Vox has made a post about the fact that American “Cheese” is basically either blocks of plastic (yes, it is, and you can literally set American cheese on fire like a sort of candle) or possibly something worse, that is created by Pfizer, and that other American food is filled with stuff that is literally labelled as GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) that literally no one has bothered to delve into.
Coincidentally, I have now bought a pretty huge chicken enclosure, and if I manage to set it up without killing myself or making a mess of it, the next project will be a greenhouse to grow some food that is not regularly sprayed on by the chemtrails they are releasing all over the planet now.
Finding a way to power all the electronics reliably may take a little longer, but that will be the next effort. and it’s all slow going because yes, I still need a tractor. And until I rob a bank or find hidden Nazi gold, that’s not happening for the moment.
One bit of good news is that soon I will be attempting a first small shipment of olive oil to the USA. Those that know of this plan from a month or three back, I will try to get back in touch with you IF I find your emails, and offer the very first few batches to you since you have been kind enough to try and support me even when I wasn’t not able to send the oil over as easily as I had originally thought.
With any luck this will be a new small avenue of income that I hope turns into a veritable flood once people realise the benefits of real unfiltered, Olive oil, which in my case, is literally, no hyperbole, the best olive oil in the world. It literally has won the global prize for the last 2 years in a row.
So… take heart my American friends, don’t eat the “cheese” and start planning to stock up on my completely natural, zero pesticides, cold pressed, unfiltered, unblended, pure, extra virgin, olive oil. Which, as it happens, is the very best thing you can ever find to reduce inflammation and generally just improve your health, even if you are a guy that spends 2 million dollars a year to try and live forever, like Bryan Johnson, who in fact, proved the point beyond any doubt.
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.”
…Sit and have a glass of wine while they discuss war, would be the ideal way.
I noted with interest Vox’s last, almost throw-away, comment on his post about my post about Clown World resembling the Paranoia RPG more than the Gamma World RPG.
He ended with:
I never read or played Paranoia, but based on the Kurgan’s description, it does appear that Clown World is headed squarely in that direction, with the exciting addition of a reality-defying demonic element.
As the owner of Uncle John’s Band blog noted about me on SG, I sometimes drive people crazy by noticing what he referred to as single data point patterns. What’s worse, of course, is that I then talk about the extrapolations I get from these and people end up assuming I am either some kind of Magician or seer, or a crazy fantasist that just assumes he’s smarter than everyone else. The truth is that for some people, the ability to do this, extrapolate and understand a whole pattern from what may be a single data point to others, appears perhaps closest to the effects given by the wonder-drug in the film Limitless.
This is not exactly a single data point since I have known about Vox’s tendency to be a strategist rather than a tactician since before 2016, when I had a conversation with him on the phone in some detail.
Anyway, I found his sentence fascinating because it highlights our different modes of operating in the world quite well I think.
So, let me explain, in that semi-autistic, over-detailed way.
Von Clausewitz, in his On War, described essentially four types of men, as relates to the art of war. I forget the other two types (because they were below my station, just as never spent too much time thinking about how many versions of Beta men there were below Alpha and Scout in my own SSH) and I also forget the names Clausewitz gives the top two, but in essence, the General-type is the Strategist and the Commander type is the Tactician.
In my opinion you cannot win a war (at least not well or easily) without both (and a bunch of subordinates and soldiers, of course). If you only have strategists it’s akin to America in Vietnam and Afghanistan. You may have the air superiority, and you may have the technology, and you may have the intelligence, but without knowledge of the details, and dedicated soldiers at the squad level, if the war carries on long enough, you will lose. Even if you “win” you will never really have the “hearts and minds” of the people you are occupying.
If you only have tacticians, you might win almost every small battle, but lose the war politically or logistically or morally.
It is true, that if you have a LOT of tacticians, you can win a war (see Vietnam and Afghanistan, as I said) but it will take years and a huge loss of life and limb.
