Welcome to The Blog of the Kurgan

Both polls will last 3 days.

If you had to blame one group of people the most for most of the problems in the world you would blame:

And poll number 2:

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Before I begin the drawing and quartering of this fake and supposedly “Catholic” Edmund Mazza, who lies about Catholicism so smoothly and easily he makes John Salza jealous, let me point out this is a guy who spells his own name wrong too. From his site:

Subscribe now

Share

Anyway, Ed-Mund, over at Anna Barnhardt’s site “Answered” the question I have been asking Ann for years, which she has dodged, refused to acknowledge and generally pretended is a “crazy” question without ever saying why. Nor, has she ever explained after how long her OWN “Sedevacantism” (fake too because she figures Ratzi-the-Nazi was a legitimate Catholic, and, ridiculously, valid Pope) becomes “crazy”.

But be that all as it is, here is her post, via Ed-Mundi as I shall call him from now on (as in: education of/from/by the world, from the Latin).

This is the question, posed by an ignorant reader of Ann’s who has nevertheless smelt a bit of a rat…

Question :

Dear Ann and the Gang,

While I can agree that Prevost cannot be Pope based on what he is saying, the thing that bothers me is the reasoning you are using to make the case: how does it substantially differ from the arguments made by the sedevacantists who say there has been no valid Pope since Pius XII or John XIII?

If you rely on “heresy disqualifies or takes away any office” then how can you accept any of the Popes after Pius XII?

Sincerely yours,

P

It’s Roncalli, who took on the name of a previous antipope John XXIII not XIII, but hey, these people can’t even spell their own name right, we can’t hold them to any kind of standard of truth, duty or logic.

And here is the intentionally disingenuous lie, posted by the lying liar, Ed-Mundi Mazza. 1

Which we will now tear to pieces with sunlight, truth and disinfectant.

Subscribe now

Share

Answer (written by NonVeni Mark): I believe the answer is that none of post-conciliar, pre-Bergoglian popes ever denied an infallibly defined dogma of the faith .

That is an outrageous lie, of course, with dozens of examples for each of the freemasons pretending to be Popes. All you need to do is read the 16 documents of Vatican II and realise that from Roncalli on they ALL promoted them and promulgated them. Roncalli died before the first two documents were published, but he approved them officially and finally before publication, which even if he weren’t a freemason, and invalidly elected (which both things he was beyond any doubt) would on its own, be enough to make him an antipope posthumously as almost all antipopes before him were declared.

Aside from Inter Mirifica which is the ONLY document that does not have clear and direct heresy, 2 ALL the other 15 documents of Vatican II do. I have detailed SOME of these in EVERY document in my book, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, and there has been ZERO refutation of the facts presented there by anyone. Because you simply can’t refute the truth.

The errors of Vatican II do not rise to the level of dogmatic negation, and the council itself declared that it defined no new dogma.

This is a lie. Plain and simple.

Sacrosanctum Concilium was the other document that Roncalli Approved of officially before dying, along with Inter Mirifica , and what do we find in it?

Because this is such an outrageous lie, I have copied the entire section from my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church regarding this document alone:

Pretence: It ordered an extensive revision of worship so that people

would have a “clearer sense” of their own involvement in the Mass and

other rites.

Heresies:

The whole point of this constitution is to literally modernise the sacred

rites and sacraments of the Church. That, in and of itself is heresy of the

highest order. Some choice quotes will be examined, which I want to

stress are not taken “out of context” as anyone who cares to can verify

for themselves since all of these documents are online.

In any case, it is all quite plain in the very first opening sentence:

“This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart

an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to

adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those

institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can

promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen

whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household

of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent

reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

In that sentence alone we see the beginning of the heresies that permeate

the whole of Vatican II:

1) The sacraments and truths of the Church are not mutable with the

times, nor have they ever been so. Particularly, the Holy Mass and

divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, which have been immutable for

many centuries, yet are referred to immediately in the second point

of this false constitution. And in case you were doubtful of the

intent, it is clearly expressed in the last sentence of point number

4 (emphasis added):

“The council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be

revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they

be given new vigour to meet the circumstances and needs

of modern times. ”

You see, if you are not familiar with the perfidy of the Satanists,

you might, in your innocence make the vague assumption that this

is all just really quite harmless and just trying to keep up with the

times, maybe using electricity to light a church instead of

candles… but no. Remember how right in chapter one I pointed

out that clarity of thought, and word, and action, and deed, is one

of the paramount principles of Catholicism? Well, let me refer to

it again: what exactly requires modernising in the sacraments that

have remained unchanged for almost two millennia? The simple

answer is nothing. Unless of course, you intend to become of the

world, rather than just survive in it but not be of it .

2) Similarly if you are not accustomed to thinking clearly or as a

Catholic, you may have skipped over that seemingly innocuous

sentence, which instead is truly a dagger with Protestantism

written all over it: “…to foster whatever can promote union among

all who believe in Christ…” the emphasis added is mine in order

to help you see the problem. But wait, if you’re Protestant-raised

or influenced, or confused, or a badly catechised “Catholic”, you

might be thinking I’m being over-zealous. Let me show you why

that is not so. You know who also believes in Christ? Demons.

Demons actually believe in Christ. Which is why His name is used

to chase them away in exorcisms. And why it works in that

function. So, do you really want to promote whatever will bring

union with demons? Now, I am not saying all protestants are

demonic fiends, but the point is clear: Either there is one

indivisible Church under God or there isn’t. Being one of 40,000

“ maybe I’m the one ” really cannot be it. This is simply basic logic.

