Posts Tagged ‘catholicism’

Some Spiritual Realities

It occurred to me that there is something quite obvious about the various religions that I had never considered before.

Catholicism originated from the most absurdly improbable roots and was so diffused throughout the world that we literally date our time on the basis of the birth of Jesus.

First, consider that Catholicism, or Christianity, since the words are synonymous as ALL Christianity was always and only Catholic before the infiltrations and schisms were created by the enemy, allowed anyone around the world, to participate in a Holy Mass that was identical wherever you were in the world, and regardless of what language you spoke. This was the case since the 1960s when the Satanic impostor Montini, against canon law, dogma and Catholicism itself, changed the Mass in line with the equally Satanic Vatican II events.

Secondly, consider that it started with 4 women and 11 guys too scared to adit they followed Jesus. And it civilised the world. Despite constant attacks from gnostics, other religions, atheists, $cienc-eh and so on. It’s really quite astonishing since the divine principles of Catholic dogma remain unchanged after 2000 years.

So let’s look at what other religions had also a decent run, time-wise at least.

Islam, of course, Hinduism, though it is mostly secularised, 40,000 versions and counting of Protestantism, which can’t really be said to agree on anything other than “Catholicism bad”, Eastern “Orthodoxy” which is starting to split off like Protestantism but much slower and in any case is really quite schizophrenic historically and hasn’t spread itself very far comparatively speaking and the only fruits it can boast of is that presently Russia is the least cucked country on the planet. Novus Ordo fake Catholicism doesn’t really count, because this Satanic institution was only really “born” in 1958, when Angelo Roncalli became the first of the current and ongoing era of fake Popes, but really the infiltrators are mask-wearing Stanists. Satanism itself, in its many, many, many guises and under its legion of names, is, of course older than Christianity, being the first rebellion, or Protestation, against truth. And of course, Pharisaical or Talmudic Judaism which is what people who call themselves Jews today are. There is also Buddhism and Shintoism, and I think that covers the main ones. People LARPing at being “Pagans” really fall in the category of cosplayers at comic book conventions, if not furries and other fetishists, so we can’t seriously consider them, especially given their pitiful numbers and not insignificant mental health issues.

There have been many other religions that fell to the wayside for many reasons, conquest often being the main one, either physical or intellectual/spiritual. The Pagan religions of the Vikings for example died out because they gradually and spontaneously converted to Catholicism. The Mayan beliefs died out because the Spanish conquered them and the survivors converted too. and so on.

But the point is that only religions that have a spiritual basis in reality tend to stand the test of time.

And according to Catholic doctrine and belief, every one of those religions does, to some extent, square with reality, because they essentially are the creation of, or the literal worshipping of demons.

I will give a necessarily very brief and absolutely incomplete and also reductionist view of each of them below. It will be easy to critique any of these thumbnail summaries for being “simplistic” or incomplete, nevertheless, they will give a good and not unfair general sense of each one. And for good measure, I will give an equally brief and objective view of Catholicism at the end so you can get a feel for the level of both reductionism and oversimplification, but also of fairness and no overt or intentional mischaracterisation of any of them.

Protestantism – (See also Catholicism below) – The idea that a unified religion with one set of rules agreed to by a hierarchy that referred directly to God and was promised to be infallible until the end of time, should be split into each individual interpreting these divine truths independently and on their own, from one book alone, that had been edited and had parts removed by the founder of this hydra-like religion, who also expressly stated that because “reason was the whore of the devil” it should essentially be abandoned and all his ideas and theories (or the ones of your own head) should be accepted purely on faith. The obviously deaf, dumb and blind kind, one presumes, since reason could not be part of it.

Islam – the idea that a mass-murdering pedophile could do no wrong, and was the spokesman for a God that does whatever He wants arbitrarily. Reason is once again not required. Merely obedience. Conquest and conversion by force is perfectly acceptable, and should ultimately be done as soon as you are strong enough to impose it on non-muslims. Treating anyone not Islamic as an enemy, lying to them, and pretending to be their friend, but always holding in your heart the concept that they are enemies, being the right way.

Hinduism – Belief in a wide ranging pantheon of Gods for various specific things each deity takes care of. Some of these deities are said to have been historical personages from the ancient past with extra-solar origins, and others are considered to be proper deities. Regardless of either case, human beings are divided into various classes from untouchables to nobles that are like princes and reincarnation is the only way you can move up or down the hierarchy, and this is achieved by burning or not accumulating Karma in your present life.

Catholicism (today only found in 1958 Sedevacantists) – The idea that God came down to Earth as a man to take on all the sins of the world past, present and future, and any human beings who accepted this truth and kept his laws and rules would also be saved from separation from God and thus Hell. The baseline behaviour is to treat others as you wish to be treated and to spread these good news all over the world, but no one can become catholic other than by free choice.

Novus Ordo “Catholicism” – false representation of Catholicism that inverts its dogmatic principles in order to create what is ultimately a false religion, analogous to Protestantism, which informed much of its creation, alongside the push from Jewish interests behind it too and the obvious Freemasonic infiltration the real Church suffered for centuries.

Eastern Orthodoxy – The idea that keeping Christianity mostly confined to your own country, that there is no overarching authority in it, and that splitting from the origins of Catholicism, then asking their help when Muslims go to war with you, and when the Catholics come to help, you literally backstab them and try and murder them 3 times in a row, you are somehow the victim when the fourth time they sack your capital city. You also ignore basic tenets of the original religion like priests being celibate, which were in place both before, during and after the arrival of Jesus Christ.

Buddhism – The idea that life is suffering and eternal permanent death (Nirvana, the absence of all desire and therefore consciousness) is the ultimate aim of reincarnation. Mostly harmless in its wider worldly extent, but ultimately nihilistic.

Shintoism/Zen agnosticism/Taoism – While each is a distinct belief system, they all have Buddhist origins and generally do not refute reincarnation and veneration of the ancestors for guidance. In this respect they are similar to Catholicism (veneration of Saints) although not with regard to reincarnation, which Catholicism refutes as irrelevant and unnecessary at best and possible demonic deception at worst. The emphasis is on trying to achieve serenity, balance and harmony in everyday life in order to achieve it also spiritually.

Judaism – The idea that Catholicism is the worst possible religion on Earth and needs to be destroyed, and that all non-Jews are but cattle to be enslaved in order to serve Jews. According to their own most revered Rabis, the Jews worship the god of this World, known by Catholics as Satan.

What can we deduce by this brief thumbnail summary of religions from a Catholic perspective then?

  • Judaism most directly serves Satan
  • Hinduism could be said to serve various demons and/or long-since dead personages that originated from space
  • Protestantism and Novus Ordo False Catholicism are a perversion of every Catholic Principle
  • Eastern “Orthodoxy” is schismatic at best
  • All Buddhist linked religions that do not worship pantheons of false Gods (ie Hinduism) or even any specific “gods” are the least bad of the Pagan religious beliefs, though far from ideal as while many of them promote generosity and friendliness towards strangers, there is no clearly defined rules on it.

If you also look at the fruits born by each of these religions over time, we see that Protestantism and more recently Novus Orcism (they are Orcs, let’s call them Orcs) are merely tools to secularise Catholicism into a human based false religion The object of “worship” is a false idol. A God with no set rules, no set divine Laws, where everyone is “free” to believe s they will and is saved anyway because they agree Jesus is King. That is literally the same level of “Christianity” that demons have. They too know Jesus is King. the result has also been acceptance of contraception, divorce, and ultimately baby murder because babies get in the way of reckless fornication with people you do NOT want to have children with.

Eastern “Orthodoxy” is slow-burn Protestantism, and hasn’t produced much of anything but its stagnant state is presently proving rather useful as a bulwark to the disintegration of faith in general in the West.

Hinduism is a horrible caste system where your station in life is determined solely by your birth, and can’t be escaped, nor is it desirable to escape it since anyway all is karma, so why bother. The resulting inefficiency, squalor and destitution of the people who practice this religion, compounded with purely worldly attempts to gain more wealth by any means necessary, is rather well-known, and surpassed only by Judaism which is, however, very effective at it, since its central principle is to enslave the world to bring it under the yoke of the Jews themselves who will rule all the non-Jews as their property and slaves.

Buddhist types are for the most part the equivalent of mostly harmless NPCs. Individuals may be positive or not, but overall as a religion they do not cause particularly good or bad societies, and the tendency tends to be towards them being organised, clean, safe and efficient.

Catholicism is the only religion that has drastically elevated the whole of humanity while keeping the individual at its core as the important thing, while also understanding his or her role in the wider social context.