If you have a good mix of strategists and tacticians, that trust each other and work well together, it becomes really hard to defeat you, even against numerically much superior foes. If you add in a touch of fanaticism, well, you become a real unstoppable force.
Vox’s comment interested me because he brought attention to a strategically very significant issue. He posted a few times about the possibility of AI and computers in general being a possible portal from which demonic spirits may interact more readily with the material world. A case in point is shown below:
Vox noticed this at a strategic level, considering it from that perspective, one might actually do something about it at that level, which might look like blessing specific machines by a valid (sedevacantist) priest prior to use. You could get a whole industry of demon-cleared AI and computers that could give humanity at least an equal footing with the demonic AIs. It is a strategists perspective and it would have a strategist’s solutions, which means, at a relatively bird’s eye view of things.
I have not been unaware of demonic influences, in fact, I am pretty constantly aware of them, but until this comment, I had not given any specific attention to AI or computer-interface with demonic spirits. In my mind, it was just “Eh… more demons. Get the Holy Water infused Flamethrower, keep calm and carry on.”
A Tactician that is good will overcome fantastic odds in battle and be surprising, inventive and hard to predict, while managing men he trusts and relies on who will follow him into the depths of Hell. But he may miss the big picture.
There are notable differences in temperament and moral limits too.
A strategist has the ability to make alliances and deals with people that a tactician might not even be able to force himself to be civil to in a neutral setting.
I know this is definitely the case with Vox and myself. I recall a conversation we had about Ethan Van Sciver and his behaviour regarding a comic book crowd-funding event and the behaviour Ethan had exhibited. I honestly forget the details as it wasn’t something that affected me directly, but I recall a sense of shock when Vox mentioned he may work with him in the future. The conversation went something like this:
Me: “…why? Why would you ever trust that guy again? Or work with him?!”
Vox: “Who said anything about trust? And why not? If he helps me achieve certain aims?”
Me: “…but… how?”
Vox: “Well, he would never be allowed to have any position where he could control anything, and he’s a good illustrator.”
Me: disapproving silence.
I understand the point, of course, and it makes strategic sense. But personally, the idea of having an unreliable vermin in my ranks, however cordoned off, would disturb my sleep.
In an actual war situation Vox would need to keep such allies far, far, far away from me, for I’d be more liable to slit their throat in darkness, just to be able to rest easy during the carpet bombardments of enemy artillery.
While I would be able to maintain a certain level of decorum at the victory parties after the end of the war, I would not be able to share a table with the allies that behaved in a cowardly fashion, abandoned my men in difficult actions, or chose to somehow put their personal needs before that of their men, even if overall, their contributions would have allowed us to win.
Ultimately the difference between a strategist and a tactician is one of numbers I think, which is why Clausewitz defines them in those terms, that is, the number of men they can direct well at any given time.
My preferred choice is one of course, me. But as I also recognise I have certain abilities, that number can be considerably higher, but always with a need for high trust amongst my men. It is more of a Russian style command structure I favour. The leader is the leader, no questions, but the specialist takes over when it’s his specialty that comes into effect.
Vox is more akin to a general in that he may give a vague aim point, then let the relevant person get on with it as they see fit.
If a strategist is wise enough to direct his tacticians in such a way that they do not overlap with persons, ideologies or obstacles that render them counter-productive, the advances that can be made are astonishing. If you also get some synergy going between the various tacticians, suddenly, the chaos of war begins to take on the form of an amazing, self-creating painting of high art.
And now, of course, I am wondering if I could interest a sede priest to consecrate a specific brand of crusader computers, running Temple OS, in order to fight the demonic hordes of pedophiles at the WEF forum and the Davos and Bilderberge meet-ups, not to mention all the Western Government officials.
You see? As a tactician, I immediately go to the weaponising of tools and practical concerns of sending demons directly back to Hell.
Now Vox just better set up that factory that will produce laptops running Temple OS made in Russia or China by making deals with shady, heavily accented, Russian programmers that chain-smoke unfiltered cigarettes, and fast-talking chinamen without religion.