If there is an absolute truth, anything else, whatever it is and

however well-intentioned, cannot be equally true. And as you will

see from the rest of the documents as well as who the creators of

Vatican II were, the whole point of it was, indeed and in fact, to

essentially make Catholicism become just another major branch of

Protestantism. Insofar as the infiltrators have succeeded, the

schismatics ruled by the antipopes —currently Bergoglio— have

become exactly that; just another Protestant sect. They are rapidly

trying to introduce female clergy, married priests, divorce by

granting 100% accepted annulments, something that should

happen only in the rarest and specific circumstances dictated by

Canon Law, bowing down, literally, to demonic idols, offering

the host to divorcees who have “remarried,” to abortion supporters

and others in knowing mortal sin who have not repented nor

confessed, and so on. Now, if you’re a protestant reading all this (I

know there are more than a few of you from my book Believe!)

and it offends you, or you don’t believe in the Catholic sacraments,

well, that’s your ignorance and loss and to a certain extent

understandable because you have been indoctrinated probably

from birth to believe all sorts of lies about Catholicism, but if

you’re a cradle “Catholic”, none of these absolute dogmatic

positions should surprise you. Either you’re a Catholic… or you’re

not. It’s not difficult.

3) In essence the above two points really suffice, but reading the rest

of this documents one can begin to appreciate the underhandedness

of the authors, an exercise I did best perhaps in the evisceration of

the work of John Salza, which I have on my blog and have referred

to also in part 6.3.1.5.

If you read section III of this document it goes on at some length

about how the liturgy is sacred and

“… made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and

of elements subject to change. ”

What elements would those be exactly, that are subject to change?

Again, it’s never defined, instead we read:

“ These not only may, but ought to be changed with the

passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of

anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the

liturgy or have become unsuited to it . ” (Emphasis added).

Wait, what?! The hypocrisy and audacity of these people is

nothing short of spectacular. In plain English then: The liturgy is

sacred, and immutable… except for those elements that are not

(whatever they may be) which indeed should, nay, must be

changed if they have suffered from an intrusion of some sort that

brings them out of harmony with their spiritual intent. Now… a

ten-year old can understand that if you leave the liturgy alone, and

don’t molest it, then, by default, nothing can enter it that is counter

to its intent and spirit. But if something ever did do that (through

some change) then it should simply be identified in specific and

returned to the original. Surely that makes sense. What do we have

here instead? We are told that there will be a change, because of

some other change that supposedly occurred at some previous

time, though no one will tell us when or where. And this new

change, we are assured will be all in keeping with… the original

immutable intent? Well… not exactly, but in keeping with the need for

modernising it so that they;

“… express more clearly the holy things which they signify. ”

Really? Something that has been unchanged for centuries

suddenly needs changing to be understood better? And tell me that

in your own life you have not noticed that whenever this

progressive garbage-language is used, what immediately follows

is a veritable deluge of ineptitude, confusion and brokenness. And

that occurs in businesses actively trying to remain profitable.

Never mind a Satanic infestation of people intentionally trying to

muddy the waters. The hypocrisy is precisely that they are

pretending some mystical unseen, unheard, unknown something

has intruded in the Liturgy and as such requires them to be

changed. We are then assured that all proper care must be taken to

ensure this is done carefully and in keeping with good sense and

so on, only to be immediately followed by this:

“ 25. The Liturgical books are to be revised as soon as

possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and

bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the

world .”

4) A short while later we’re being directed to a Protestantism that is

bold-faced in its declaration that not only should as many of the

Liturgies as possible become public performances but that all

involved must:

“ 30. To promote active participation, the people should be

encouraged to take part by means of acclamations,

responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by

actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper

times all should observe a reverent silence .”

Umm…no. We’re Catholics, not Charismatic Evangelicals, or

Baptist snake-handlers, or Kumba-ya Happy-Clappies. If you have

never attended a Latin Mass, this may seem again, facetious, it is

not. Holy Communion, The Mass, is a reverent, respectful and

dignified event and until it was eviscerated by the impostors and

made the illicit parody that is the Novus Orco Mass, you certainly

did not have any such foolishness such as singing and dancing by

the congregation, or much less the priest. However, after Vatican

II, all such utterly disrespectful rubbish, including gay, fake clerics

in rainbow capes dancing at the altar, became seen in what used to

be Catholic Churches. Don’t take my word for it. Feel free to injure

your retinas by searching videos on YouTube. The document goes

on to say the liturgical revisions must also make allowances for the

parts played by the laymen in the audience. One is reminded of

Presidential Candidate hopeless, Jeb Bush: Please clap .

5) The list of heresies continues, as does the gradual corrosion of

aspects that are not strictly speaking direct heresy in isolation, but

are once they are stacked. In part 35 there are instructions of having

Deacons or other laymen lead celebrations of various feasts by

doing Bible readings and study, yet another practice that is very

Protestant in its form, though there isn’t any rule against it

specifically. But in Catholic thought, the practice would be seen as

arrogant and egocentric, since the specific function of leading

others in matters spiritual is for the ordained members of clergy.

Of course, discussion amongst friends is fine and even great, but

to presume one man should arrogate to himself a role reserved for

people who have made huge sacrifice and dedicated their lives to

it, is certainly not seen as wise or welcome.

In part 36 we are told that while Latin should always be preserved

(it was later tried to be done away with at every turn), there should

be nothing preventing doing the Mass in the common tongue of the

region. Why? Why would there be any reason to change it at all?

The Latin Mass had been observed for centuries by all Catholics

and any Catholic could have the same Mass anywhere in the world

without needing to know the local language at all since it was a

familiar ritual to him. Today, most young people have no idea that

70 years ago your mass in China, America, Portugal, Vietnam,

England, Brazil, or anywhere else, was identical.