There are really only four routes:

  • Direct Satanism
  • Indirect Satanism
  • Indirect Satanism Lite
  • Catholicism

So take your pick of the oldest religion of all, or one of its offshoots, or Catholicism.

Good Luck.

    You might be interested in the following posts:

    1. The Kurganing of Tim Urban

    By G | 18 March 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Sedevacantism

    Oh No! Kurgan vs Vox Day Theology!

    I know there are now going to be heads exploding in various gamma hives around the internet as they hope and pray to their slithering nether-gods for a major rift between myself and Vox.

    While I am sure nothing of the sort is or will be the case. In fact, many moons ago, I asked Vox if he would be willing to have a friendly discussion/debate on Catholicism vs Protestantism, or to be more precise, my Sedevacantist Catholicism and his specific brand of Protestantism which I believe hinges on the original Nicene creed.

    Even back then, somewhat to my surprise, he said he wasn’t against it in principle, but the time required for it (and I suspect utility of it) was not really worth it. Which, in general I agreed with.

    That all said, my brain can’t help but want to continue down paths that in my view are likely to increase my understanding of reality. Christianity, is one of those paths that is essentially endless in this regard, so, like say learning to paint, or make music, is a lifelong continuous investigation.

    With such endeavours, after a time, there comes a point where your understanding or skill in the topic is good enough to outdo the common men and women in the field and then even the well-known ones. In short, it becomes difficult to find other minds against which you can confront yourself in order to learn more of the topic that interests you. And when you do find one, naturally, at least for me, you’d like to investigate it and push and prod at it and test your theories and ideas and baselines against.

    Well, Vox has such a mind. I also consider him a friend and few things in life are as enjoyable to me as philosophical conversation of some substance with a friend. Preferably over a good wine and light meal, or with decent cognac after a good dinner. Alas, distance and circumstance prevents such discourse in the customary civilised fashion I just described. So I find myself limited to this rather barbaric format. Blog to blog. Well, perhaps we might do a livestream on it one day, but be as it may, I will now simply dive into the post Vox put up which prompted this one for me: This is it.

    As baseline axioms I think I have the following, which are:

    • Pretty sure both Vox and myself do not like having human authority over us. I think the generic difference might be that I am willing to go along with it for the greater good as long as the human with “authority” over me continues to follow the correct rules. As far as Catholicism goes, if the priest/bishop does not himself contravene Canon Law (as per Code of Canon Law of 1917) and his advice is in line with it, I will obey. The reason I believe the Code of Canon Law is correct is because at core, I believe that Jesus would not have left a FALLIBLE Church on Earth. He wanted a Church and we are instructed to use reason and logic to figure stuff out, but not that it’s all guesswork. Having read the CoCL twice, while I find rules that personally bug me, in objective consideration, even those rules are civilisational, and my personal preference is the one that is not ideal to building a truly civilised world. The classic example is duelling. I am all for it, but Catholicism forbids it, because, in general, duelling would be a sin of pride. Not really my problem, but if it were widespread you can see that the sin of pride would be what motivates it for most, instead of a burning desire to see justice done.
    • Pretty sure we both dislike dishonesty in general and especially dishonesty designed to lead people astray spiritually.
    • One thing I think we differ on is that I think Vox is more prone to the error of Erroneous Loyalty. Something I discussed in Reclaiming the Catholic Church at some length. It is an error I used to live myself for many years, so I think I understand the dynamic well. As an extreme and hypothetical example that ignores human laws for the purpose of the intellectual exercise, I recall a long while back, in one of his posts, Vox mentioned that under certain circumstances, a friend that was guilty of certain crimes would be best served by being handed a pistol with one bullet in it and leaving him alone in his room, giving him the dignity of suicide. I believe he was referencing a supposed “friend” of John Scalzi that had been discovered to be some kind of sexual predator, and if memory serves Vox’s comment was along the lines of what you would do if someone you considered to be a friend turned out to be, say a child rapist. In my case, my loyalty of friendship would NOT prevent me (again, in a hypothetical world of no human laws being present) from helping the man pull the trigger, or even doing it for him. You don’t want to leave these things to chance! In fact, as per my comments many times, I absolutely believe that the punishment for child rape should be the legalised and accepted method of burning at the stake. Suicide is considered a mortal sin by Catholicism and as such, judgement by the community so you burn at the stake gives you the chance to repent while you burn and possibly enter purgatory and eventually heaven instead of eternal Hell. So, in broad terms, I think Vox may be more prone to being loyal beyond the just point. As I say, an error I myself had for a long while in my youth, but that I gradually got out of over several years until I finally realised that the line of Justice is more important than the line of loyalty. Vox may have other theories on this, which I am unaware of but that’s the sense I have of it presently.

    Given the above premises/axioms, I will then look at the above linked post critically. And consider that I am absolutely in no way defending the Boomertastic Doug Wilson. I read a couple of his post years ago, before I was even a Christian and the illogic and hypocrisy prevalent in Protestantism made me conclude he’s an idiot and not worth listening to at all.

    • One more difference between Vox and myself I need to point out, the man is certainly more patient than I am as well as far more forgiving. I remember we briefly discussed Jordan Peterson at the time and Vox stated the man was intelligent. I was astonished and asked why on Earth he thought that, he quite correctly pointed out that in order to spew the level of bafflegarble nonsense he does and fool a lot of people into thinking he is not some absolutely insane globalist with severe psychological issues, takes a certain level of IQ. Personally I evaluated the bafflegarble nonsense and concluded the man is mentally unstable and absolutely wrong and a liar. I can’t reconcile that with being intelligent, but strictly speaking, that is an error on my part conflating ethics and sanity with intelligence.

    Vox concluded that Doug Wilson is a gatekeeper but still keeps tabs on him clearly, which is understandable, as I keep tabs on other gatekeepers like Milo and EM Jones and Taylor Marshall and so on. But perhaps does not condemn him as thoroughly as I do, and perhaps, in general he might not condemn the gatekeepers as thoroughly as I do. I may be wrong, but I suspect he is more forgiving than I am on such matters.

    Anyway, to examine the post in more detail:

    I will first note that this is precisely the same defense that is regularly offered up on behalf of other gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, and also of books like the Harry Potter series. Don’t criticize the obvious errors and the demonstrable falsehoods when they are otherwise doing so much good? Don’t you understand that if they tell the truth instead of lying, they won’t be able to reach as many of those who need the truth? Isn’t it better that they read godless tales of evil being portrayed as good than not read at all?

    And the answer is no. This is a false, pernicious, and fundamentally short-sighted perspective. It is less a defense than an attempt to negotiate a guilty plea in exchange for a lesser penalty.

    And so far we are in absolute agreement. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that it is better to leave aborigines in jungles alone and not instruct them at all than to instruct them with Protestantism. Because as per Church doctrine, a savage that has never heard of Christ might yet enter heaven judged by God on the merits of his own conscience, but one that has taken on a perverse version of Christianity is far less likely to escape the mortal sins of pride and in essence, choosing “me and my way” over “God and His ways”. I have always had the same idea. I met some of the last Khoi San that were free of any influence from so-called civilised men, and I found them to be honest, reliable, friendly, and just. Their society might be very primitive, but within the confines of that limitation they were essentially innocent and good people. Take a couple of generations of essentially Protestant “education” and a previously scrupulously honest primitive people become dishonest, haphazard, unpredictable and liable to suffer from everything to alcoholism to being criminals.

    Let me be perfectly clear: No one who advocates equality of any kind, and no one who is a civic nationalist of any variety, and no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.

    Because liars cannot, and will not, defend the truth. They will always produce one reason or another for refusing to do so. And if you are foolish enough to trust or follow a liar, you will come to regret it, as all of you – and readers here should recall, the vast majority of you – who used to lionize Jordan Peterson and consider him to be a great intellectual champion should know.

    Again, I agree whole-heartedly. Although, I realise Vox here was referring specifically to Civic Nationalism and so on, the fact remains that:

    no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.

    And this remains the absolute point for me which I cannot reconcile with Vox’s theology.

    Vox, is, after all, a Protestant. A very unique one he might be, but he (as far as I know) does not subscribe to the rules of the Catholic Church as per the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which in essence simple explains/extrapolates from both the Bible and Catholic (Christian) Tradition and has compiled and summarised all the various extrapolations, dictates, and dogma of the Catholic Church into one volume that covers all of those documents from the period of human history up to the year 1917. As a Catholic, you then may also wish to add the Papal ex-cathedra commentaries made from 1917 to 1958. After that we have not had any valid Popes since, so everything else can be safely ignored.