Vox has posted something I can commiserate with very much, namely his attitude to the average human post covid.
one of the few benefits of being an elitist intellectual is that you assume the vast majority of the programmed quasi-minds that surround you will not only disagree with you, but are not even capable of understanding your position if it was explained to them very slowly and with small words.
But I was a little stunned to discover that I had somehow given the average individual too much benefit of the doubt. I did not see that coming. I’ve been told my entire life that I was too arrogant, too harsh, too dismissive of the intellectual capabilities of others, and yet, when push came to shove, it turned out that in the end, I had erred on the side of generosity! I truly did not see that coming.
I don’t see how it can be a good thing, but now I have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the opinions of others, unless and until they are observably proven worthy of consideration.
I have had exactly the same experience. While I have been often told I am an arrogant bastard, that I should have more compassion for my fellow man, and so on, as it turns out, I too had thoroughly erred on the side of generosity too. While I assumed the average human was a complete idiot, I had not realised at all, just how much more widespread the problem was. Even those people I thought merited some consideration, because they could grasp certain basic issues, as it turns out, in most cases, were no better than circus monkeys trained to do a trick for others’ entertainment, with no real grasp of the issue at all.
My reaction has been a little different, in that I generally did not have any consideration for the opinions of others to begin with. Although I did, for my own sanity, and at least entertainment, try to find something interesting, whenever possible, about said others. With many, it was merely enough to get me through a dinner or so without calling them retards to their face, but what can you do; noblesse oblige.
What I did note, probably by growing up mostly in deepest, darkest Africa, is that you can generally rely on genuinely low IQ people more, in many senses than you can in those supposedly educated and of at least nominal, or even “above average” intelligence. The genuine illiterate who imagines the operation of a car as some sort of magic, can generally be relied upon to be, if not always truthful, at least extremely predictable. It doesn’t make for good company, other than in the narrowest of senses, but it can be a relationship that has a certain level of respect and dignity. Admittedly it’s probably closer to having a smart pet you like than an equal with which you can discuss the finer points of philosophy, but there is no confusion as to the abilities and really stations in life in terms of those abilities. And having grown up a hunter, I certainly don’t begrudge such people their lives, any more than I do that of a wild lion or hyena, including if they were to maul me and eat me. Of course, one needs to take precautions and if required, blast a wild animal with a suitably powerful weapon so as to protect yourself and your loved ones. It’s true it’s a trickier thing when they have two legs and appear to be human, but the basic response is the same, you just have to be more careful.
The dangerous ones are the ones that fool you into thinking they may be your peer. Just like those “conservatives” that end up stabbing you in the back, when it counts. Or the vegan conscientious objector in your trench that throws all the bullets of everyone in the mud because “violence is not the answer”. Those guys need to be shot first and placed in front of the sandbags outside the trench to protect the sandbags from enemy fire.
The life of a really intelligent person, if often quite a lonely or at least loner-like existence. My own mother, in one of her rare times she even noticed anything, commented once when I was about 16 that although my own father fancied himself a loner, I was on another level, as I’d pass weeks of my vacation time simply reading books or doing things by myself. She asked if I didn’t get lonely. My reply was simply pragmatic.
“What choice do I have?” Was I to hang out with retards and that would somehow make my day better? It wouldn’t. As the old saying in Italian goes, “Better alone than badly accompanied.”
So, my reaction to discovering that even those I held out some hope for are, for the most part, just circus apes on this planet of the apes, has been a little different. I have noticed three things, that are relevant:
Those of similar intellect are few and far between and in general are on their own path and unlikely to veer from it.
Actual Catholics, Sedevacantists, are the most reliable human beings I have come across as a class, by far. It’s not even close.
Possibly because being Catholic means utterly believing in hierarchy, there is little friction when a team of Catholics is put together and the roles are clearly explained beforehand.
This has led me to the conclusion that for the rest of my days on this Satanic Domain, it makes absolute sense to begin the process of creating what I believe will be the only hope in the future for my children or my children’s children: City States.