In part 40 they sort of rip off the band-aid and pretty much spell it

out:

“ 40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even

more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this

entails greater difficulties. ”

And then goes on to say that where adapting existing liturgies to

include local practices is a bit difficult, they should refer them to

the Holy See (who being led by an impostor, would no doubt be

approved).

The full and final nail in the coffin of this excretable “Constitution”

is however point 50. It reads as follows:

“ The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the

intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the

connection between them, may be more clearly manifested,

and that devout and active participation by the faithful may

be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care

being taken to preserve their substance; elements which,

with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were

added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded;

other elements which have suffered injury through accidents

of history are now to be restored to the vigour which they

had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or

necessary .”

There is only one teensy-weensy little problem with that though.

It’s an immutable Papal Encyclical called Quo Primum issued by

Pope Pius V in 1570, and in short it says that the Latin Tridentine

Mass shall not in any way be changed, for time immemorial, and

that any attempt to do so is an attack on the Church. It really is that

clear and definitive. Don’t take my word for it, read it yourself, it’s

included in its entirety in Appendix III at the end of this book.

All of the above points concerning Sacrosanctum Concilium , only cover

the first 10 pages of a 34-page document; and not at all exhaustively. It

would probably take a year of full-time work to list every single problem

with each of the 16 documents of Vatican II, but hopefully this gives you

a sense of things. The remaining documents will not be gone into in such

detail, but rather more perfunctorily dealt with. I urge, however, anyone

trying to refute my points here to please go and verify all I say in this

chapter by referring to the documents themselves.

So, even in just that ONE document, you have absolute direct heresy, that wants and indeed DID change the Holy Mass, which goes against an immutable aspect of dogma, which as if it wasn’t already obvious, also has been immortalised in Quo Primum .

Even if this was all we had, it would be enough to prove Mazza 3 a complete and knowing liar.

Of the errors that do exist, some are a matter of interpretation (Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium), and some are indeed more serious and opposed to perennial teaching (Nostra Aetate).

Nope, nope, and nope. they are filthy heresy, plain and simple.

Want proof? Okay then, this is in Lumen Gentium which he says are a matter of “interpretation” (a heresy in itself since the Church has ALWAYS made it very clear what is true and good and what is not). Again, from my book:

Part 16 however is where we find the absolute centre of the heresy

here, for it unambiguously dispenses with the Catholic Church

altogether and equates all manner of heretic and even demon-

inspired sects as equivalent and all suitable for salvation.

“ But the plan of salvation also includes those who

acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these

there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of

Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God,

who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far

distant from those who in shadows and images seek the

unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and

breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be

saved .”

I mean, to see that this is heresy doesn’t even require a shred of

faith. Regardless if you even believe as a Catholic or not, it is

absolutely a fundamental principle of Catholicism that outside of

the Catholic Church there is no salvation. There literally would be

no point in the Catholic Church even existing if it were not for the

fact that it is clearly distinguished from all the other beliefs in God

we find on Earth. It is such a ridiculous heresy that as I say it is

nonsensical. It would be the equivalent of saying to a Muslim that

eating pork steaks is just fine, never been an issue.

Penis-head continues:

Our faithful assumption is that these errors will be corrected in due time, because… this sort of thing has happened before.

No. It has not. You lying liar that lies. Oh wait… you mean that antipopes were seen as antipopes and things corrected even several decades after the fact? Oh, yeah, okay then. This may happen eventually. And you will be in Hell along with the impostors for throwing shade for them.

The most famous case is that of the omission of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed, something that wasn’t corrected for 700 years, at the cost of schism. Surprisingly, this does not rise to the level of dogmatic error, because none of the various creeds are considered infallible.

As always the sophists take something completely different and try to pretend it is the same as what they are trying to pass off as “valid”. An omission of something is not a dogmatic intentional heresy. The inclusion of an intentional, dogmatic heresy is. And 15 of the 16 Vatican II documents all have this in them: Intentional, dogmatic heresy. Which is completely different from not stating a point of dogma in a credo (there could potentially be hundreds of omissions of dogma in any credo, after all!)

For me, the most relevant episode in comparison to Vatican II is the Council of Constance during the Great Western Schism. This validly-convoked council eventually obtained the disposition of all three simultaneous claimants to the papacy, and the installation of a valid and universally accepted one.

Once again, let’s take this donkey, and look at it and pretend it is an orange, so we can say an orange is similar to an apple, and so the apple Eve ate is just fine. This is the level of “proof” these Satanists try and slide past you, like a rapist with Rohypnol at the ready for your drink.

But before that, the council in 1415 promulgated the heresy of Conciliarism (Haec Sancta), which does indeed violate at least two infallible dogmas. This error was not corrected until a hundred years and three popes later. None of those men were considered antipopes, and no one thought the Church had apostatised.

Once again, because ERROR is NOT HERESY. You liar. And trying to pretend it is, is a LIE.

The backstop of the Petrine Promises came in the form of the Holy Ghost preventing the proper implementation of plan as was laid out in the document”Frequens” which determined the frequency of councils going forward as having the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church. Again, no one went Sede, no one claimed the Church apostatized. People simply waited, and it was eventually corrected.

Here he just babbles about things obscure to most people, in baby, obfuscating, imprecise, bafflgarble nonsense in the hope it confuses you to become hypnotised into accepting his overall lie.

Aside: The current heresy of Synodality is much worse, of course, because it uses the model of Conciliarism but extends the ruling body to the non-ordained, violating still other infallible dogmas. A laymen attempting to wield ecclesiastical jurisdiction is a heretic by Divine Law.

Oh, you mean EXACTLY like in Sacrosanct Concilium right at the start here, that ALL the fake “Popes” promoted along with the other 15 documents of VII and all their dozens of heresies? Right.

