies tend to be far more sophisticated in their insidiousness, but the end result is always the same, a dehumanisation, an increase of strife, both internal and external and an alienation of humans from each other in terms of how they relate to each other. Ideology forces us to try and relate to each other as cogs instead of souls. Regardless of whether you even believe in souls, do you really want to be related to as a cog in a machine?
The above was specifically written in 2018, but I had the concept clear in my mind certainly from my mid-twenties.
The holding on to ideologies is really a form of infantilism, and while I do not want to place ALL of the world’s ills at the feet of America and Americans, especially because the people who control America are for the most part not American at all, but mostly Jewish, it remains a fact, that Americans (actual Americans, not paper Americans) are, as a general people, some of the most gullible and infantile humans on Earth and certainly in the Western World.
While individual Americans can be quite brilliant, the vast majority are maleducated, malnourished (as in fed badly, not as in starving), vastly ignorant and almost entirely brainwashed into believing in American greatness. In their defence, it does need to be said that they are also the first pretend-nation that was created by Freemasons and entirely on Freemasonic principles, so they never had much of a chance from the start.
And since America, thanks to its vast resources for a time, became the most militarily powerful country on Earth and with almost unlimited funds, it zeitgeist has pretty much succeeded, until recently at infecting most of the planet with its ideologically based lies.
Protestantism, of course was the precursor and raised its Satanic head shortly after America was discovered by Columbus.
The reason why Ideology is always at best an error and usually ends up being directly evil in due course, is because human beings are living beings, and ideology is a dead and static thing. Ideology is the mechanisation of human beings, as is, Protestantism and indeed any facile, binary way of thinking.
A small child wishes for things to be clear and simple. Good and bad. Light and dark. Yes or No. and so on. As we grow in abilities and life experience, one hopes we begin to understand that while there are definite absolutes, at least in the moral sense of human affairs, these are relatively few and reserved for extreme cases, and because human beings are weak, petty, stupid, selfish, brutish, vindictive, fallen creatures, yet imbibed with an eternal soul loved by God, we tend to, for the most part, play out our worst characteristics more than our divinely inspired ones.
Simply observing life as we find it, makes this rather obvious, or rather, so I thought. As it happens, what is often obvious to me is apparently shrouded in mystery for most people. Even intelligent ones.
There are many such examples, and I mention a few not to show you what a clever special boy I am, but merely because most people simply haven’t even thought of this stuff:
Free Speech– Has never existed in the entirety of human existence and never will. This was obvious to me from the first moment I became aware of this Americanism in my early teens while living in relatively remote Africa.
Ideology (all of it)– as described above from early 20s at the latest.
Intelligence behind creation of some sort – About age 16 but confirmed by basic mathematics by age 19 when I explicitly stated it clearly.
The difference between Principles, Dogmas, Axioms and Ideology – Ideology is always an error, to whatever degree. Axioms might, eventually, prove to be somewhat erroneous from totally (if based in ideology) to partially, to perhaps never (certain divine concepts, or Mathematical realities). Dogmas can be a thinly veiled ideology, or a sound axiom or a simple universal truth (math is logical for example, could be said to be either axiomatic or even dogmatic). Principles are personal choices, often, but not always, based on a man’s best understanding of reality. Conflating these different terms just because there are overlaps however is an error and should be avoided, as all conflation in general should always be.
The Paradox of Truth with a capital T and the Human condition – Concepts such as Justice, Honour, Courage, Honesty and so on, are principles that in their ideal, or theoretical form are perfectly clear and free of ambiguity. In the world of humanity however, these noble truths, for they are true, and they are noble, cannot help but be tinged with our humanity, which —even a blind and irreligious man as some of us may have been for decades— is akin to being soiled with a bit of raw sewage. In short, while Justice, Love, Mercy and so on are all true and theoretically perfect, on Earth, we can only come to close approximations at best. This is the hard reality of course, which is why religions of a simple-minded, binary nature, like Protestantism or Islam are ultimately patterns of thought that lead to a beastly existence. The Protestants of course either become puritanical freaks for which the flashing of an ankle at a ball is grounds for wearing a scarlet letter, or lascivious degenerates for whom strumming a guitar explaining Jesus is their gender-neutral boyfriend is the height of their “christianity”, While Islam simply does away with any pretence of reason at all when it merely says that everything is the will of Allah. In that respect, the only religion that properly takes into account both the human failings but also the truth and nobility of these concepts is Catholicism. No other religion does, and for that reason it is the best model of reality we have ever had as a species.
As I progressed in my observations of life in general, and people in particular, the objective noticing of reality always served me well, and once I became a full blown Catholic (which I ALWAYS explain means a sedevacantist since those are the ONLY Catholics actually left on Earth) the model of reality that Catholicism offers, fits the observable reality better than my own Zen-Agnostic philosophy of some 3 decades or more, at least an order or two of magnitude better.
Humans are indeed complicated, and only Catholicism truly appreciates and answers, the multi-faceted aspects of the Human condition with equal measure, Mercy, Forgiveness, and Charity as inflexible Truth, Justice and Virtue.
I therefore invite you to at least begin to study actual Catholicism and actual Church History from the very beginning.
My own books can serve as a shortcut and are filled with references so you can verify what I say, but it doesn’t matter how you get there, just get there.
Caveman Theory livestream
I will be doing a livestream with Tony who was a beta reader for Caveman Theory tonight in about three hours at 21:30 Rome Italy Time on my Youtube channel here.
There will be also a generic Q&A on it so you can ask questions and as the topic is one I get a steady stream of email on, if there is enough interest and say at least 20 subscribers that have ideally read the book, I will to subscribers only livestreams where specific questions get answered.
For the braver we can maybe even do short interviews either to share their positive experience of using the Caveman Theory concepts or the issues they are having in their relationships.
Yes… terrible as it may sound, we may be straying into Kurgan as agony uncle territory!
If that doesn’t deserve a Horror Film/Law and Order style Dun, Dun, DUN! I don’t know what does!
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 9 March 2024 | Posted in Books, Caveman Theory, Increasing Happiness, Relationships, Social Commentary