It is questionable what level of success I will have, but in the long term, meaning after I am gone, most likely, the only people who may retain some semblance of actual freedom are those who:
Are able to defend their property, will, lives, property and so on.
Have the numbers to do 1.
Have the economy to do 1.
Have the means to do 1.
Have the conviction and an unchangeable set of rules to do 1.
Have the will, the faith, the indomitable spirit of being to do 1.
Have demonstrated this already by being Vaxx Free and having chosen to be Sedevacantists.
And as far as I can see, the only way that can happen is by creating a community of proper (Sedevacantist) Catholics.
To build it one man and one woman and one couple and many children at a time. To build a Church and get a proper priest on site, to have our children learn and train and practice and learn and grow together, to have our Catholic children grow up to marry the other Catholic children that they grew up with. To teach them above all to be, yes, as innocent as doves, but also to be as wise as serpents. And to be able protect from, and to strike back against, any enemies who try to infiltrate, weaken, destroy, or pervert those communities, in whatever way is required to secure those communities, those people, those values. To learn commerce and finance and all the subterfuge of the enemy and then to exclude them and their ways from our communities and exclude them forever.
Catholicism is the only religion that has succeeded at this for as long as it has. It is true that Shintoist Buddhism served to isolate Japan for a while, and perhaps Imperial China may have had their own ways, but you didn’t want to be a Chinese if you could help it. And while being Japanese would have been fine, they didn’t last nearly as long. And I don’t see a tradition of Zen-Samurai forming communities. It isn’t going to happen.
So yes. My reaction has been what some started calling The Kurganate, as a joke, and so we took on that name. And yes, it’s not a democracy. And everyone is free, yet everyone has their place too.
There may not be many people that use their brains well. There are some that are able to be faithful and loyal though, and that is a good thing.
I know several men are already preparing to move near me and actively saving, getting married, looking for property and building themselves up to do so. So it can happen and it will happen. I don’t know all the details of how fast, or how big, or any of that. But I know it will. Like with anything else, I just have to keep going. And I hope you will too.
Now, as you all know by now, if you read here at all, the nickname given to me by others: The Kurgan, applies not only because of my happy-go-lucky and sunny disposition, but also for my intolerance of heretics. We all know: There can only be One (True Church).
What started as some kind of internet bumfight between theological retards, Jimbob and Owen Benjamin, has grown, as an avalanche started by their simultaneous thundering fart, to include the questioning of the very nature of the Trinity by scores of autists across the web.
And prompted Vox Day to clarify his position, as he has often been (incorrectly) accused of denying the Trinity.
The resulting discussion from Vox’s post on SG actually had some interesting commentary (as well as also the “thoughts” of various drooling retards).
So… although the topic is of very little interest to me personally, since my position is pretty ironclad, I thought it might be interesting to others, or at least entertaining. And perhaps they might find some historical background, or some logical thinking related to it, or, ultimately, my personal position, useful.
In that vain hope then, allow me to quote The Creed as the (real, Sedevacantist) Catholic Church currently has it:
Credo
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem caeli et terra; et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus únicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus et sepúltus; descéndit ad inferos; tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis; ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis; inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos. Credo in Spíritum Sanctum, sanctum Ecclésiam cathólicam, sanctórum communionem, remissiónem peccatórum, carnis resurrectiónem, vitam aetérnam. Amen.
Which, translated into English for you heathens, heretics and schismatic is:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day he resurrected from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father; He will return to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting. Amen.
And that, of course, is the only Creed you need or should care about, since it is the one of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, which, I remind you, is infallible and will remain with us until the return of our Lord The Christ.
However… let me now take you through the various iterations and why this is so.
Beginning with Vox’s preferred credo, which he clarified is the one of the “Faith of the 150 Holy Fathers” also known as the Nicene Creed, of 325 AD, but which I believe he clarified (and I hope he corrects me if I got this wrong) meant the first version, as used by St. Cyril who was a catechist in 345 AD, and is also known as the Jerusalem Creed because this is where St. Cyril taught.