(Everything in the above answer was written by NonVeni Mark.)

And approved by Satan himself.

These people can in no way any longer be thought to be in “error”. Mazza is clearly a Satanic promoter of Freemasonry and the destruction of the real Church, as are people like John Salza and so on.

Ann is instead, to my view, simply a completely prideful and silly woman, who out of sheer arrogance and pride will not admit her fault, which is that 1958 Sedevacantist (and only the Totalises at that) are the only people still following the actual Catholic Church.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I have a long history of calling out PUAs for the try-hard losers they really are, for the weak mindset they have, and worse, that they try to instil in others.

I wrote a post on the generics of relationships back in 2010 from a purely secular perspective based only on natural reality absent any religious context, and it still holds up even now, 15 years later after I became a Totalist Sedevacantist Catholic in 2017.

That is a good test that the logic was sound even then, so you might want to read through it, and you will see that even then, PUAs were classified as snake-oil salesmen, grifters, and kind of gay. Because they are.

You can see blog posts of mine going back over a decade concerning this issue, and I exposed various of them in multiple ways for the tragic dry-humpers they are:

• Here for example
• And here concerning the need for women to be dumb baby machines
• And here, rejecting the wish of others to make me into a PUA “guru”
• and here, the actual book to put to rest at least some of the noise.

But a recent interaction with a couple of these abject losers has prompted this post.

I came across one post by this self-styled PUA some time ago that was at least passingly interesting , although, even then, I cautioned against it, pointing out it stank of weakness, lies, and basic loser syndrome in general. Anyone familiar with my Substack or even more so the OG blog every post here gets mirrored to (which has many more posts) will have understood that wile I gave some tentative almost passable “hmmmff… probably not a total grifterslop” it wasn’t exactly a glowing recommendation.

Since that post from a couple of months ago, I have on occasion quickly scanned maybe a couple other notes of his because they appear in my feed. I don’t subscribe to him or his nonsense, because why would I? But the stuff still appears in my feed.

Subscribe now

Share

And he posted some completely retarded note that is pretty much the CORE of what is wrong with all the PUA bullshit from the start, even absent any Religious Sense of Things. And it was this:

Now, of course, I do know better than to argue with someone being an idiot on the Internet, but then, that is not what I do. I do have a hobby though, and it is to scalp the occasional idiot in public, primarily for my own entertainment, secondarily for your entertainment, and in a distant third, in the vain hope that other idiots will give me a wide berth, at minimum. A fourth, miraculous-level fantasy, of course, is also that it becomes an educational life-lesson for at least one or two people, and puts them on a better life path. But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that it is fun to reduce these idiots to their constituents parts in public; ostensibly as a public service, but hey… we all have hobbies.

So before I show you my erudite response to that nonsense up there, that this half-French mestizo posted, 1 let me first deconstruct his stupidity, gayness, and weakness, and explain what the appropriate and considered response to such “men” is.

The underlying double ass-hump-tion that this metrosexual faggot makes is that one has to have his heart turned to stone after a failed romantic relationship. And as we will see he thinks this is INEVITABLE! [Insert here: crying brown half-Frenchman on his knees imploring heaven with his misery]

Let us examine in more logical detail what this means:

1. This faggot clearly had his heart broken by a woman that was above the usual 3-6 he manages to bed while they are drunk, high, or desperate. Probably a 7 that dressed passably; and it wrecked him.
2. He self-admits it’s his weakness. He’s so desperate for “love” that he admits he falls for it and gets crushed once his delusion bubble pops. Be very clear what is happening here: This mama’s boy, probably with an absent (darkie) father, felt he was not loved enough by mommy, so he now seeks it in some woman that is not a complete hobgoblin. If only Vanessa the 7 could “TRULY LOVE ME!” He implores the sky, still crying, “THEN I WOULD BE A MAN!” you can just tell his whole persona is tied up in being emotionally accepted “for who he is”2 by a woman. If that doesn’t scream pathetic fag, I don’t know what does.
3. Despite his saying the opposite, it’s clear he at least EXPECTED someone to “save him”. And a woman at that. But then, Brownie the Frenchie, realises mommy and proxy-mommy too NEVER REALLY LOVED HIM! [Cue kneeling Brownie-the-Frenchie crying to the heavens again, cursing his mestizo blood, his curly hair, (that he has now lost and/or shaves anyway), his (half-)Frenchness, his smell, that simply makes it impossible for a hot blonde, brunette, redhead, or any white female that has any shred of self-respect LOVE HIM! Just like mommy should have!
4. And so, now, he thinks he can bullshit the world, saying his heart is now a cold stone, he is impervious to the female charms, he is TOO COOL FOR SCHOOL! Got it guys? Got it? He’s the cool, anti-hero, damaged (by mommy) but cooler for it, “hard” guy. Until an 8, looking at her boyfriend standing behind him smiles genuinely at what he imagines is him, then he will melt into a puddle of piss again. Until he realises she wasn’t smiling at him at all, then he will burn into a ball of rage, hating women in general and pretty ones in particular. We may read about him on the news one day, and it would not be the first time I made such a prediction on one of these losers that is now behind bars for a very long time.

So. Given my kindness and empathic approach, how could I possibly help this misguided fool out of his rut? How could I concisely show him the error of his way with all the compassion he deserves?

Well, you ask, so here it is:

I know you will agree that it is the appropriate and sensitive approach he needs in order to remove the dildo from his anus, and start to learn to be an actual member of the male species. Despite this, he seems to have become a little hysterical.

Please note: Here he is once again admitting that this behaviour is what HE does. What HE did. What in his gay life, he thinks is the inevitable path of every man. This is important for later when he tries to project HIS OWN behaviour onto me. Which is a typical thing Gammas, gays, and women do.