    I am fairly sure Vox has not read the Code of Canon Law. And if he did I think the things he might object to are probably not as many as he might envision, but I am (foggily) aware he has some issue with some aspects of Mariology, though I am not sure what they are. I feel fairly confident he is well-read enough to be aware that Catholics do not actually “worship” Mary, but simply ask for her intercession, as we do to various Saints. In essence, the difference between catholics and Protestants is that we don’t stop communicating with our dead friends and people. We pray for them and we also ask them to pray for us.

    One of the only times we briefly discussed my Catholicism (sedevacantism) and I pointed out some of the main issues he immediately said words to the effect of “Oh, well, those are Catholics I can get behind”. So again, I doubt the differences between us are huge in terms of theology.

    He also agrees with me that in general humans need rules, otherwise they will pretty much eat each other alive in the street, which, to a certain extent we are starting to really see on a global level when Christianity fades.

    We are also both smart enough understand that, while perhaps a certain optional rule for people may not really be designed for me or him specifically, we can’t really have rules for thee but not for me. And if there are exceptions, they should be based on sound reasoning, logic, and justice, not personal preference. So, in short, I ask myself:

    “Why is Vox not actually a sedevacantist?”

    I am presently only aware of one possible hitch which is his specific interpretation of the Trinty. Which I will not attempt to speak for him on as I would probably get it wrong. For myself, I do not pretend to know the intricacies of the Trinity, and I am perfectly happy to act in this regard very much as an illiterate peasant from the year 800. The Church says the Trinity works thusly, and I accept it as a given. I see no possible profit in trying to atomise that concept, nor do I have any interest in it.

    While I may atomise the concept of not duelling and understand it very well, and instinctively want to say: “But Bishop, I don’t want to run that guy through with a rapier because I am proud, but because he defrauds little old ladies and steals candy from children, and blasphemes! C’MAWN…Just this one (ok, half-dozen) time?!” But intellectually I understand I must just bow my head and NOT challenge the man to a duel to the death. And if I do confront him, it would be a sin to smack the living crap out of him until he makes amends. I know that. Which makes it a bad sin. But… y’know… I’m only human. Maybe next time I’ll give him a warning first. You know, if I really see the error of my ways. Otherwise all I can do is really try to work on it over time. But in the meantime: no duels have been had. #winning.

    So, it might be an intellectual disparity, perhaps the things that interest Vox to dissect are so different from the ones that interest me that it causes him a problem with Catholicism. And this, THIS is the real interest to me.

    What are those details? Is he seeing something I am not, or is it vice-versa? Or is there a third possibility that we are both missing?

    Such conversations, or investigations, if you prefer, are what fascinates me, and the ones that I think help us to see more truth when done with an intellectually honest person that is also curious enough and interested enough to examine such details.

    I seem to recall for example that Vox also labelled Once Saved Always Saved as a retarded concept (he may have been more polite about it) and I would expect he similarly considers Sola Scriptura as absurd, but I never asked him the question. I also seem to recall that his generic approach to the Bible was not that this or that version was “better” but to just read one and go with it as best you can, which is “close enough” for really about 99.99% of people.

    I suspect that his avoidance of hardcore Catholicism is linked to what he believes are “lies” or untruths that the Catholic Church has as various dogmas. What these are, however I am unaware, and it is my experience that most such ideas are usually rooted in some Protestant fake news about Catholicism. Several aspects of which, honest historians like Rodney Stark have pointed out even though they are not Catholics.

    At any rate, I would certainly be interested in looking at what the differences between his and my theological philosophies are.

    I suspect he doesn’t have the time, but the invitation is open.

    UPDATE: A reader pointed out I have not explained the absolute point that anyone who advocates that a sin is not a sin should not be trusted. As often happens with me, I thought the point was obvious, but I failed to realise it is not as obvious to many as I think. So, to clarify, The very concept of Protestantism that each man can interpret the Bible as he wishes, is a pernicious sin of pride. Even the sola scriptura retards must know that man is perfectly honest, clean and good as well as smart and reasonable. It very clearly states this in Hebrews and elsewhere if memory serves.

    Secondly, it is just as obvious that a good and loving God would not leave a DYI kit for interpreting His Will and what the rules He wishes us to follow are. Because given the fact we are all a bunch of retards to one degree or other, we are guaranteed to screw it up. And the idea a flawless and loving God would leave us a flawed theology is equally retarded.

    Therefore, a FLAWLESS theology MUST exist. And there must be a way to know which it is. As it happens, there is. Jesus Appointed Peter as the Head of His Church, instructed the Apostles to teach His teachings and Paul tells us also that we are to reject things that are not as per their teachings as given to them by Jesus (that is, Apostolic succession, is a thing).

    All of which would still screw up if it were not for the fact that Jesus also told us He would be with us to the end of time. Now, if Jesus is with us always to the end, and He commanded the Apostles to teach what He taught them, then their teachings cannot be in error. Not because even the Apostles are flawless, but because Jesus is.

    That is the whole point of Papal infallibility. It’s not due to some superhuman characteristic of Popes. There have been plenty of greedy, power-hungry, deviants as Popes, but they did not teach erroneous dogma when speaking ex-cathedra because of the supernatural protection due to Jesus’ promise. Who can speak erroneous or wrong doctrine? People who are not protected by Jesus’ promise and who is that? People who are not the foundation on which the rock is based, which has two parts. The non visible supreme one, Jesus, and his vicar on Earth, which is the man holding the position that Peter held as leader of the Apostles.

    18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

    19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

    Priests can lie or be wrong. Bishops can lie or be wrong. Popes can lie or be wrong. But valid, legitimate Popes talking officially for the entire Church on matters of faith and morals, that is the foundational principles of Christianity, cannot be wrong. Again, not because they are infallible in and of themselves, but because Jesus specifically said he was specifically with them to the End of the World. And Jesus cannot be wrong, nor is he a liar. And what He taught the apostles is true and He also specifically stated he would build the Church on Peter,, renaming him from Simon to Peter, which in Latin, Aramaic and most Latin languages literally means Rock.

    Regardless of whatever brain-twisting Protestants come up with to try and say Jesus didn’t mean or say what he meant and said, even a child can understand that if someone says, to a guy called Simon:

    “Hey buddy, come here, gonna run a little test by you…”

    And he does, and Simon passes, and the guy says:

    “You know what buddy, I’m gonna call you Rock from now on, and on this rock, I will build my church.” It’s a fairly clear point that Good old Simon/Rock, is now the head of the Church. Seriously, a child gets it. You need to be indoctrinated into lies from birth not to see this as it is.

    So, the first lie is to tell people that to not be Catholic is not a sin. It is. You’re ignoring God’s Will. And the entire retinue of sins that follows from anyone following that advice is literally endless. And frankly, it ALL stems from pride to begin with. Some German fattie with a penchant for sexing up nuns and raping maids and swearing and calling reason literally “the whore of the devil”, comes along some 1500 years after Christ and the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY valid Christianity to that point and he FIXES everything? It’s moronic. Jesus didn’t say:

    “Oh, by the way, all the people for the next 1500 years or so that call themselves Christians, and all the Popes which everyone agrees for that long are the main dudes, yeah, well, forget about all of them, they are all wrong and Pagan worshippers that ask my mother and a bunch of dead guys of no importance whatsoever to put in a good word for them with me. Anyway, all those guys? Going straight to Hell. Only when that rotund German with the beer and all the sex comes along will AKCHUAL Christianity be fixed. And he will do it by changing the Bible before he says it’s the only thing you should refer to at all. But only the one he changed, not the one everyone used for 1200 or so years and that was put together by the same Catholics who got it all wrong. And oh that Bible that the German guy changed, which was also changed by the Pahrisees, you know, the guys who had me killed, for 700 years before him, that’s the good Bible, scrap that other one. And oh, oh, one more thing: The best Bible, it’s the one with 33,000 translation errors ordered to be put together by a flamingly homosexual English King. Jimmy boy, that’s his name. He also starts up the Freemasons, which are Satanists, but don’t let that bug ya, seriously, his version of the Bible is the best one.”

    So… yeah. I hope it’s kinda obvious now.

      You might be interested in the following posts:

      1. Milo Knows.
      2. The Rabbit Hole of Symbolism for the Satanists in the Vatican
      3. A Clarification on Lent
      4. The Kurganing of Tim Urban

      By G | 11 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary

      The Subtlety of the Demonic within Protestantism

      Oh I know, protties will ass-u-me that this is just yet another rant against their facile and absurd version of Christianity. But no, it is actually something quite subtle yet very important.

      It has taken me about the last two years to really begin to observe the clarity with which the protestantism zeitgeist affects really not just protestants specifically, but in fact, pretty much all of the English-speaking world. Regardless of your religious beliefs, I think if you take the time to read this, and then make some observations, there is a real benefit you might gain from it. Even if you remain a protestant (tragically misguided as that position would be).

      In a succinct three sentences, the problem is this:

      Protestantism mechanises human beings, and is designed to do so by its ultimate “creator”, reducing the humanity between people and subjugating the individual to ever growing rules, as if he were simply a cog in a machine.

      Catholicism (the real one, not the Novus Ordo version, which is just a Satanic perversion of Christianity) on the other hand is religion best suited for human beings, it ennobles, elevates, and improves the condition of the individual at the individual level, and thus of the family, and thus of society at large. Never losing sight that the individual is the key and his or her individuality is a gift and joy when expressed within the protective confines of Catholic dogma.

      This assertion, which might at first seem mere opinion, can be verified by you in a number of ways. Most of these are what I would call large scale statistical studies/observations and as such, while individual counter-examples can be found aplenty, they do not in any way invalidate the overall thesis. Here are some of the easiest and most profitable areas you may wish to investigate for yourself:

      Marriage – Divorce and Abortion – Family unit Cohesion – Children

      While the Novus Ordo Satanic cult has damaged this institution a lot in the intervening nearly 70 years, even today, divorce, even in nominally “Catholic” families is viewed as a great failure and although the stain of scandal is much reduced, there is still a hint of it. This, of course, stems from the concept that marriage should be for life. A stance that the Catholic Church always had, and even the present day Satanic impersonators find difficult to reverse, though they give out annulments like confetti as of late. In fact, until the early 1900s, even amongst protestants, divorce was still quite the stain. It all changed with the introduction of contraception in pill format, invented by a Jew, and readily taken up by Protestantism. Although condoms had existed for a long time, their use was banned by Catholicism, since, as per Catholic dogma, the PRIMARY purpose of marriage, is to raise a family, which means children, which means divorce is out because you should be adult and possessed of reason enough to know this BEFORE you even enter into any kind of sexual liaison with the proposed wife/husband. Meaning you will make your choice based on their suitability for that as your PRIMARY point, and your compatibility in terms of sex, lustful attraction, and so on, only as a distant second, if not third or fourth. The reason being obvious, in that two people actively working towards creating a harmonious environment for their children will both work towards finding a harmonious compatibility of a sexual nature, and, as my pre-Catholic experience tells me, almost any man and any woman can become sexually really quite compatible, when they both aim to do so, even if at first this might not seem the case. The honest wish to have children and raise them together makes it an easy thing to ensure both parties work hard at any apparent incompatibility or lack of symphony in their individual ways. So it all stems from the lack of contraception amongst Catholics, which is a far deeper and fundamental aspect of marriage than most people today, imbibed in the Protestant mindset, even begin to realise. Divorce is the result of placing the lust/attraction/ephemeral traits of the potential partner ahead of the fundamental/primary/lifelong attributes. If your focus is on the ephemerals, these will inevitably change and degrade over time. The fundamental aspects, are far more resilient and knowing this consciously helps you make better choices from the very start. The extreme of this attitude of focusing on the ephemeral instead of the fundamental is, of course, the total inversion of the very essence of marriage, where children are seen as an inconvenience to the extent that we then murder them in the womb. Tearing them literally apart, limb from limb so as to not get in the way of our buying a new iPhone and having sex with whoever we fancy, without any wish to even have a long conversation with them, much less spend a lifetime together. Catholicism has this aspect correct, and protestantism has it completely wrong and inverted. As a result protestant society is no longer family oriented and what children result from the bonobo-like couplings of humans are often urban-feral examples of disrespect, savagery, complete lack of moral character or discipline, and the denizens of broken homes. You can see this in broad terms by simply observing the generic or “average” behaviour of teens in Anglo-Saxon/teutonic countries (which are overwhelmingly protestant) and comparing them to nominally and presently really ex-Catholic countries, like Spain, Portugal, Italy and to a lesser and modified, but still valid extent, South American also ex-Catholic countries. The family unit in such cultures still matters, and children will tend to get corrected sharply and quickly if they behave in unacceptable fashions (much less so now than say 50 years ago, but it still is a much improved situation when compared to the protestant countries).

      Anglo-Saxon or (God forbid, American “law”) Vs. Roman law

      The British legal system is fundamentally flawed in that it tries to mechanise and compartmentalise human behaviour in a number of pigeon-holes. You kill a person you get punishment X to Z depending on prior case law (that is, whatever happened in the past to some other guy in supposedly similar circumstances will fit here too, regardless of square pegs and round holes). And quite often, even just punishment X regardless, and not even the option of Y or Z.

      The American legal system is actually a complete perversion of any hint of justice and merely a façade to keep the average plebeian and brainwashed American mostly quiet, into thinking they have an actual functioning system of law and order, when in truth, all they have is a system designed to keep the oligarchy well and truly above the rest of their society, while they do whatever they please at the expense of the little people.

      Roman law, instead is a perfectly humane and human-based legal system, where a general principle applies, but the details to each case are looked at in the specific. So, yes, murder is generally always wrong, but the pre-meditated murder of a little old lady to steal her pension, is quite different from the premeditated murder of a child rapist. And while the Anglo-Saxon system pretends to adhere to this with various degrees of penalties for various degrees of murder, in reality, the practical aspects are that very often people are forced to make a guilty plea in order to avoid prescribed sentences. The Roman system of law, which is rapidly being ousted by the ever-encroaching Americanism spreading like a plague over the planet, is fundamentally different in that it is dependent on human aspects of life that we are all both familiar and subject too. In Italy, still today, construction contracts are only a few pages long, because the so-called spirit of the law, applies and is self-evident to any honest person. By contrast, in UK law, —which remember has a principle of “the reasonable man”— a similar contract, for a similar job, would be at least a couple hundred pages. In America, it is usually a few hundred pages and also references a bunch of other documents which can run to several thousand pages. As in for example, the Federal rules for Acquisition Regulations. Which is a stack of Satanic nonsense compiled into several volumes that sits well above a metre high if you pile them on top of each other.

      Work Ethic and Social Dynamics

      The protestant work ethic is often touted as a superior thing above those shiftless Catholics. And I myself, having lived mostly in protestant countries and working as a freelancer all of my life, have also, always appreciated the aspect of the “mechanisation” of work-related routines. The interchangeability of personnel, also meant that as long as I outperformed my colleagues, I would always have a job, since I had an almost endless supply of firms that would be only too eager to slot me in, cog-like, in their machinery. And outperforming my colleagues was not hard to do if your slight autism lets you play “by the book” while your Venetian genetics uses all the instinctual genetic humanity involved to produce results the poor binary thinking protestants can’t even imagine, never mind implement. By contrast, working with my countrymen was exasperating, they would almost never respect deadlines and at times even used strong-arm and duplicitous tactics to stay in the game. As in “Eh… you are already neck deep with us, if you try to get rid of us and change supplier you will lose out even more, so… suck it up and wait/pay.” To which my general response was to play along while I set up an alternative, then I would dump the offenders with a claim on them to boot. I had zero interest in wasting my time talking with them about their (or my) dog, children, whatever, that had zero impact on the job. I never particularly enjoyed my job or work, and I tried to avoid the rat race as much as I could, but when I do enter it, I give it my best to perform my job well. My attitude is pretty much samurai/soldier when it comes to work. It may be a necessary evil, but that doesn’t mean I should be half-assed about it. I perform well for whoever hires me, and have always done so, even when the specific people that hired me, or even the company as a whole may have been populated by complete assholes. When/if their evil/retardation/dishonesty/harm-causing behaviour crossed a certain point I simply left. And in a few cases, took corrective action to the point they would fire me. I have never been fired by “surprise”, I always knew it was coming and why, and it was usually because I put them in a position where they either corrected their ways (which, paradoxically would also improve their profit margins) or got rid of me for being a “meddlesome interloper” as they would see it in their corrupt view, instead of an honesty and profit increasing asset, as I would see it, looking merely at the bottom line and not the egos of the people involved.

      All of that preamble to say that I too was under the mistaken idea that a Protestant work-ethic was superior. Well… after a couple of years in a decidedly non-protestant operating country, I have to re-evaluate that idea massively. So, here in note form, are the “positives” of the protestant work ethic:

      • Increase efficiency in the final result overall
      • Increased efficiency in production/delivery/timeline
      • Increased efficiency if there is illness/absenteeism
      • Reduced down time when critical people die/leave
      • Standardisation of systems and methods across the board
      • Standardisation even across industries
      • A supposed “positive” is work-life being very distinct from home-life
      • Due to the standardisation even average or sub-average people can “perform” “adequately”.