There are two forms of this. The first, a very abbreviated form used for the baptism of a new convert:
I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
And the second one, which was used when they made their vows of renunciation and faith before the whole congregation, in other words, when they were essentially confirmed as adult members of the Church.
It reads as follows:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father, very God, before all worlds, by whom all things were made, and was incarnate, and was made man, was crucified and was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and is coming in glory to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets, and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life eternal.
Given that the second one was the one recited formally by the baptised adult (or at least of age of reason), it is obvious that the first is a condensed version just identifying the most important points, and the second one is a more complete version. That in and of itself already makes it clear that a so-called “revision” of the Creed, is acceptable; because it is not a revision or corruption, but merely a more complete and detailed version of the first one. So in principle, the one used by the Catholic Church is perfectly fine.
But far be it from me to deprive you of the thrill of a larger internet bunfight about theology. In essence then, what, if any, is the difference between the Credo I subscribe to and the one Vox subscribes to?
I posit it is very little. Let’s see them side by side and concept by concept with some commentary by yours truly. Always keeping in mind, I am not a priest or Bishop, merely a layman that submits to the infallible magisterium of Holy, Catholic, Mother Church.
Jerusalem Creed
Catholic Church (Sedevacantist) Creed
Notes
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth;
1
and of all things visible and invisible.
2
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father,
and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord,
3
very God, before all worlds, by whom all things were made,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
4
and was incarnate, and was made man,
born of the Virgin Mary,
5
was crucified and was buried,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;
6
He descended into hell;
7
and rose again the third day,
on the third day he resurrected from the dead;
8
and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father,
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father;
9
and is coming in glory to judge the quick and the dead,
He will return to judge the living and the dead.
10
whose kingdom shall have no end.
11
And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets,
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
12
and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
13
and in one Holy Catholic Church,
the holy catholic Church,
14
the Communion of Saints,
15
the remission of sins,
16
and in the resurrection of the flesh,
the resurrection of the flesh
17
and in the life eternal.
and life everlasting.
18
Amen.
19
And here is my commentary then, see the note number above for reference.
I see no relevant difference. We/I is ultimately irrelevant since each person professes it anyway at an individual level. If you must have an autistic take it might be that Catholics do not presume to speak for anyone but themselves when professing faith.
I see no relevant difference. Heaven and Earth assumes the entirety of creation in Catholic Dogma.
No relevant difference.
Here the appears to be a difference. The Jerusalem Creed focuses on the nature of God, the Catholic one states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (which in Catholic Dogma is still one of the three entities of God, so, ultimately, no difference that I can see as relevant).
No appreciable difference with reference to Jesus, but, an important omission in the Jerusalem Creed in that Mary is not mentioned at all. One might assume this is rather irrelevant since we all know Mary gave birth to Jesus and that He was Conceived by God (whether you want to limit that to God the Father or expressly state by the Holy Spirit, is, again, to my mind, quite immaterial since they are both aspects of God). The more obvious omission refers to Mary’s virginity. Which really should not be in question anyway, since every Christian for well over one and a half millennia has known that Mary was a Virgin while pregnant with Jesus. So, as far as any reasonable man goes, there is no appreciable difference. Some retarded person might however, infer that Mary was not necessarily a virgin, I suppose. I doubt this is Vox Day’s position.
No appreciable difference, although we Catholic remember better who did what and when (especially since our prayer for the Mass includes the guilt of the Jews).
A difference. Apparently, according to the Jerusalem Creed, Jesus either did not descend into Hell, or it was not worth mentioning, which I find rather a large omission.
No real difference but the Catholic version is more precise.
No real difference.
No real difference.
No real difference since the eternity of God’s Kingdom is assumed in Catholic Dogma, but the Jerusalem Credo is more detailed.
No real difference, although the Jerusalem Credo specifies at least one of the functions of the Holy Spirit in more detail. The word Paraclete is from the Greek Parakletos and can generally be translated as Comforter or Counsellor, or one who stays or is called to be beside another. In essence it is clarifying that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets. With which the Catholic Church has no argument.