That’s because, as a gay man, he can’t imagine anyone not being gay, like he is. It’s the typical solipsism of weak men, the gays, and women. They think the whole universe exists just for them, and everyone thinks, feels and imagines (insofar as they are even capable of grasping these concepts) just like them.

This was my response. Simple, to the point, factual:

And here we see him spin totally out of control and try to grasp at straws by PROJECTING his own situation onto me, in a way that is absurd to anyone that knows me and my history, and makes “sense” only in his gay little, half-French mind.

Note the self-admissions:

1. “Your desperate need for validation” – there is literally nothing in anything I wrote that in any way indicates I needed, craved, wanted, or sought external validation. In fact, if you do read the very first thing I linked to from 15 years ago at the top of this post, you will see that I wrote even back then that my ending up in bed with a lot of pretty women, happened as a simple byproduct of me being me, and only in a subsequent realisation of this fact (that I could and did in fact attract a lot of pretty women) realised that this ability in and of itself can give one an even deeper sense of self-knowledge. But given that it was a secondary realisation, made after the fact, one can hardly say it was anything I was actively (or even unconsciously) seeking. Clearly it wasn’t; and it makes no sense to accuse me of such, and the 15 year old post amply demonstrates it even if you didn’t know me at all. So what we have here is: projection. It is a natural phenomenon that weak men, the gays, and women use. It’s quite fascinating and telling, and I have never really understood why they think it’s effective. Any reasonable person can see it is them trying to accuse you of what THEY assume is the worst possible thing, because it is what they themselves do/fear/have in their life. I mean, I get that they can’t help it, it’s a hysterical and emotional response prompted by events that emotionally hurt them, but you’d think at least later they would reflect on it and see how obvious they are. But no. Self-reflection after all is not their forte.
2. He states quite clearly that in his world view it is women that decide if you get hurt. This is really quite astonishing and telling. And he implies that if and when it is YOU that decides to hurt yourself (because you have an erroneous view of reality) this is weak. Which it is, but that’s not the point. In his world view, it is not him that decides he was hurt, but rather “women” decide it. I mean, he has no agency you see, and this makes him… a strong man? You have to laugh at the “logic” this monkey-boy is trying to perpetuate.
3. He hallucinates that I somehow “qualified myself to him”. This is typical PUA snake-oil. When they are cornered with reality they try some squid-ink out of their ass to try to mask the fact they were “pawned” as the kids say. He’s the one that reacted in trying to defend his gay world-view, and when factual information was added to the already obvious data that proved him wrong, he tries the Jay Dyer defence of shouting and jumping like a monkey, saying something like “Ha made you look!” as if that somehow invalidates the facts, reality, or his latent homosexuality.
4. His outrage at being “insulted”. Notice that once again, as I have always pointed out for years, calling a whiny bitch a whiny bitch is not an insult. It’s an observation. It’s a statement of fact. Perhaps an axiom. But it is not an actual insult. For it to be an insult you would have to demonstrate you are not, in fact, a whiny bitch. But we have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt, that by any honest metric, half-brownie-half-frenchie here, IS, in fact, a VERY whiny little bitch.
5. Lastly, through more projection, he exposes the true nature of his “stone heart” (more properly labelled as whiny bitch ass, still leaking from the pegging the 7 that dresses well gave him), and it is this: He was dumped by that 7 with good fashion sense. Dumped like the smelly, half-croissant, half-burnt that he is. And he projects that this is the worst possible thing he can accuse another man of.

I think at this point we have shown rather conclusively who this guy is, but since when has a Kurganing ended when the horse died? Or indeed when the mere ghost of the dead horse its till existent in the ectoplasmic world? No, no, loyal readers, you know the way of the Kurgan. So we shall continue.

As I knew this would get entertaining, I replied once more:

Here, in obvious defeat, the gay man tries one last attempt at “proving” his manliness. He writes a simple “Are you done?” to, (in his weak little gay mind) show he is not bothered at all, it’s all just words to him… right?

So I did not respond and waited a day or so…because I knew, that like all gamma-fags, as soon as he thought the coast was clear he would come dancing out claiming victory, as the Secret King he fancies himself to be.

And of course, that is what he did with several notes.

And after that, because he got fairly low engagement off this, he tried to bury those notes with another dozen or so notes to push them way down the list.

But let’s also give you a taste of how “classy” this half-immigrant is. Here, read this, in his own words, and see just what kind of class of woman he gets to bed and notice he plies them with alcohol when already drunk. I think you can see that he is really just your typical half-breed, and that the women that he ends up having temporary sex with (because even they sober up the next day) are of the sort that you find pissing in the street after a “night out”.

Which brings us to the final point.

His chip on the shoulder.

You might not notice it right away, I do because, well, having lived in Africa for some 25 years along with other countries, I can see this stuff miles away frankly. And writing and hence picking up clues about the writer he has no idea he is leaving, is a thing I have done a long time, and let’s say all my other skills too make it easy to see, but if you read a few of his posts you’ll notice it too, even if he tries to hide it behind this false mask of “I’m just cool, and calm, and collected all the time!” 3

The contempt.

The actual seething he has towards women. And white women in particular.

I will not go on at length on this because it’s obvious to those who can see it and oblivious to the ones that think I am just being a “white supremacist, racist” or whatever.

But yeah, it’s there.

It’s always there with these types. They hate their own brown-stained skin more than any racist can. And they will try to take it out on easy prey that is white.