      Now, pretty much every one of those points turns into a negative for the Catholic work ethic. Less efficient, and so on. However, two of those points above are a “positive” in the Protestant world, but actually a negative in the Catholic world. So let’s consider what the positives of a Catholic work ethic are:

      • Personal relationship based results. Loyal customers and well-performing companies are generally given automatic preferential treatment.
      • Meritocracy based results. Those that perform well can rise to the top because the average is so generally poor on things like delivery timelines.
      • In general, attention to quality in bespoke items is second to none. Timelines are non-existent, but often quality is unmatched by Protestant systems until those systems are mechanised by sufficiently advanced technology; in some industries this wipes out the Catholic competition, but in others the Catholic version is unlikely to ever be replaced by mere AI and higher technology.
      • The absence of a neat separation between work and home life seems impractical and intrusive to Protestants, but, if your society is composed of Catholic-observant human beings, then there should be no huge separation. Which is why they take a siesta in the middle of the day and see their families for lunch. The human connection aspect is more important than the chase for profit margins. Seeing your children at lunch-time and taking a break is good for the family and the mental health of all involved. The customer is of course important, but always second-fiddle to my family and my good friends. As it should be. And of course, those good customers that become also friends, eh… you might work through the weekend or at 3 am to help them out. Because they are friends, not because of profit.
      • The relationships are generally more human-based. In general, if I do work with an Italian firm (after careful selection and experience with them) I am also happy having those guys over for lunch at my house or vice-versa. This has hardly ever been the case with the semi-automatons I worked with (even quite pleasantly) in the Anglo-Saxon world. While I am happy enough having Giovanni the client or sub-contractor over for lunch, the last fucking thing either me or John from the UK want, is to spend any more time in each other’s company after work. And that’s even if I like John and he likes me. John may be a great guy, and he may think the same of me, but John knows, that he will see me at the office, and he will keep well away from my front door. And I will extend the same basic courtesy to him. This is why Anglos will have “team-building” days. The Latins look at that and go, “What is this shit? Are you trying to force us to like each other? That’s not gonna work!” And it doesn’t. I never heard of a Latin firm doing “team-building” days. They do invite and spoil clients to lavish dinners or things like that, but even then, it is only in the last decade or so that this has become more common-place. And generally used to be more of a way to introduce themselves to a client. Hey we build blue widgets and you seem to like blue widgets, can we take you for a nice dinner and chill so you will later come visit our factory and see what you think?

      In short then, the protestant work ethic is a better machine. But do you want to spend half your life inside a machine? Or would you rather spend your life surrounded by all the messy inefficiency of humans, but also their beautiful and redeeming human aspects too? I for one was convinced the Protestant way was better. I am misanthropic by nature (and by virtue of my IQ I learned later in life, which makes me feel generally bored or exasperated by average humans for the most part) and have learnt since a young age that I can be fine in quite extended solitude. However, if you develop your charity, humanity, and grace, broadening your perspective of the average human (yes, ok, he may not grasp physics, or astronomy, or respect deadlines, or keep proper accounts, or, or, or… but… he is a great dad, a loyal husband, and will come help you with totally unrelated stuff at 2 am because he’s a good guy) then the Catholic perspective is INFINITELY better, because it allows you to interact with your fellow humans in a much more pleasant way even if you have very little in common with them, and that interaction is not the same as the plastic-world “Have a nice day!” of the USA. It may be a grumpy “Ah, what a shit day, fighting with the wife, screw it!” or it may be “Have a nice day!” but it is intrinsically more human and connected. So yeah, you may not get your work done in the timelines you wanted and if that is all you see, you will eventually move to a 15 minute city merely for the organised functions. Or you know, a prison. Things run on time there too. But if you are interested in the humanity of life, then, you will begin to enjoy the messy side of life, out here in the Catholic “jungle”.

      The Subtle Implications of Boxed-in/Binary Thinking

      This is the most subtle aspect, but —in my opinion— also the most important. Because Catholicism is true, and founded on God’s Will, it generates a certain “built-in” charity and grace when dealing with the rest of humanity, tempered by a steely resolve to do whatever is necessary to preserve our way of life, our loved ones, and innocents in general. There is a very wide and fluid range of human interactions, which have as wide a capacity for harmony even between very different personalities as possible. Which is not to say that there are not hard lines. There are. But, just as God finds extremely improbable, even miraculous ways to turn even evil to an ultimate good, so too, the average Catholic has a much wider supply of responses to life and other people, all while inhabiting the very clear lines of Catholic dogma. The protestant, not having a culture or tradition, or habit of being imbibed in humanity and its myriad idiosyncrasies, nor viewing them through a theological lens that is also in keeping with both God’s mercy and charity as well as God’s Justice, is far more limited in his response to both situations and people. Things tend to fall into a good or bad category. Permissible or forbidden. Much like the Anglo legal systems, these approaches to life, events, and especially other people, including your children, is very sub-optimal, and over time leads to quite serious perversions of reality and life. Particularly for the raising of children.

      My wife at times got upset with me for treating each of our children differently when faced with situations that are apparently, superficially, the same. It took some time for her to begin to appreciate what I explained, that each child is unique, and their internal motivations, drives, and responses are unique and different from each other. It has absolutely nothing to do with any child being more or less like me, or me caring more or less about any one of them over another. I would take a bullet for any of them without hesitation in exactly the same fashion. The point is that you need to adjust the lesson to the individual (again, Roman Law over Anglo “law”).

      Having had the benefit of doing and teaching martial arts for some decades, it became very clear that everyone improved faster when the lesson was general for everyone, but the corrections or suggestions were unique to every person in the class. how much more important this is with your own children!

      But to a Protestant, this can seem unfair, unbalanced, or being biased or preferential of one person, or group of people, over another. It certainly can appear that way, and be experienced that way by the subject of the treatment, but it is in fact, nothing of the sort. It is the best approximation of actual Justice, since one tries to adapt the situation to the details of the individual or group involved. Anyone that has ever been in serious martial arts, or life and death situations on a regular basis as a pert of their routine, will understand this. Farmers will understand this too. Basically anyone that has to deal with reality in ways that give a serious consequence if you don’t deal with reality but rather your own erroneous perception or idea of it.

      This “simplification” of perception, is a real issue and a real problem in the Protestant dominated Zeitgeist (which is pretty much almost completely global by now). And it applies at every level of life, be it the interpretation of natural phenomena (see Rupert Sheldrake’s excellent ideas on even things such as the speed of light on this and other topics), reality in general, theological concepts simplified to the absurd (sola scriptura, sola fides, once saved always saved, all completely unmitigated nonsense any normal child of ten sees for the completely illogical rubbish it is), and really, pretty much all human interactions. Everything from sex (instead of lovemaking) to friendship, becomes transactional and calculated, even if unconsciously, to an extent that damages and degrades the actual humanity between humans. And in fact has steadily done so for five centuries, and taken some nitrous oxide in the last fifty or so.

      Conclusions

      The afternoon siesta, the inability to use watches or stick to well-balanced “just-in time” delivery schedules, all pale in comparison to the benefits gained by stopping in the middle of your work-day because you saw Paolo and you grab a coffee together, as is, your ability to forgive Giorgio for having done the same thing and coming to pick up your car a day late.

      Just as I would rather die fighting to be left OUT of a 15 minute city, in the feral and untamed, wild and unpredictable “jungle” outside of it, so too, I have come to appreciate the humanity of my Catholic ancestors to a huge and fundamentally important degree. I hope you can benefit from these thoughts, and am very open to discussing these points with intellectually aware and honest interlocutors. So, feel free to let me know your views, while keeping in mind the rules.

        You might be interested in the following posts:

        1. Increasing pressure and the space of variations
        2. The Kurganing of Tim Urban
        3. Blog Traffic Targets
        4. Clown World Fatigue

        By G | 6 September 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Human Performance, Relationships, Social Commentary

        Who’s a Good Catholic Then?

        My friend Tony sent me a link to this article, which is a very decent and short, to the point, article on Catholicism today. He deals well with the whole Sedevacantist and not sedevacantist issue.

        In essence, and much more politely, it is not far from what I have been saying for years now.

        And in case you are not aware, in summary, my position is this:

        • ANY clergy of the Novus Orco are NOT Catholics, nor valid clergy at all, and not members of the Church. If ordained before 1958 (or 1964 if one wants to be extremely charitable) they are apostate heretics that have defected from the faith, as per canon 188.4 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917. If they were “ordained” after 1964 at the latest, then they are not validly ordained to begin with and in any case the charge of non-catholic, either because knowingly and intentionally heretic or never-was catholic/Freemason/Satanist, or heathen pretending to be Catholic through INEXCUSABLE ignorance. Which all results in all the same thing: They are ALL, without exception, to be treated as heretics. Should ANY ONE or more of them, confess, publicly, repent and accept the true Catholic position, then, as per Cum Ex Apostolato Officio, they should spend the rest of their days sequestered in a remote monastery in perpetual penance and with authority over precisely no one.
        • Any layman that subscribes to the Novus Ordo (Orco, I say, ORCO!) in abysmal ignorance and laziness of their own purported religion, is guilty of laziness and ignorance, but is not, in such cases, a heretic and in his or her genuine innocence, remains, in fact, by virtue of their actual ignorance, a member of the Catholic Church. HOWEVER, if you have read this far, that no longer applies to you. If you have heard of the controversy of Vatican II, of sedevacantists now being the only Catholics, and so on, it is incumbent upon you to research and satisfy yourself of what the truth is, and where the actual Catholic Church is. So, while ignorance might be “bliss”, wilful ignorance is not. At best, such people who refuse to educate themselves once the facts are presented before them, are definitely guilty of wilful ignorance, wilful laziness (sloth) and probably a good dose of pride. While these people might still be considered Catholics, they are in definite error and wilfully so, and should be shunned and shamed, as one would a perpetual fornicator, adulterer, habitual drunk, and so on.
        • Sedevacantists are the only genuine Catholic left.
        • Disagreements amongst sedevacantists are not “schisms” but merely personal opinions they may hold, of which some will be in error and some will be less so. Humans are always in some degree of error, as we Catholics know, so this is nothing new or a reason for trying to label the other as a “schismatic” or heretic. And generally, the lay-people of Novus Orco “Catholicism” are also merely ignorant and/or lazy, but can be considered Catholics, though in error. There, are however, among them, definite wolves in sheep’s clothing, so SOME of these lay people can in fact be heretics and/or (more likely) Freemason/Satanists intent on leading the masses astray. Case in Point, see the degenerate Milo. Or any of a bunch of Opus Dei funded grifters.

        In general terms, the article says the same sort of thing, except that I have two objections, a major and a minor one.

        My “major” objection, is one that I well understand can be used by enemies as pointing to my “arrogant self-determining authority” (it is no such thing. I can simply read and do logic, just like insisting that 2+2 is 4 is not arrogant, regardless of how many fools say it is 5) and by idiots to become protestant in their “interpretation” of canon law, (the 2+2 = purple brigade) so one must tread carefully when voicing it, but in essence, it is this:

        Whether a Pope is valid or not may not ALWAYS be absolutely and immediately obvious, but, logic, and God, demands that they eventually become so. Because Catholicism is the TRUTH and as such, sooner or later it reveals itself. And when it does, it does so unambiguously. Because the truth, like math, is not subject to opinion. And canon law is, like math, eternal and not subject to opinion, only error by those not adequately possessed of the faculties required to understand it, just as math is not subject to opinion, but only error in the same way.

        In this regard then, I object completely to the idea that is initially expressed along the lines of “well, if everyone goes along with it (Bergy the Oleous being Pope) you gotta as well”. I no more need do this than go along with 2+2 being recognised as being 5 by an overwhelming majority.

        Truth is not decided by a majority but by the laws of nature, reality, and God. End of.

        And a second objection: quoting this or that doctor of the Church is irrelevant in trying to make a definitive argument. It is really merely a distraction. At best it can just be supporting evidence to further elucidate the only thing that matters: dogmatic, canon law.

        In this regard then, while I understand, and appreciate the writer’s intent, and it is a very noble and good one, and I do not wish to detract from his fine points, well and succinctly explained, I must point out that, if one is careful, observant, and follows the rules of Roman Law (which are essentially reason and logic turned to the human condition) there is no ambiguity as to whom is or is not a valid Pope, and, as I have detailed in my works, from 28th October 1958, that is, from Roncalli on, we have not had a valid Pope to date.

          You might be interested in the following posts:

          1. The Kurganing of Tim Urban

          By G | 4 September 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

          Why Catholicism – Practical Considerations

          Vox has made several posts ovr the years, and more recently, concerning how the malaise of this world is now, more obviously than ever before in our lifetimes, due to spiritual evil, which determines material evil, which in turns determines the practical and day-to-day evil we confront in various degrees and levels of intensity.

          His last point on this was particularly interesting as it captured in one image, exactly how this system works, as well as the reality that it is a most ancient knowledge, that people from all cultures across the Earth, from different times and geographical locations, all understood in one way or another. I re-present the image he put up at his blog here, though I encourage you to read the whole thing there.

          For the purposes of this post, it is assumed that the reader not only accepts, but also understands that this is in fact the reality of the situation. If you do, you may want to skip directly to the heading OK, but Why Catholicism? further below. Although I suspect the writing between here and there is probably useful for most readers.

          If you still think that the Universe happened by chance, that spiritual entities of great power of both good and evil, do not exist, that there is no God, and so on, then this post is probably beyond your ability to draw anything good from it.

          If, however, you accept that this is generally the situation, then as any reasonable person would think, it makes sense for you to know how to best protect yourself from this situation, as well as how to counter it. Depending on your psychological, spiritual, and even material situation, you may also lean more towards one or the other of these two aspects. Most people,, will lean heavily towards the finding the way to be protected or shielded from the worst of the evil that is directed at humanity in general and each one of us in particular. Only a few will lean more towards the replying in kind, and causing damage to the ranks of the spiritual enemies, yes, the material and Earthly ones, but even more importantly, their masters behind them, which means, ultimately, attacking the spiritual entities that are the real originators of the evil that men do.

          Given the above premises, summarised here below:

          • That we exist in a Universe where, spiritual evil is the originator of material evil, as per the diagram above.
          • A loving and just God, who, because the love is real, allows free will, necessarily has to permit evil to exist, yet, being loving, also allow for two very important points to exist as well:
            • A way to achieve ultimate salvation from this evil even if we might not escape it here in the material world, and
            • Restitution/Justice for the evil we suffer AND the evil we do ourselves.
          • Which necessarily must mean that while the Restitution/Justice can take many, many forms, both here in the material, as well as in the afterlife, or in the presently spiritual world, the route to salvation should be available to all who choose to take it and everyone should have the opportunity and/or ability to find/seek/take this salavation.
          • Understanding the above, we then can realise that the option of sitting on the sidelines, was never a real option, and in the present day, the fact that ultimately we only have a choice to either side with the evil or with the good has become far more obvious.

          Now, aside form tall the fedora wearers, there are huge majority of people who would describe themselves as some kind of believer, that will still take great exception to the above summarised model of reality. It is a little tedious, but in the interest of wanting to do my best to bridge the IQ gap, I will list here below a few of the obvious “objections” such people may have and give a brief explanation of why that objection is nonsense. These are bullet-point style levels of data, (to try and keep this post under novella size), so if you have a particularly strong objection to some of these, I encourage you to begin your research using my shorthand notes as your starting point, and dig there, instead of to try and support your erroneous a priori “conclusion”.

          The Objections

          1. If God were really Good and Loving…Shhh. Free Will. Learn the consequences of it and learn why it is an absolute axiom of a Loving God. As is Justice. For True Love cannot exist without free will and justice. I explained this in BELIEVE! in more detail.

          2. Not EVERYONE has knowledge of your legalistic explanation for Salvation! True, but everyone has the possibility of Salvation, by those very same “legalistic” (aka true and so absolute) rules. Yes they do. In one of several ways:

          • Direct access to the Gospels, The Bible, Catholic Tradition and Dogma, studied, researched and acted upon.
          • Indirect access to it, which leads to direct access to it through actual study, seeking of the origin, truth and reality of the situation
          • God’s Mercy for Invincible Ignorance.
          • God’s Mercy by simply observing the natural world objectively and as it is and as a result following one’s pure and good conscience (this is admittedly a very hard route given we are all born with sin).
          • God’s Mercy allowing any one of us to be eventually saved by purification in Purgatory to remove any/all stains from our souls before entering the Beatific Vision in His Presence.
          • God’s Mercy ensuring that no one is condemned other than by their own free will choice of which path they choose.

          3. What about all the people that died BEFORE Jesus. He literally went down to Hell and saved the ones that deserved it from it (hence also yet another clear evidence of Purgatory being a thing, as if the relevant Bible verses were not enough).

          4. But… The Catholic Church is a hive of pedophiles, liars and con-men. No. The Impostor Church PRETENDING to be the Catholic Church is, and worse than that too. The only Catholics left are Sedevacantist Catholics. As explained very briefly in BELIEVE! and rather thoroughly in Reclaiming the Catholic Church.

          5. But… If Catholicism was the Way, it would not have been infiltrated and reduced in glory to a mere remnant! Really? Do you read your Bible at all? This is PRECISELY what we have been told will happen. Are you honestly unaware that the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions, AND is wide, and well-travelled? But the road to Salvation is hard and narrow? Why do you think we are told that, yet you think you’re perfectly fine skipping along on a road followed by the great masses of “christians” that are in reality just Churchians, and are merely paying lip service to their “christianity”? And do so in whatever really sincere format they prefer, that gives them the most internal sense that yeah, I’m one of the good guys. But in reality, if faced with a gun to their head and the option of dying so as not to denounce Jesus as Lord would fold, there and then?

          6. You’re just a zealot trying to brainwash people to your cult! I honestly am doing what I can to present the truth before you so you will hopefully see it and choose well. I do this because it is my duty as a Catholic. Personally, if God allowed me to be exempt from this and I could simply sit in my little life, write my books, (on plenty of other topics that interest me) play with my kids and enjoy my days with my wife, I’d be perfectly happy to never utter a word about Catholicism again. The fact is though, that THE TRUTH, yes all in caps, is the most important thing for people to know. And that cannot avoid Catholicism. It is true that Catholics (and non Catholics too) have become very good friends and have and continue to help me in many small and large ways. But, firstly, I always had such friends in my life, and secondly, I believe I give back to others as much as has been given to me, and if I can, more. In any case, I try to ensure whatever exchange happens is based on genuine friendship. I have absolutely no wish to lead a bunch of people, however, I know from past experience that at times such duties are thrust upon people like me. And if I need to lead an army of Catholic Zealots, well… so be it. My personal “profit” from such a venture, if it ever comes to it, will never be anything that I would trade my personal free time and freedom for, if I had any decent alternatives to avoid it. But… if you believe in truth, if it means something to you beyond your own personal happiness, freedom, or comfort, then, you cannot help but take up that mantle sometimes. And personally, I would really rather it is someone else, but since so far, all the supposed “Catholics” turn out to be grifters like Emo Jones, Milo, Tay-Tay Marshall, Michelle Voris and so on, I guess I have to keep telling you the truth. And if you think I am trying to create a cult of personality as a result of The Kurganate, well, you go on believing whatever you want sunshine, and feel free to depart from me and my writings.

          7. Any Other Objections. Feel free to put them in a comment, but read the rules of commenting here first so as not to get spammed forever if you violate them.

          OK, but why Catholicism?

          Even if the objections have been answered and even if you are intellectually grasping the point, I understand that there is an emotional, instinctive component that can (and usually does) hold one back from saying something as absolutist as: “Yeah, ok, I get it! Catholicism it is. Baptism, here I come, and Holy Mass with Sede Priests only and no divorce, ever, np contraception, and make as many children as possible and let God take care of all my problems!”

          Especially given that you have marinated literally ALL your life in a world of lies and fake religion from literally birth.

          The path to truth has been so over-filled with lies, false prophets, nonsense, scams, con-men of every stripe and each has and does take a toll on you, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually and physically.

          People have given away their time, resources and opportunities to false people, false beliefs, false idols if you prefer. So why and how, should this “Catholicism”, which is supposedly being represented by an obvious pedophile protector in the form of a fake Pope, who literally has performed demon-worshipping rituals in the Vatican (Pachamama) be the One True Way?

          Well, the answer, is surprisingly simple… sort of. I mean, you would have to know quite a lot of history and how things actually were and what actually happened. Which is best done by referring to first-hand accounts of things written not necessarily by the big players of the time, but the mere chroniclers of events, be they simple peasants, or soldiers.

          If you do this, with respect to christianity, it becomes relatively obvious, and relatively quickly (a year’s worth of study in such matters generally suffices) that several rather astonishing points are true, despite being absolutely counter-intuitive and counter-to all you have been taught. Here, in summary note form they are. And I encourage you to look every one of them up.

          • 11 scared men and 4 women went from being terrified of being crucified for their having followed Jesus, to 10 of them at least being martyred in His name.
          • Even more astonishingly, they went on to create the start of the largest and longest lasting, continuous Human organisation (call it empire, call it, religion, call it what you will) that has ever existed on this Planet. The Catholic Church has existed, Popes and all (including absence of valid Popes too) for literally almost two millennia.
          • From a tiny flame in the Middle East, the very centre of this religion became the world’s then most powerful city which was a persecutor and absolute enemy of it. Rome. The Navel of the World.
          • Despite gnostics, impostors, heretics, occultists, of all kinds, the church managed to survive and re-emerge from its supposed “ashes” (supposed because it was never fully vanquished) to become only stronger after every attack. Our present day times might be compared to the Arian heresy, which saw almost every single Bishop buying into it, only to have that monstrous lie, fully reversed, against all odds. This situation, of the Church prevailing under the most unlikely situations recurs many, many, many, times throughout history.
          • In practical terms, the incredible achievements made by the crusaders, when fighting in ratios of being outnumbered in over 100:1, are also a reflection of this.
          • Catholicism was literally responsible for incredible advancements in both social and scientific terms, to name merely a few points:
            • The use/invention of the Scientific Method.
            • The raising of the value of women and children from essentially property to cherished mothers and wives, and the progeny of the future.
            • The principles of meekness (controlling one’s power in mercy and charity until it is sinful to avoid action as required, in which case, however forceful a response as is required is acceptable).
            • The essential eventual abolition of slavery.
            • The principle of Justice, fairness in all things and the equality under the law of all men.
            • The recognition that ordered and safe societies require a hierarchical structure.
            • The abolition of divorce and contraception, thus returning sexual relations between men and women to the natural order of procreation being the primary objective, avoiding all manner of perversion and degeneracy that flows from sterile coupling for mere entertainment and pure hedonistic pleasure, as such trends degrade society as a whole as is now abundunatly obvious to anyone not in full immersion and the clutches of such behaviour.
            • The greatest advancement in beauty in architecture, painting, sculpting, and the arts in general that the human race has ever seen. A level of mastery of artistic expression to elevate and inspire the human need for beauty and spiritual enlightenment that has yet to be duplicated.
            • A level of belief in mercy, forgiveness, truth, sacrifice and family that created the greatest civilisation/s on Earth. The Western world was literally created by Catholicism in its multiple and myriad ways. A man would be ostracised if not beaten within an inch of his life for blasphemy. Ferocious warriors tempered their undeniable ability in war by bending their knee in service to God and the principles of mercy, compassion, honour, courage, beauty and peace.

          In short, Catholicism, has not only stood the test of time, but if you merely scratch the surface of reality, you will see it has undeniably created the best ways of living on Earth that this planet has ever seen. that literally no other religion, no matter how “christian” they profess to be, has come even remotely close, be it the “Orthodox” with their insular ways, or the Protestants with their hydra-like spouting 40,000 heads and TV evangelists.

          If you can grasp a real sense of history, if you take the time to look at it, from a bird’s eye view, you cannot escape the very simple reality that:

          In a world under the dominion of the Prince of Evil Spirits, the only religion that has created a flourishing human happiness, complete with safe villages, happy wives and happy children —cared for by modest men who nevertheless were absolutely capable and willing of being warriors as and when required, without hesitation— has been Catholicism.

          In short, it is literally the one tried and true method, that has stood the test of time, when considering how to fight against evil, be it material or spiritual.

          As a consequence, it is the reason that I myself became a Catholic, and the reason why I push it as hard as I can to anyone that will listen, without trying to force it down anyone’s throat. You can read my views here. You can buy my books if you want to. And if you come to my home, and you ask me or you want to, we will and can talk about all this stuff and Catholicism in particular, in as excruciating a detail as you want, as long as your baseline level of understanding at least approaches the minimum requirement, and that is, I admit, a shifting line, because while I was fine arguing with retarded protestants who think Catholics “worship Mary” or “banned the Bible” or a hundred other outright lies about Catholicism, and willing to do so to the tune of 800 comment long threads, that ship has sailed. You should at the very least be if not conversant, at least curious about the baseline principles of Catholicism versus the other fake “Christianities” on some level. But in any case, short of you asking me, even if you are sitting at my dining room table, I am not going to force my Catholicism upon you. By the same token, I will also not keep quiet if you begin to speak some utter nonsense. Be it the flat Earth, or how trans women are “real” women, or how the Sun really rises in the West.

          But why do I assume that the details, that the rules, that the rituals of Catholicism are so important? Simple. Because they are. Because they literally ARE what created the Western World in all its good aspects. And the things of it that are its worst aspects are all, without exception, running COUNTER to Catholicism.

          That’s pretty strong evidence.

          It’s also the major failing of the strategist, be it in war or in economics, or really any human endeavour dealing with large-scale human behaviours.

          The strategist dismisses to some degree or other, the importance of tactics and the small-team or even individual actions that can, and do, have a butterfly effect. While many of these are absolutely unpredictable, the most successful endeavours are those where the strategist is very much aware of the importance of the tactics.

          Large scale, bird’s eye view of things tend to imagine that humans will act somewhat rationally, or at least somewhat selfishly, and thus be “manageable”. It is an almost total lie. The human monkeys are about as rational as a macaque on crack. And the evil ones understand this to a very high degree, that the “good guys” seem mostly oblivious to.

          Why do you think the whole covid farce, and the upcoming climate change farce, and all the other farces went so well for the evil puppets being puppeteer by their spiritual leaders? Because they lay the groundwork tactically. They spent decades brainwashing you into a mental sludge of laziness, comfort and crappy food. They spent decades making you afraid of your own shadow. And they co-ordinated patently and trained the foot soldiers in academia, in churches, in government offices. they trained and trained and trained them relentlessly to be the cogs that operate exactly in this and that way in the machine. And they kept adjusting and correcting so as to make the natural human impulse for freedom die a small death every day in a million ways. And only after 70 or 80 years of this absolutely intentional, absolutely precise training, dedication and effort to the Satanic ideas, did they launch their main assault. And Covid was just the first of them. Next they will squeeze and squeeze and squeeze, until the resistance is crushed, demoralised and poor. And only then they will launch another crisis. And that crisis may even take the mask of a “salvation” of sorts. Why, of course we will give every one of you your own, free universal income. Sure it’s not enough to actually make you survive in any kind of dignity, but it’s a big help! Right? And it’s free! here, take it. And then they will gradually shrink away the other options even more and restrict what you can and can’t do with that “free” income once you are hooked on it. Just like a pimp and drug dealer.

          And what reserve of mental, emotional, and spiritual strength, do you have left in you?

          Especially as a secular humanist that doesn’t believe in a True, Good, Loving and Just God? Because your own pain surely hampers your ability to even imagine such a God. The dystopian reality you are in prevents you from even considering such a God. And that is exactly the plan. Once you have zero ability, willingness or interest in even looking for the Catholic God, that is, the true one, then they have won. And they don’t mind at all if you believe in a fake one. In a rainbow painted one that says pedophelia is just another sexual orientation. Or any number of false “gods”.

          What chance does a secular man have of resisting the current onslaught? I would say close to none. I think of myself before becoming Catholic and how would I face the current world, and while I would never have bent to it, it most likely would have broken me. And I never felt that level of pressure even at my worst times. It would have broken me because without God, the entire thing really is absolutely insane. Without God, and only a materialistic view of things, nothing, not greed, not money, nor earthly power, can explain what has and what is and what will be happening.

          It is literally the experience of living in a mental asylum with literal mass murderers running the show and no way out at all. Nor does it explain at all why things are this way or why they would be. There is literally no reasoned explanation that makes any kind of sense.

          And that leads one to actual insanity. Both in terms of how the world is, and ultimately, how you will become, because no sane person can exist in a mental asylum with no way out and also not eventually lose their mind or kill themselves to escape it.

          And that… again… is precisely the plan they have for you.

          IF, on the other hand, you consider the Catholic God, and The Catholic Church, the real one, that is, the sedevacantist one, as it is the only Catholicism left, and you study it, you begin to notice three or four things, of absolutely extreme importance:

          • The evil of the world and its madness suddenly makes sense. Everything fits and you now understand why things are as they are, and why the seeming insanity is actually very well-reasoned out behaviours. They seem illogical because they are so evil, and ultimately, yes, illogical too, because choosing evil over good in a Universe owned by a Loving God, is going to be a losing proposition anyway. But aside from that fundamental error, the in-between state, between the current day and judgement day, makes sense from the evil beings’ perspective.
          • Because it makes so much more sense it doesn’t hurt or touch you nearly as much. An evil understood is an evil you can largely prevent or at least prepare against.
          • Inspiration and hope arise. Even if you are broken, single and lost, if you become aware of the true existence of God, and commit to it, properly, in the true seeking of Him, then miracles will eventually begin to happen in your life. I know because they did in mine and in everyone who has truly committed that way.
          • Purpose arises. Whether it is to bring the church back to its former glory, whether it is to get married and start a family, or whether it is to simply resist the evil and add to the good, you will find a new and better way to fill your days and hours, and months, and years. And over time, you will build foundations that are unshakable and your effect in the world will become a source of spreading light, love and goodness. And this seemingly small, inexorable change, will continue to grow and spread in ways you can’t even imagine and touch a much larger number of people than you can possibly imagine.

          None of these things arise or come to be with a “mere christianity” type of C.S. Lewis, British style, wishy-washy-ness. You need good, solid, Chestertonian hardcore Catholicism in your face like a shouting sergeant, followed by a sharp kick in your backside, a shot of espresso and a GLORIOUS MORNING that makes the expected 50 mile hike with full kit to rush the enemy a rare moment of living joy! And not because you’re some poor Ukrainian bastard hopped up on meth laced with moly, but because it’s real.

          If you think a generic, “non-denominational” (which really means without rules) “Christianity” will save the west, or even just you, you are sorely mistaken. You really need to think a little better and a little harder. You really think if a Loving God exists that He doesn’t have very clear and specific rules? And you think that that set of rules is the same one that applies even to demons, and only that (Jesus is King)? Come on. Wake up.

          And why do you think we would need rules? I mean… have you even looked at humanity? Have you seen what they get up to when there are no rules for them to follow and no one to enforce them? Because if you have not seen it yet, then you are not reading this; as obviously you live on a remote mountain, sealed off from all digital information and other human beings.

          Humans need rules. The question is only which rules are best. And we have 2000 years of history that tells us without any equivocation or doubt, that those who follow the actual rules of Catholicism (not the presented ones, not the ones impostors tell you are the rules, not the fake ones given by fake clergy or fake or ignorant laymen, but the actual ones, codified in the Pio-Benedictine Codes of Canon Law of 1917. Which are all based on Biblical and Catholic Tradition and dogma, and have remained unchanged from the beginning (The divine rules. The worldly rules can and do change as required to manage the church structure).

          So it’s up to you, ultimately, as Catholicism teaches, no one can or should ever be forced to convert. It must be chosen. But I would say that the evidence that Catholicism creates the best situations possible for human beings is overwhelming and lasting, and continues to be true today.

          So I hope you’ll join us.

          To counter the degeneracy of John Lennon’s imagine.

          Because, think: The Church was finally almost fully collapsed and thoroughly infiltrated by 28th October 1958, when the first of the current fake Popes sat on Peter’s throne.

          And by 1969, a mere decade and a few days later, the boomer generation had been released on the world with their “free love” faked Moon Landing, the Beatles, and a completely ego-driven belief that only they mattered and only they knew how to enjoy life and nothing else mattered. Degeneracy on every level began to pour out into people’s lives via television to a degree and on a level never before experienced. Ancient customs and traditions of honour, courage, and virtue were replaced by “new” actions of greed, deception, and narcissistic egoism. Do you really think it is a coincidence?

          If you have read this far, you have at least demonstrated the ability to read relatively long passages, which is a very positive thing. it means you have the baseline ability to at least educate yourself about history and the various topics I mention above. If you want to save yourself a lot of time, you may want to read some or even all of my books, which summarise the things I learned in each topic over a period of about 20 years per subject, roughly speaking (concurrently to some degree in all cases not sequentially). But it’s not a requirement. You can, and should, do your own research. I just happen to have travelled that road before and probably longer and deeper than most people ever would, so I wanted to share what I learnt. But you can certainly find your own way without nay more prompting from me than possibly this blog post.

          May God guide your path, friend. And may you become a Catholic soon. There are many more of us than you imagine, and more coming every day, we’ll be here when you decide to get stop swimming, lost, or hanging to the side of our ancient, damaged, but still and always viable ship, and instead decide to climb abroad, and join us in sailing over this sometimes dangerous and treacherous ocean, but always in the Glory of God and the Light of Truth.

            You might be interested in the following posts:

            1. The Kurganing of Tim Urban

            By G | 18 July 2023 | Posted in Agnostic Christianity, Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

            « Older Entries

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