No real difference. The Catholic Church Dogma is that there is only one baptism and it does remit all sins committed before it.
No difference.
A difference. This could potentially be quite a big one, if one is abysmally ignorant of Church history. In the first instance it could be interpreted as not requiring Holy Mass. However, as I said, anyone even remotely familiar with Church history will know that the Holy Mass was performed from the earliest times, with full concept of transubstantiation and so on. In the second instance, again, one abysmally ignorant of Church history might assume that there is no communion between a Christian that is alive and one that is dead. This is, the general error that Protestants make, (almost invariably ignorant of history in general, never mind Church history): Assuming that Catholics “pray” or “worship” dead people. The reality is that for a Catholic, as was the case for all Christians for well over one and a half millennia, it was always understood that the dead remain “alive” to us, whether in purgatory or in heaven and we can ask intercession from them, as you do of your friends when you say “please pray for me”. Which of course, applies to the Hail Mary prayer and many others. It is not a worship of Mary, it is an asking of her to pray for us sinners. That’s all. In this respect then, the omission from the Jerusalem Credo I think can lead to error, although, in fairness, at the time, this would have been omitted in the same way that one might omit saying water is wet. It was obvious to all. Then autists and gnostics came along, so, as the Church does from time to time, it specifies for all what has already always been the case anyway. And does so only to clarify for the laziest and most credulous, what devout Catholics have always known and done to begin with.
No real difference. Although it can be interpreted as being one. See point 13 above. The autist might, however, conclude, as the retarded Protestants do that the remission (forgiveness) of sins, as mentioned in the Jerusalem Credo means all sins, past, present and future. Which is, of course, the retarded take. The Catholic Credo, by placing it here makes it more clear that sins can be remitted/forgiven. The implication being that even after baptism, new sins one might commit, can be forgiven (not WILL BE, but CAN be). So in a sense the Catholic version is more precise.
No difference.
No difference.
A (presumed) difference. I presume this to be on the same level as point 15. It seems to not be expressly stated in the Jerusalem Credo because it was probably spoken out aloud anyway and everyone knew it. And makes no real difference to the theology either way.
This then, to my mind, puts to rest the appreciable differences that I might have with Vox’s theology, and to sum up, what are they, as far as I can see?
The bolded portions, at first glance.
I have not asked Vox his position, as I wanted to write this first, and then let him comment on it if he choses to, so any assumptions I may make on his behalf are subject to correction, and if he lets me know where I may have made a wrong one, I’ll be sure to let you know and update.
Right then, on point number 5: There are potentially up to three issues:
I do not assume Vox takes the position that Mary was not a virgin before the birth of Jesus.
I think he may take the position that she was not perpetually a virgin after the birth of Jesus, which is a Catholic dogma. Given he has not had a Catholic upbringing, as far as I know, I assume he would rely on his own relatively reasonable (at first impact anyway) assumption that once a woman has given birth she is no longer a virgin from a physical perspective. Even if this were the case, the Catholic Church, when referring to Mary’s perpetual virginity means that she never had sexual relations with anyone, even after the birth of Jesus, and that’s what matters. I do not know whether he subscribes to the idea that Mary did later have sexual relations with her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. Possibly he might, if he is relying on the erroneous assumption that the man referred to as the “brother” of Jesus, called James, was an actual sibling of Jesus, rather than merely one of his ardent followers.
Anyone familiar with the details of priesthood, and things like the rituals required before entering the tabernacle, the death of anyone touching the ark of the covenant or indeed other things set aside for God, would understand that Mary, having been made a pure vessel for the incarnation of Jesus, was obviously set aside for God, and no man in his right mind would have dared trying to have sex with her. This is the position the Catholic dogma takes ultimately. In either case, at a practical level, I do not see that it makes any difference in how a man might go about his day-to-day life as a Christian. Possibly, the heretical view might lead one to be slightly less appreciative of the contribution to Christianity of women, in their role as mothers or of sexually pure brides and so on. In other words, if one was to err on the side of caution, the Catholic position would be the better one to side with.