Drunk, easy, broken, white girls.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So I had to have a parent’s conference with the teachers… apparently the little viking has his own ideas about sitting still for several hours a day. So much so he tends to literally escape from the classroom. And he’s learnt all the ways he can get out of being in class:

• Needs a drink of water
• Needs the toilet
• If there’s a fire (he actually listed this one to me when I said he should try to follow the rules and stay at his desk. His response was to say, “okay, but not if…”
• Breaktime
• To eat

And apparently they unwisely also sat him next to the emergency escape door, which he somehow managed to convince them needs to stay ajar so he can have “fresh air”.

Aside the general statements that they all recognised he is far from stupid and that they understand he needs to move around and is not really a kid that is built for staying at a desk all morning, they nevertheless stated they really need him to not try to escape not only his class, but the entire school, as his teacher caught him on the steps to the gate that leads to the main road.

When I returned home this was the conversation:

Me: Son, what the hell are you doing trying to run out of school into the main road?

YV: I didn’t.

Me: Your teacher told me you were trying to run out if the main gate.

YV: (indignant) That’s not true!

Me: She said she caught you on the steps going to the main gate.

YV: Yes.

Me: (stares at him meaningfully)

YV: I wan’t trying to leave the school! I was chasing a lizard and trying to catch it!

I always related to Calvin and Hobbes. But I didn’t expect I’d actually have Calvin as my son.

That said… the DNA made it sort of inevitable.

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

The two year old got upset with the four year old… and the wife was listening in from the landing, because she has caught the two year old use a bit of foul language from time to time and so was expecting she may need to punish the little angel-looking Aryan tyrant…

Instead… I see the wife entering our bedroom with tears in her eyes, trying to stifle a belly laugh… she recounted what she heard…

2YO: (to 4 YO) You… Little… Ass-worm!

On the one hand, this is not good…

On the other… she’s definitely advanced in grammar, composition and comprehension…

And clearly the genetic predisposition of coming up with on-the-fly inventive vulgar insults, that is a staple of both mom and dad (you know, in our pre-good Catholic days) has been fully retained.

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

An article I read somewhere, now lost to time and memory, said that a long term study (over 40 years I think) of a few thousand couples found a significant statistical link between couples that stayed together long term and their teasing each other in their day to day interactions.

Me: I’m gonna be a while. The stupid national health insurance thing says the test the doctor prescribed me doesn’t exist on their national health list.

Wife: But… didn’t the doctor use the same system to prescribe it?

Me: Yup.

Wife: Of course… (she’s getting used to the way Italy “works”)

Me: So… gonna go to the hospital to see if they even have these tests there.

Wife: okay

Me: I’ll be a while…

Wife: don’t worry, do what you need to, we love you.

Me: Okay then. I’ll try to come home not smelling of other women…

Wife: Awww…

We should be fine until old age.

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

“And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” — Revelation 13:16-17

This guy wrote a pretty interesting piece . A little hyperbolic for my tastes, but then again, maybe not hyperbolic enough for the zombie masses. The link was provided by a reader, and another reader asked about the fact that there was more than one Trump (the short one that is a body double) and what could it possibly mean.

Well… I mean, seriously, how hard is it to understand that if you have more than one “President” and that he does whatever his Talmudic masters tell him anyway, it really doesn’t matter if he has one or ten puppet versions of himself?

The recent post on Unz, quoting Max Blomenthal’s piece, where it is clearly stated that pretty much everyone now knows Charlie was killed by the Jews in Israel, 1 and also that Trump himself is also terrified of going against his masters, because he can also be killed in a number of ways beyond being shot in the head by a wind-up toy (which in any case they already tried) should make it absolutely clear that no, you do NOT have a sovereign country. No, you do NOT have a real president. And neither does anyone in Europe for that matter. And YES, the Talmudic pedovores run it all.

And putting a dwarf Trump on display is just the same thing as trying to tell you some trannyfag killed Charlie because of Trannyfaggism, instead of because he’d started to bite the Jewish hand that fed him for so many years. Not to mention put a skew-eyed street-shitting enthusiast in charge of the perennial deep-state Faggot Bureau of Incels, which, Edgar 2 being himself a fag, 3 always was gay and fake and just a pure hive of lies and scum from day one.

They are TELLING you (assuming you have 2 working neurones left) they are running the show and you can do NOTHING about it.

Is it true?

Of course not. They serve the Prince of Lies. But can they make your life hard? Sure. Mostly because MPACI, 4 but that’s not to say you can’t push back.

So… you want to waste your time discussing what the “left” or the “right” or Short Trump or Tall Trump, did or said, or which completely irrelevant talking head said what? Knock yourself out. It’s personally useful for me to mentally apply an NPC sticker to your forehead and realise the best use we can make of you is as a protecting barrier in front of my sandbags. Sandbags are useful things after all. We should protect them.

If, on the other hand, you are starting to realise that it is ALL just so much nonsensical busywork that achieves nothing, you might be interested in a couple of concepts that are not hard to understand but make all the difference:

• Surround yourself by people that are not zombies.
• Realise that as the quote from revelations says, if you can’t buy or sell anything … you need to figure out a way to provide yourself and your family and your community with what you need without buying or selling. Figure it out, it’s not hard to understand. It’s work to make happen, sure, but eminently possible. I mean… fucking cavemen managed it.
• Have enough force to be able to protect what you build/love/care about.
• Community creates “politics”. So start from the ground up and take over, infiltrate, rebuild, existing structures, from your local PTA, council, county, school, administration building, or invent new political realities. And fill them with like-minded zealots.

Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, I strongly suggest you investigate the following in the following order:

• Christianity
• Catholicism
• Sedevacantist Catholicism
• Totalism vs Sedeprivationism

I write about the last point in a couple of books of course , and on this blog, and I expect no one to take my word for anything.

I’m just telling you, I been doing the above things for the last 4 years, at great personal hard work, sacrifice and difficulty, and with a rather large family to boot, and no relatives or even friends nearby to take any of the physical load off me. Though I absolutely HAVE been helped, very materially, and really, by a couple of non-sede but aligned friends, and all the sede people I know, despite them living nowhere near me. And it’s starting to pay off.

You don’t all need to bite off as big a chunk as I decided to. You can all do what I am trying to do in easier, smaller, more gentle steps, but I seriously advise you to do it.

The pedovores may have their bunkers, but I wouldn’t go in one even if one was presented to me. I will take my chances on the surface, and so be it. And I aim to have a bunch of things ready for them when they think it’s safe to come back out of their underground lairs.

How about you?

Gonna switch on CNN or MSNBC, or the latest YT rage porn channel? Or maybe you’re gonna look up how to dig your own well? Cast your own tools? Learn to use a lathe? Learn to use a gun? Learn what plants can replace the crappy Pharma crap they tell you that you need ?

It’s your choice man.

You do you.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

How much sewage do you want in your ice cream?

No. Seriously, answer the question.

All the substacks trying to be “nuanced” about Charlie, or Trump, or the left, or the right… what a bunch of absolute faggots you all are.

If you are incapable of understanding these simple things, please, do us both a favour, fuck off from this Substack and go elsewhere. I don’t live off this, and even if I did I really don’t want to surround myself with moral cowards and retards. Here is the truth:

1. There is an objective reality.
2. This means there is a TRUE position that is absolute and above all others at any given point in time about any given thing you care to think or imagine.
3. This means all other positions are FALSE to one degree or other.

That’s IT.

Now… is it true we all, at times, make a mistake as to what that might be? Sure.

Is it true that maybe in some instances we may never be sure what that truth is? Absolutely.

And you know what you do when that’s the case?

YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Because you don’t KNOW.

At most you can say: “I think this, and that, and the other, but that’s just my OPINION.” And that’s ok, because opinions are like assholes, as the saying goes: Everyone has one, and almost all of them, all the time, are full of shit. And even the ones that aren’t full of shit at a particular moment will be full of shit in a little while anyway.

Then there are a few saints, MAYBE, with colostomy bags. If you find one, be silent and listen. And still double-check for yourself.

So that’s point number one: If you don’t know, STFU.

Point number two: If you are reasonably sure but not 100% sure, say so. And leave it at that. But first ask yourself why you should speak at all. Why on Earth should your “maybe” matter at all to even be uttered?

Point number three: You’re really quite sure and certain, but telling the truth may get you killed. Okay, I think it’s fine for you to then say “It’s just my OPINION.” And anyone with a brain will know it’s more than that, but can’t officially argue the point with you.

Point number four: You DO know (or are deluded enough to believe you do). Then don’t mince your words. Because there is truth and there is lies. There is good and there is bad. Pick a fucking side, because sitting on the fence just means YOU are —at best— uninterested in the topic at hand, in which case: STFU. Otherwise, if you ARE interested, but you are sitting on the fence the whole time, you’re a liar, an idiot, or a coward, or a combination of all three.

So let me give you an example:

Charlie Kirk – This is what I think:

1. He was originally a complete shill for Israel. Was he aware of it, or was he genuinely naively thinking Israel is the good guys? I have no idea. I would assume maybe a bit of both, but you know what, I am 100% ok with assuming he was totally innocently believing it in genuine error because of his upbringing, or whatever. And I am running with that on a personal level. Charity is not my strong point, but I 100% am absolutely willing to truly think of it that way on Charlie, and do.
2. At some point he started to question the narrative of Israel being “the good guys” because they absolutely, objectively, 100% are evil scum, and I don’t give a flying fuck at a rat’s ass if you disagree, or think that makes me a Nazi etc etc (and fuck you if you do, since I’m no fan of the socialist party of anything, but especially the one of Germany) and he literally started to do this publicly.
3. He became very quickly aware that this was dangerous and could get him killed and he expressed this fear to various people. Who have come forward on several occasions since.
4. Israel killed him before his questions about Israel became too public; and are in fact now trying to make him a “hero” and “champion” of pro-Israel propaganda, when he had quite clearly jumped that ship. The vermin trying to do so, from the Jerusalem post (the very FIRST newspaper to post about his assassination), to Ben Shapiro, acting as if he was a good buddy to Kirk,1 to Netanyahu, who also was the very first world leader to praise Kirk immediately after he got killed, are typically of the view that YOU dear reader are too fucking stupid to put 2 and 2 together and figure this out, even though it’s staring you in the face.
5. If you needed any more proof, you got a skew-eyed street-shitter, pretending to be a boss at the FBI who fucked up the “we got him” at least twice, before he said we definitely have him. The same FBI who did all the other false flag bullshit since…oh well… J. Edgar Hoover. And the stuff they came up with, tranny messages on the ammo, the Mauser rifle supposedly appeared and disappeared, was disassembled in seconds (HOW? Do you even know ANYTHING about guns?) then appeared magically in a cardboard box and wasn’t even the type they said to begin with, etc etc. etc. It’s just a fucking farse. Any competent actual servant of law and order would be arresting every single Fed even remotely involved with this as spies, traitors and foreign agents working for Israel or in any case to the detriment of the USA and would be hanging them from the neck until dead after a quick but through trial.
6. And finally, yes, Trump and your whole USA (and my own government by Proxy, of course, along with he rest of Europe too) is totally controlled by the Talmudians and Donnie boy may as well have a fist all the way up his rectum making him say whatever Bibi wants. Because he too can die suddenly. Which is why there are alternate Trumps a foot lower than him pretending to be him doing whatever Israel wants. And it’s also why when Charlie warned Donnie about Israel Donnie apparently barked at him to STFU basically, as has been reported elsewhere.

INTERLUDE:

And yeah, the above is all my opinion, but I am also pretty certain it’s spot on. You do your own research.

And if you also think building 7 collapsed because of a fire (in what? a waste paper basket?) then PLEASE go read other sub stacks, you are too fucking stupid to be here.

END OF INTERLUDE

But to return to Charlie, the overall point is that even in the worst case scenario (from my perspective) let’s s ay he was a total knowing shill for Israel, and he started to talk about Epstein and the genocide in Gaza and so on, because he wanted MORE money, he was just greedy and a terrible grifter. Let’s for a minute pretend that was the case (I do NOT believe than, but for the sake of argument, let’s pretend).

If so, he could absolutely be considered my ideological absolute opposite. Ideologically, practically, and intellectually, such a person would be everything I despise. Even so…

Would I say he “deserved” to be killed?

No.

No I do not. I would never agree with that.

Publicly proven to be a grifter, humiliated with facts and truth, and proof of the bribery he received? Sure.

But killed? For TALKING?

Even if it was lies from morning till night (it mostly really wasn’t anyway) he absolutely did not deserve to be killed. His wife didn’t deserve it. His children certainly didn’t deserve it.

And if you are one of the POS that thinks he did, then keep the fuck away from me. You’re scum. And remember that once you use a tactic, technique, or weapon against your enemy, it absolutely becomes fair game to use it on you too.

So all you fucks that are happy he got killed? As far as I am concerned you are all perfectly fine with being killed yourselves for your shitty views. I didn’t make that determination. YOU did. By your actions.

And while I will not rejoice at your possibly being killed by someone that has had enough of your bullshit —because I am, objectively, despite all my many human flaws, an infinitely better human being than you and everyone like you— I certainly will NOT feel or say a word in your defence and you will not hear from me any kind of defence of your position, which is quite different from how I am discussing Charlie. Even if he had been the worst possible thing I can imagine with respect to his beliefs and actions, as explained above.

As it happens, I DO believe he was starting to see the truth and could no longer ignore it. And the Talmudians are quick to get rid of anyone that threatens the status quo they spent centuries trying to make everyone believe regarding their perennial victimhood.

My own system of ethics may be questionable to some of you, but at least I have one.

The Talmudians break every single aspect of anything that I consider moral, ethical, fair or just. And while I will not compromise my OWN ethics with regard to them, they DO have a special place in the list of ideological enemies I may have, real or imagined.

If you read this blog, and care to participate in discussions here, don’t you dare tell me about how morality is relative in any respect. It isn’t.

It’s a lie and a terrible one to pretend you can “make a deal” with evil, or that it’s ok to tolerate it, or anything of the sort.

If you are that kind of person, you are the kind of person that would find an excuse as to why a child rapist should be perfectly fine sleeping in your toddler’s bed.

And if you are that kind, as far as I am concerned, you deserve to be placed in the exact same hole that the child rapist belongs in. Which in case you are not sure, let me clarify: It’s a shallow grave in a fetid bog somewhere, marked only by the droppings of the reptiles that feast on such a disgusting carcass.

And fuck your moral tepidity, and lukewarm, stand-for-nothing-at-all bullshit excuse for a heart.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So, we have 20 more tins, this time 1 litre only available to our USA friends who want to get some of the literally best olive oil on the planet. No kidding, the olive oil from the region we are in has consistently won the best olive oil on the planet at the yearly olive oil expo since 2021.

And if you follow the “blueprint” by Brian Johnson, who spends over $2 million a year to try and live forever, you will know that after years of testing, the one thing he found that is most beneficial of all is unfiltered, pure, unblended olive oil. And he now sells his stuff at comparable prices to ours, except his is from Chile or Argentina and Greece I think, and in 750ml bottles if my memory serves me. So, ultimately of inferior quality.

We also use ZERO fertilisers, additives, or any sort of treatment on the trees. They literally just sit in our field and we do nothing at all to them (including not even pruning then for the last couple of years). The olives get cold pressed and the unfiltered oil (which means it retains all the best parts of the oil for your health) is collected and tinned.

That’s it.

Now, getting I too the USA is far from cheap, (recent tariffs will not improve this either) and collecting it, tinning it, etc as well as keeping the field trimmed (we do need to cut all the grass and brambles and other twigs and stuff that try to overrun our field every year, several times a year) all costs money.

But you literally can’t get this quality of oil anywhere else on the planet.

Be aware sometimes, because the shippers are not always gentle, the tin sometimes arrives with a little dent or two:

But so far we have not had any catastrophic failures, as the tins are pretty solid and you’d probably have to stab the package hard, or something like that to poke a hole in it.

The price is $85 per tin, shipped anywhere in the USA (shipping costs are already included in the price included).

If you want one, the best thing to do is to register with wise, use this link:

https://wise.com/invite/ihpc/giuseppef593

Send the $85 using this e-mail: cafilo.usa @ proton.me and, using the same email, also send us your FULL physical address where you want the oil delivered. Don’t forget to email us your physical address, as we can’t trace your email from the payment, you need to tell us where to ship it separately from the payment for it.

This is the fastest and most streamlined way of doing this and the oil should be with you in about a week or less as it’s shipped directly from our facility in the USA. It also cuts down on time-wasted when people email to say they are interested but then change their mind, or can’t register, or whatever and don’t send the payment, so we hold up oil for others that instead would be getting it right away.

As always, first come, first served.

The Wise card is extremely useful by the way and better than PayPal or other similar services I have used and works well also in case of you travelling etc. and only takes a few minutes to register.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here