On point number 7: I doubt Vox believes Jesus did not descend into Hell, but I suppose he might. Even if he does, I don’t see how that would affect his day-to-day actions or belief system. It would be an error as far as the Catholic Church goes, but I fail to see the consequences of it at a practical level. At a spiritual level, of course, having such an erroneous belief would diminish the work done by our Lord for those souls that remained in purgatory or limbo until he freed them, as well as diminish His power and ability to do, go and act as He deems required.
On Point number 15: Here may be the only real differences. I am not sure what Vox’s views on the need for Holy Mass, transubstantiation and the communion of (dead) Saints. As he is of a generically Protestant non-denomination, I assume he probably does not subscribe to transubstantiation. I assume he believes there is a need for going to Church, though I am ignorant of what aspects of what passes for Holy Mass in Catholic Churches is replaced by any specific beliefs Vox may have in this regard.
Overall then, I would sum the possible differences between Vox and myself, as far as our theology goes are probably limited to transubstantiation, the need for confession and it being a sacrament, an item that is not even mentioned specifically in the credo of either side (though it is implied within the context of Catholicism, by point number 16), and the possibility of asking for intercessionary prayer from the departed, including Mary.
Potentially, at a stretch, we might even guess at some unspecified difference of opinion or view of maybe women or mothers in general because of his Protestant leanings versus my Catholic ones, but frankly, I doubt it. And if there is, I doubt it would be very significant in practical terms. Lastly, and this only from a very brief conversation I had with him on the matter a few years ago, I believe that he may take the position that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God (I am not sure whether he means from God the Father only, like the Eastern “Orthodox” do, or from both God the Father and Jesus the Son) that He sends to us, rather than a “third person” as such as is generally conceived by most people who call themselves Christians.
Adendum:A commenter helpfully referenced this post from 2013 which sheds more light on Vox’s position. To summarise it then, he questions the change from the original Nicean Credo regarding the position of the Holy Spirit. My understanding is that he does not equate the Holy Spirit with having the same quality of Godhood as Jesus or God the Father. Specifically, he objects to the description of the Holy Spirit being as “the giver of life” since life was already present and eternal as the result of Jesus’ arriving before the Holy Spirit (I assume here that Vox means that those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah even before Jesus was baptised were already given life eternal). Interestingly, Vox seems to also hold that the Holy Spirit must be able to proceed from both the Father and the Son. I am not certain, however, since he also, reasonably enough, states that God the Father and Jesus the Son cannot be wholly and totally interchangeable at all times, but he does not specify if he thinks the Holy Spirit precedes only from the father. I do not think that the position that Jesus and God the Father are both God, yet not exactly interchangeable at all times and in all ways is heretical. the very fact there is a distinction means there are differences. Similarly, being Catholic, it makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, as is, in any case, made quite clear in the Bible. As for Vox’s contention that the Holy Spirit is later raised to a status that is quasi identical to Jesus and God the Father, I honestly abstain from having an opinion on the matter. I don’t see it changes anything one way or the other how this aspect is viewed, and personally, do not even see that it makes a difference if the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Triune God as Vox interprets it or as he assumes the Catholic Church interprets it. I mean… it is literally a mystery, so I find the quibbling over it to be a complete waste of time in practical terms, and at most, a personal point of curiosity as to how another human being might perceive it, as observing such things often can give us new insights.
On this last point, I am not sure if it even makes a difference even at a dogmatic level in Catholic thought. I mean, I know that the Holy Spirit is presented as the third part of the triune God, but as to the exact specifics of the nature of the Holy Spirit, I really and truly believe such speculation is well above my ability or even concern to know. I am perfectly happy to submit to infallible Church dogma, whatever it may be, on the matter. And honestly, I cannot see that in practical terms as far as the way Vox may or may not act it makes any difference at all. For all I know such a belief may well land him in Hell, but I honestly have no knowledge of that, nor understanding of why, and more importantly, no concern at all to find out. As I said, like the great philosopher Harry Callahan, I know my limitations and am perfectly happy to take the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church on this subject.
So, that takes care of the view Vox has of the Trinty.
Now for the others…
This is a much simpler issue.
Owen Benjamin’s take on the Trinity has, without any doubt, been utterly, completely blasphemous, since he compared the relationship between God the father and Jesus the Son as a homosexual liaison with the Holy Spirit as the ejaculate. And no, I don’t for one second accept the cowardly excuse that he was “only joking.” Let me put it this way: Jean Parisot de Valette, who eventually became the leader of the knights of Malta and was possibly the man who single-handedly might have been most responsible for Islam not putting the whole of Europe to the fire and the sword, once beat a lay member of the order of Knights nearly to death. Allegedly for blasphemy. For which he did four months in prison. I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. And in fact, if nearly killing a man for blasphemy was requiring of four months in the hole (it was literally a hole in the ground in which food and water were lowered to the prisoner) that seems about right to me. And if such laws were implemented across the civilised world, we would soon return to a saner, cleaner, more respectful and kind world.
In short, Owen’s take is absolutely retarded, blasphemous in the extreme, and he had best keep such an idiotic idea to himself. Especially is he’s ever near an actual Catholic who might have a temperament similar to good old de Valette.
It does need to be stated that if Owen holds such a belief, which I charitably doubt, or even just whatever belief allowed him to make such an absurd and blasphemous statement, it is quite clear he has a disordered mind, and that, at a rather obviously deep level of degeneracy to even come up with such imagery. Which, if what I am told about his streams by others is even only partially accurate, would also be obvious since apparently he spends a goodly part of his hours long streams referencing homosexual acts, male genitalia, or ejaculation, in graphic detail. Clearly, not the sign of a healthy mind.
But in any case, no one that made the comments he made concerning the Trinity can ever be taken to be a Christian of any kind, not even of some random version of absurd Churchianity like Mormonism. We can therefore only define Owen as a complete heretic (assuming he was ever validly baptised, which I don’t know). And if he was not validly baptised, then he is simply some kind of deranged non-denominational heathen or pagan. In short, we need not concern ourselves with his take on any aspect of christianity, theology, or frankly, much of anything else, since it is wholly irrelevant.
Whatever Jimbob’s take on the trinity is, I have no clue, as I have never watched any of his videos or read anything from him except the odd cartoon he draws, of which, I am not a fan. I just don’t like the look, but that’s a matter of taste and of no consequence. I really do not know anything at all about his view of the Trinity, but I am led to believe that Jimbob considers himself and Eastern “Orthodox” if this is the case, and if he holds the classic views of that schismatic sect, then the most likely difference he would have with me is that being as the schematic “Orthodox” don’t read their Bible very well, he assumes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone, when it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both if one can read in normal human context. In any case, if this is the extent of the discrepancy between us, it is, again, of rather little consequence at a practical level and I doubt would lead Jimbob to act in any specifically degenerate fashion. As I said before, it might lead him to Hell spiritually, but as to the details of the how or why, beyond the fact it goes against Catholic Dogma, I do not profess, nor care, to know, I am happy to simply submit to the Catholic Church’s view on this.
Conclusion
So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. The only interest I have in this whole topic would be Vox’s specific views, and that purely on a personal level, because I find him interesting and his views usually present facets of reality I might not have considered before. From a personal theological perspective however, whatever Vox’s views might be in their detail, it is extremely unlikely to change my own. It might, possibly, add some level of detail or nuance though, I might not have considered before, and as such, it could be interesting.
The views of Jimbob and Owen on the Trinity (or pretty much anything else) are completely uninteresting and utterly irrelevant to me in the extreme. As are pretty much anyone else’s, unless I find your takes on a number of topics and your level of intellectual thought experiments to be engaging.
I now take my leave of what, no doubt, will be further fuel to the Internet Trinity Bumfight Dumpster Fire of 2023.
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:
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.
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:
By G | 11 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary