This pinned post aims to give both new and old visitors the quick links to the main parts of this site that are most important, and gets updated with any new stuff fairly regularly so it’s a good idea to check it now and then.
Read more »What is this site all about? First-timers CLICK HERE
KURGANBONDS (KBD) now available!
I have done this mostly as a joke and experiment as well as a learning curve for people like me who have stayed away from crypto for years, but I now have created a cryptocurrency called Kurganbond (KBD).
You can find it on pump.fun (that is the whole site address) by typing that name in the search bar.
It’s doing unreasonably well so far:

There are at least six of you crazy enough to have invested some money in it, here you are:

The little blonde emoji with (dev) next to it is me, the other addresses are whichever crazy six readers you are.
Still, I think this could become a very interesting experiment if enough people who read my stuff are willing to try an experiment which, I have to admit sounds a little insane but I think could work and make everyone money long term.
Let me explain how it works.
There is a description of the KURGANBOND that I wrote up when I created it which sort of defines the process although because I AM such a noob it’s wrong in two aspects, which I will explain.
Here is the description of KBD:

And here is how it’s wrong:
1. The timeline. On thinking about this and noting the number of readers I have has been much reduced due to the hack that meant the recreation and relocation of this blog it is clear that it will take a lot longer to get say 1000 people investing in this even with just throw away money, which is all you should ever invest in cryptocurrencies anyway.
2. The amounts. I didn’t know this when I created the KBD, but it seems that the lowest amount you can buy of KBD is 0.1 SOL. And that is at present about $20. So that is probably the least amount you can buy of KBD.
For the other noobs like me, if you decide to play this game with us in a very safe way, assume the following:
doing this will teach you about cryptocurrency and how to invest/play, and maybe even become good at making money with it; and even if not, you will have developed a new skill that seems to be increasingly required in the coming days and years of elite dystopia. Just because the game is absurd, doesn’t mean it won’t kill you if you don’t know how to play, and learning to use, profit from, and at least understand crypto is probably more important, or at least as important, as understanding that in the event of a hot war, even if you are well armed and well positioned geographically, you need to consider combat drones in your defensive strategy. The best long range rifle you have and group of friends well trained in the terrain and so on will be obliterated in minutes if you do not account for drones and night vision today.
Crypto is the same. Like it or hate it, it is an avenue to learn to navigate the financial markets, which even if you plan to be an off-grid farmer with anti-drone defence who doesn’t need fiat money… will still be useful.
So here in this post you can get all you need to start from zero and learn a LOT in a single bit of reading and doing. And all it will cost you in the worst case scenario is $20.
Assume it as the cost of learning and forget about it.
Except that there is actually a chance that if my insane idea works and is taken up by enough of you here, you will make your money back and not have lost anything. And if that happens there is then even a good chance you make more money than you ever put in, potentially a lot more, and you don’t need to sit in front of your PC like a cocaine-fuelled day trader either.
So if you want to take part, here is the main “big idea” I have, which is actually fairly simple. It is “crazy” only because for it to work it has to rely on the best part of human nature. If you know what a misanthrope I am, you know that my trust in human nature is mostly that humans are petty, vicious, fearful, cowardly, greedy, nasty little creatures with a petty and devious mind.
However, and not many know this about me, because unless you can read between the lines of my fiction work you may not suspect it, but I am an absolute believer in the human spirit —despite all our flaws, that we all have— overcoming all our weaknesses and errors, and through it all, at times, redeeming us all. It is, at heart, a completely and fundamentally Catholic sense of reality, but I have always believed this way even when I was atheist. Even in a world without God or meaning, the crazy man that gives his life for that of a stranger’s child, the woman who believes beyond sanity in a man everyone else has written off and that gives him the spark to become a man that ends up doing a huge amount of good for many, the little boy who got his face scarred horribly for life for saving his even smaller sister from a vicious dog… these humans, these actions, in some way they redeem not just those individuals, but humanity too.
As I say, it is a fundamental reality of Catholicism, it is the very reason why Lucifer hates us, and does everything in his power to degrade us, and humiliate us, and see us fail due to our own many flaws. The very fact that such imperfect creatures as humans —grubby, little Earth-dwellers as we are— has the potential to “judge angels” as our Lord tells us, who are essentially “perfect” creatures (and yet, with free will, making their revolt against God so much worse and therefore permanent, for they have none of our weaknesses) drives him to his eternal rage against us.
I know, I know, what the hell does crypto have to do with the spiritual human condition?!?
Well, as with everything relating to humanity: that is up to you. Nothing if you are a materialist, or everything (just like everything does) if you are a believer.
I will explain more on this further on, but for now, let me explain the mechanics of my idea and then the mechanics of how you go about doing this even if you are a two finger typer with a deep suspicion of all things digital, as am I.
The idea
The concept is simple:
We all invest $20 in KBD and then we tell people about it (hopefully people you like and trust, but also people online, friends, people on social media etc) and either help them do it or tell them to read this post (there is a share button at the end of this post as long as you are reading it by having clicked on its title instead of just scrolling on the blog).
As more people slowly put their $20 in, the value of each share of the roughly 1.1 or 1.2 billion shares of KBD that exist, goes up. Currently, just under a billion shares are held by the bonding curve (see image above where me and the six crazy guys are). Once a total of $113,000 has been bought into it, (the total of the binding curve) then The KBD graduates and becomes available on raydium. What is raydium?

That’s the jist and you can read up more by google searching and learning more about crypto in general. Now we are at 3% of doing that with only 6 guys, so at the same level of buy-in we just need another 97×2 = 194 people to put $20 in it because roughly speaking, 200 people at $20 is only $4,000 and as you can see below the bonding curve has about $6,500 in it.

You can see this screen and information on any of the people who bought KBD (and on the bonding curve) by clicking on their name (see the second image in this post)
The bonding curve is basically a system storage for the value of the created crypto (in this case KBD) so that Inas the creator cannot just buy up a huge amount in my name, wait for a bunch of people to put money it and as soon as the value gies up sell the whole lot, make a killing and leave everyone else empty handed.
In this way I need to buy KBD myself if I want any, just like anyone else, and I did, buying about $20 worth (0.1 SOL).
If enough people do the same and the bonding curve is bought out, then the value of each of the KBD shares will go up, and here is where it gets into my idea and interesting (if slightly crazy idea).
What would happen if as new people come in and the price goes up, the people who invested first did not sell their KBD and make a profit right away but instead only very gradually took their original investment out.
So… when your $20 in KBD goes up in value and Is now worth $30 you left it in. And left it in at $40 too. And when it hit $60 you sold $10 worth and put that $10 back into your wallet and when eventually KBD goes down a bit (because of the sales to get back that $10) you just held it, until it hit $60 again and then you take out another $10. At this point you have recouped your original investment and still have $50 in KBD in the game.
If once you have recouped your original investment you let the money ride until it goes back up even higher, to say $80, before you sell off another $10 or so, and if everyone that joins holds this strategy and does this for a year, all while still spreading the word and the philosophy of KBD, over time, many people will not only recover their initial investment, they will have made a profit. And as long as new people keep coming in, the benefits will be reaped by MANY, not just a few. As gradually and slowly as it goes, but it would make KBD a fairly safe bet, as long as no one with too much of the initial investment pulls the rug on everyone, over time KBD would become a relatively safe bet.
This by the way is how many of the more established crypto currencies work. Things like SOL and even more bitcoin have become so well-funded that their value is relatively safe and people have and do use it as essentially fiat money.
The point of KBD would be it’s slow and steady because a core of the initial investors commit to this sort of more ethical behaviour. As I said, yes, it’s an insane idea, but am not the inly one to have it, others are trying it, for example with LOTTLE. (A crypto coin also available on Pump.fun)
But as far as I know I am the only one spelling it out and making the strategy public.
NOTE: All figures shown here change quite fast as new people come in so the values of the bonding curve have already changed before I even finished this post. Focus on the principles because the numbers change fast.
Let me explain about LOTTLE.
LOTTLE was initially created by about 20 guys who are all pretty big fish in the crypto market from what I understand (big relatively speaking I mean) and because if this it skyrocketed as the news spread that some solid money had been pumped into it. Everyone who came in on the first 2-3 days doubled their money in 24 hours. Now… I believe the original investors did not mean to pull the rug from people’s feet, and I think I am right on that because there is some proof.
On day six or so LOTTLE crashed from 5.4 million to 0.5 million. In the space of about 20 minutes. I missed it because I had a sandwich. And because it was doing well and I had been seeing the patterns in the sips and rises I had foolishly put some of the cash I had already take out back in. I wanted to hit a very reasonable and reachable target quickly so I could get out altogether and double the $300 I started with.
So now I had crashed back to a total of about $100 when I had been sitting at about $550. Not the end of the world in the scheme of things but painful, especially due to it being my own stupidity. Not greed, but impatience. Just before the collapse and the idiot move I had $150 already out and $411 in LOTTLE. Had I followed my own advice not only would I NOT have put the $150 back in at what I thought and looked like the end of a dip and the start of a rise, I would have got another $150 out and kept the original $300 investment as safely recovered and would still have had $261 in LOTTLE.
The crash would not have affected me.
The sting to my ego was painful.
But… I let it all ride and became aware that NONE of the initial 20 investors had pulled out. What had actually happened is that the TRUMP official meme coin had come out and it has sucked cryptocurrencies from all over the world. It increased in value by ten times in 24 hours. Had I been registered on the right cryptosites I would have bought some too. But I had nothing left and no energy to begin registering and doing ID verifications and learning new sites. But I waited.
And sure enough, LOTTLE recovered. Not to 5 million but it hit 4. I sold most of it and eecivered my original investment of $300 and had $50 or so left over so I bought $25 of my own KURGANBOND memecoin and decided to write this up as a help to other noobs who want to start and learn.
The point about LOTTLE is that even if most of the people who bought into it did not stay with it, because the original guys did, those who had faith in them did not lose it all and we had a chance to make it back and even make a little profit despite a black swan event no one could predict.
The principle behind my KBD would be the same. The original investors who get in early, should be the type of people who will stick to the strategy outlined above for KBD.
Because I assume the only people who will buy KBD are people who read this blog, I also assume they would be on with this. As long as you spread the message, and this post, and people join up over time the KBD will grow (very slowly compared to most memecoins) but that’s ok.
Because you got in early you will have PLENTY of KBD for a few dollars so your investment will grow faster than the later entrants, but because we want as many people as possible to make money, the general rule is you wait until your money has tripled before you take out 50% of your original $20 or so. And you wait until that happens again (or more) before you take out the other 50%. After that, you hold for a long while giving later entrants a chance to do the same as newer people get in.
Yes, over a long time it will not work for people at the end, but guess what? The exact same “Ponzi scheme” mechanism applies to fiat money too. It’s just hidden more because literally the entire planet uses it and is so diversified into various currencies (and now also crypto!), but the reality is that all fiat money you use every day is created out of just as thin air as a memecoin.
The difference is I am telling you about it and am explaining how if we don’t all act like Jewish bankers, we can actually be a force for good and cause more wealth to be more fairly distributed.
Yes it’s not perfect, nothing is, but if we hold fast, and spread the word well, whether over a month or ten years, we have the possibility of increasing the investment people made and teaching everyone about crypto and also helping them ease into it.
And depending on if it gets big enough, even make some money. And since we are talking about $20-30 as initial investment, so what if you lose it all? If nothing else you will have learnt something new that may help you become proficient at something that potentially can be a source of income for some people who do it full time.
Anyway, that’s the crazy idea and a seventh guy came onboard in the time I wrote this and the bonding curve funding requirement is less than 100k now… so… it may just work.
Feel free to let me know if you join with a comment below.
Fake Catholics up to their usual Lies
So, it has come to my attention that yet another deceitful gatekeeper, by the name of Teresa Stanfill Benns, who runs a website called Betrayed Catholics, has been making complete fabrications concerning Catholicism in general. And to what end, you may ask? Well, the usual one: Trying to make sure that nominal (already deceived) Catholics, who are merely ignorant of the lies that have been forced upon them since birth, do not get wind of the actual Catholicism which is today held ONLY by 1958 Sedevacantists.
In short, this deceitful shrew lies about a great number of things, but all of them come to the same conclusion: You must follow the fake “Pope” Bergoglio who is just a “bad Pope” and not the gay handmaiden to Satan that he actually is.
It is complete nonsense of course, but then another moron who should also hold her tongue (and typing fingers) as per 1 Corinthians 34-35 and even more clearly 1 Timothy 2: 12-13:
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Hilariously calling herself “The Thinking Housewife”. But also tragically, because she gives actual housewives with a brain a bad name. Her piece is here, and it is very simple to refute… IF you actually understand the basics of canon law and Catholicism. But she is merely quoting Benns and Benns style, is very much like the one of John Salza, a supposed “ex” self-confessed freemason who pretends to teach people how the Novus Orco Church is the Catholic Church.
Well, it isn’t it is the result of usurpation by Stanists and it is a full inversion of Catholicism of course, as readers here will know by just looking for the words “Vatican II” or “Canon Law 118.4” or “188 part 4” and reading the relevant posts. And John Salza, having been a Freemason even though a layman is absolutely forbidden from teaching anyone anything about Catholicism. In fact, even if his repentance were real (it is not, by all measures one can reasonably observe) this would still be the case, since, once a heretic, even clergy who repent are to have authority over precisely no one, and spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance. That is the dogmatic law. Imaginbe how much less authority a heretic layman has then to tell anyone anything. About anything.
So let’s dispense with the unthinking and at best illiterate “housewife”, which is really a dismissing of Benns, since all the “housewife” does is parrot the same lies Benns does.
Benns assertion is quoted in full by the Housewife and we will do the same here and also take it apart piece by piece in the usual Kurgan style.
Her lies in filthy bold, my pristine truth in normal text.
“TRADITIONALISTS argue that necessity knows no law and they can resort to epikeia to justify their ordinations and consecrations.
She begins in the usual freemasons fashion, intentionally trying to obfuscate simple concepts by use of jargon and unnecessarily “scholarly” wording. I say “scholarly” because it is of course a lie, a deceit and an attempt to wrap oneself in the in any case logical fallacy of argument from authority. Using the Greek word for “reasonableness” is simply obfuscation in the first place (most people have no idea what Epikea means and the slight confusion the causes to them puts them in the immediate mental state of assuming the writer must be very “scholarly” indeed). Well, she is not, and in fact this transparent deception shows she is not even mildly intelligent. Just vicious and nasty from the start. The deception is that there is no need to use the word “reasonableness”. There is a very sound and logical concept at play here, which is simply this: ROMAN LAW. Which Canon Law and the Church has always used. The point of Roman Law is that it is based in absolutely sound yet humane logic. So, for example, unlike the mechanistic and inhuman British Laws, or worse the American ones, in the context of a criminal act, in Roman Law, there is no specific prescribed action other than generally. Each case is evaluated on its merits. The murder of a pedophile is not the same as the murder of an innocent shop owner, and so on. But more importantly, Roman Law is soundly based in logic. So for example it follows the rule of silent assent and the reasonable and logical concept of the negative application of a rule being valid when such situations are fulfilled for it. Two relevant examples will suffice: There is NO prescribed maximum duration of an Interregnum (time between when one Pope dies and another valid one is elected). Therefore, no specific limit can ever be prescribed for it. We could go 1,000 years before a new and actually valid Pope is finally voted in after the usurpers have been done away with it and this would in no way mean the Church has defected, otherwise it would mean the church had defected as soon as St. Peter died. or when for almost 3 years there was literally no one at all even pretending to be Pope a few Centuries ago. In short, you cannot assume things that don’t make sense.
But furthermore, the sentence above is a lie. NO ONE has ever said “reasonableness” is why ordinations by Bishops of other Bishops is why Sedevacantist Bishops can ordain new Bishops.
The reason is covered in detail in my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church but to summarise it:
Whenever a Pope dies Bishops have no jurisdictional authority, and neither do Priests. In essence all a Bishop can do and priests too is issue the sacraments to the faithful, which of course includes doing Holy Mass and doing so WITHOUT the name of any Pope joined to the prayers, since no pope exists presently. Because the Pope is the one that has final say in if ANYONE is actually allowed to become a Bishop, what the liar Benns is pretending to say is that: “Only the Pope can validly make someone a Bishop, so Sedevacantist ordinations are invalid and a sham.” this is a filthy lie and the entire history of the Church proves it. Whenever Popes died and before another was elected Bishops were ordained, the eventual new Pope had absolute authority to veto any of those ordinations that happened before he came to the throne. And in the era of the Borgia and Medici, this veto power was used a lot. But even then, Popes would generally not make any comment of people who had been ordained as Bishops who were not some kind of threat or power-play. In fact, throughout its history, most Bishops are ordained and the Pope says not a thing about it. And because it’s Roman Law and the rule of silent assent is a given, it means that if the Pope says nothing, the ordination is assumed valid. And that is how it has ALWAYS been. So she lies straight out the gate. And then she gallops on to the next lie.
This has been refuted here.
The link leads to a screed of John Salza-like absurdities, obfuscations, lies and so on. It really is the Freemasonic way. She invokes the Papal writings of Pope Pious X and Pious XII Vacante Sede Apostolica and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, as if they agreed with the lies she is saying. they do no such thing of course. And it goes on to several lengthy pages of lies and obfuscations. it is the Argument ad infinitum Salza also uses. Writing page sand pages of lies so enmeshed and so twisted with the facts that one’s brain gazes over and once again they do this to give the impression that they are great and wise scholars that have “done their homework” but of course, it’s all nonsense, because we have already seen that the ordinations are simply assumed valid and always have been, until a new and VALID Pope says specifically otherwise.
And as explained at length in a separate work, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS) — which infallibly decrees what can and cannot be done during an interregnum — forbids any correction or change in the law during an interregnum. ‘The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.’
Note again the strawman. She is trying to imply that VAS says “You guys can’t ordain Bishops when a Pope is dead or not valid!” But that is not what it says at all. All it says is what has already been known from the very first Pope on. When a Pope dies or is not present on the throne, no one has authority to do anything other than give the sacraments. We already know that. and we already know that Bishops and priests were ordained throughout the history of the Church without a Pope necessarily being validly on the throne. And after one did come validly to the throne, unless they specifically stated so-and-so was actually NOT accepted as a valid Bishop or priest, it was assumed by all, positively, definitively and permanently that they in fact were validly elected.
“Here we are talking both papal laws and Canon Law, which is largely taken from papal and conciliar law.
Again an obfuscation of nonsense. There are only two kinds of Laws in the Church. Divine Laws and Church or Ecclesiatical laws. Divine Laws are immutable and eternal. For example, a public defection from the faith makes you a heretic without anyone needing to say or do anything, regardless of your status, which includes even a previously valid Pope. Another divine Law is that no one can be forced to become Catholic or get married say, again their will.
Ecclesiastical rules on the other hand are generally for the smoother running of the Church as it got larger. For example, the requirement of 70 Cardinals to vote in a Pope. this is merely a human rule that was not followed in the past, and therefore need not be followed in the future if circumstances make it obsolete or irrelevant. For example, in the current state of things there is not even 70 valid Cardinals. but then, neither were there ANY Cardinals at all int he year 400. And yet we had the Church and Popes were getting elected, by non-cardinals every one. So all that one requires to know is if a rule is of Divine Law, in which case it is absolute and eternal, or if it is of ecclesiastical law, in which case the specifics and the reasons for it need to be looked at and logically understood so that if things have changed to the point that the rule no longer makes sense, this is understood and acted upon intelligently.
Some may object that Can. 20 advises the use of epikeia, and to invoke it would not be a violation of the law. But Can. 20 specifically states there must be no other provision in the case considered, and such provision was already laid down in VAS.
We have already covered this above. She is just lying.
It also recommends consulting the laws given in similar cases and the common and constant teaching of approved authors.
Here there is the hint that she is well aware that ecclesiastical rules are not immutable, because Divine laws don’t change, and there is no such thing as “similar cases”. Either a law is divine or it is not. So in this case, it is a divine law that the Pope (if he exists and is valid) is the ultimate, supreme authority of the Church on Earth, as representative of Jesus Christ. It is also the case that JESUS is the ultimate head of the Church and NOT the Pope, and that any infallibility a Pope has is limited to when he makes official pronouncements on faith and morals, which in essence, for 2,000 years have almost entirely been composed of refining of divine law; required usually because gnostics, statists and protestants started to teach false doctrines in precisely this fashion, so what was always a law and a rule known by all now needed to be spelt out in detail to avoid the sophists and deceivers to confuse the faithful.
It is also a law that if a Pope does not exist, then any ordination performed in accordance with the rules of ordination is automatically assumed to be valid and this becomes NOT the case ONLY after a valid Pope IS elected and said valid Pope for whatever reason deems that an ordination was in fact not valid.
Also, the “teachings of approved authors” is yet another bit of nonsensical theatre thrown in to confound things and make it seem as if you need to consult 12 tomes from the archives to know if a “pope” putting demonic effigies on the altar is sacrilegious or not. But you do NOT need to do that. Because Canon Law is the distillation of every behaviour and rule a Catholic should follow. And because it was put together by a group of cardinals expressly for the purpose of ensuring that there was no contradiction in the 40,000 or so documents that the team of Cardinals looked at to compile the CoCof 1917, it is also part of the infallible magisterium of the Church, which is why in over 100 years, NO ONE has been able to find defect with ANY of its rules or laws. Instead the New Orcs (Novus Orco) simply said in 1983 that a new code was required and they made up a document that literally contradicts itself several times over and is just a typical mis-match of gnostic stuff blend with some roadkill.
What even St. Thomas Aquinas may have to say on a topic is irrelevant if you have Canon Law of 1917, because it is the final judge of how behaviour should be undertaken for a Catholic, Be they clergy or lay people. So it is totally pointless to refer to “esteemed authors”. It’s like saying you need to go have a coffee with the guy who wrote the book you need to study to pass your driving test, in order to be able to do the exam. It’s nonsense. There is no instance in which Canon Law does not supersede the thoughts, opinions, or writings of any Catholic
Laws given in similar cases point to the summoning of the bishops to elect a pope (Council of Constance) and a good number of authors agree on this, namely St. Robert Bellarmine and those supporting his teaching.
Once again, arguing for a straw man. Under normal circumstances, sure… but when your “Pope” is a henchman of Beelzebub, and so are his “cardinals” you don’t call these indemoniated freaks together to elect the baddest of them to be a horned minor demon. And St. Bellarmine simply laid out the procedure that should be followed when/if things are X. Which no one is arguing. But things are now Z and X is really not that relevant now.
St. Bellarmine also recommends the calling of an imperfect council in the absence of a pope if the cardinals cannot elect.
Oh…so…we CAN deviate from the ecclesiastical rules when it makes sense. Just as I said and she has been denying from the start until… now. Freemasons are not smart. Aside picking evil, which is dumb, they also can’t think on their feet. But the problem is not this, the issue is that fake Cardinals who are also fake Catholics, heretic every one of them, have no business electing anyone, much less one of their number to be “Pope”.
Finally, Can. 20 cannot be used in anything involving penalties. And VAS is a document levying several penalties.”
Again irrelevant. Because VAS says nothing about Bishops being elected when there is not a valid Pope being somehow illegitimate.
— Teresa Benns, Betrayed Catholics
And there you have it. Just another gnostic/heretic trying to get you to be “in communion” with Satan’s henchman instead of with the infallible magisterium of the Church.
Blog Topics
- Categories
- Actual Science
- Agnostic Christianity
- Ancient Technology
- Artificial Intelligence
- Billionaire Pedophiles
- Book Review
- Books
- Brain-Mind Functionality
- Caveman Theory
- Christianity
- Clown World
- Cypto
- Farming Life
- Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy
- Fighting SJWs
- Film Review
- Freemasons
- Gammas
- Guns
- HAARP Attacks
- Hard Facts
- Heretics
- Human Performance
- Humour
- Hypnosis
- Impostors and Frauds
- Increasing Happiness
- Kurgan Art
- Martial Arts
- Mass Murderers
- Nazi Conspiracies
- News
- On War And Civil Unrest
- Poll
- Relationships
- Retards
- RPGs
- Russia and GAE
- Social Commentary
- Stupid PUAs
- The Enemy Within
- The Jews
- Theoretical Models of Society
- Travel
- Writing
- Zombie Apocalypse
- Categories
Blog Archives
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- April 2016
- August 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- November 2013
- October 2013
- March 2013
- December 2012
- August 2012
- March 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010


TMOS – Part 6 – The Individual Woman and Her Belief
In Parts 1 to 3 I covered the fundamentals of what the actual pillars of society are, unlike what most people believe. In part 4 I covered the individual man and how his beliefs create order or lack of it with regards to moving towards civilisation. Part 5 covered marriage and why it is the foundational cell of a functioning society, as well as the fact that absent this, that is, actual marriage, not the parodies of it we see all-round us, a civilisation that arises —if it arises at all, which is doubtful— will simply not be able to compare in any way with the Catholic civilisation that first created real, actual marriage. Or we should say, imposed God’s will regarding it. This part 5 is important to have read before reading this post on the Individual Woman, because otherwise some of the premises and attributes of women in general, established there with proof, will simply be misunderstood as “my opinion” here, instead of being taken as a biological fact.
Part 5a was a treatise on justice and its importance as a pillar of civilisation, and the fact that reinstating the death penalty for certain crimes is absolutely necessary. If you also pay attention to who wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout all the nations on Earth, and eventually managed to mostly do so, you will find the usual suspects, Judaic Zionists, Freemasons, or their Goyim minions. Which by now should not come as any sort of surprise.
But there was also an addendum, a slight tone-setter for this part 6, and it’s probably best you read it first.
Right. On we go! But first, the usual introduction:
This is the sixth in the Theoretical Models of Society series of Posts. Use the category of the same name or the Search Me function on the right-hand sidebar to find all related posts in the series.
It is generally helpful to a reader if they are already familiar with some of my other work, in order for this stuff to have the most useful effect on your life. In particular, The Face on Mars and Believe! would be the top reads to have done to have the generic global perspective of reality well in hand. Systema and Reclaiming the Catholic Church would have the most impact on a more personal level. On health/security/self-protection, and on the reality of Catholicism as it was (and remains with Sedevacantists) before Vatican II and why the Novus Ordo Church is not only not Catholic, but Satanic at its core. I will repeat this little paragraph on each new part, as I think it is important to have a general foundation if one is really interested in more than skim-reading before returning to the general slumber we are all being attempted to be forced into.
Having digested part 5 of this series (On Marriage) you will know that in general terms, women will tend to be far more solipsistic than men, and this is the case quite aside from anything else, as it is the logical consequence of the male/female dynamic due to their different biology.
But as described in part 4, which basically defined the utility as well as the description of what is an individual man that is ultimately a force for good, we now come to the same question concerning the individual woman.
As stated previously, men are the civilisers of a society. Their monopoly on force requires them to have always been the part of the family unit that faced the outside world, and dealt with it, meaning that the survival pressure for a man was essentially the objective universe; be this represented by inclement weather, natural predators, disasters and challenges, or even other men. As a result he developed a far more objective, logical and practical way of not just seeing things but doing them and even organising his fellow males into functional hierarchies that together could take on much larger scale projects.
Hence: Man is the civiliser and creator of any functional society. As such, the individual man could be considered the DNA strand within the cell (the nuclear family unit). A woman on the other hand, can be seen as the remaining entirety of the cell. The cell wall, and all the bits that keep a cell alive and functioning.
Unlike a man, a woman’s survival pressure was mostly other women. Absent other women, even a relatively unattractive and unpleasant woman will still get male attention and opportunity to be looked after. Such is the biological imperative for reproduction. However, introduce other women, especially prettier, sluttier, less scrupulous ones, and suddenly, the security provided by your man for yourself and your offspring is under serious threat, since you can be replaced. As a result, the dynamics in female relations differ enormously from those between men. Women are necessarily far more adept at social interactions, capable of having multiple agendas happening simultaneously. A process a simple male may even interpret as self-serving and manipulative, which it can be, but not unavoidably so.
It is true that only men create civilisations, but without women, there would not only not be any civilisations at all, but there would not even be a need for them! A world in which a man only has to worry about taking care of himself, is a far starker, simpler, harder and more brutal world.
Absent wife and children, a man is perfectly capable of living in a one room space where he has the capacity to make basic food for basic survival and a bed to sleep on. In ancient times this could literally be a cave and the extent of his possessions a few weapons and clothing. In modern times it’s a one room space with the ability to cook basic food for basic survival, and a subscription to the latest multi-player on-line gaming platform.
In short, men and women, in the natural order of things, complement each other and function in a natural harmony that is based on mutual sacrifice for the greater whole (the family unit).
Men, being more objective and logical, naturally have a far healthier and more positive understanding of this in broad terms.
Women, being biologically built to place their own welfare first, and being driven primarily by the emotion of the moment rather than the larger context, can (and do) make decisions in a possible long term marriage that can be destructive and based far more on their perception of “reality” on any given day, rather than actual reality as it is.
While a man, in the positive, tends to place his belief primarily in God and his own abilities and efforts, a woman will tend to place her belief in the man she chooses for a mate and how his actions (or lack thereof, or perception of same) affects her emotions.
While there are of course exceptions, this is the general order of things.
A woman in love with her man will go beyond the limits of reasonable or even valid levels of loyalty, sacrifice and effort. And even if it be the same man, if/when what she perceives as her “love” for him degrades, she can become equally cruel, deceptive and hateful towards him.
So, if women, in broad terms are less logical, more prone to react based on their emotions of the moment instead of reasoned motives, tend to be solipsistic and potentially manipulative, from a male perspective, what makes a good woman?
We need to start with the understanding that the presentation of a woman in the previous character, while potentially valid in broad terms, is an extremely limited and somewhat deceptive perspective; one that incidentally has been pushed relentlessly by (((the usual suspects))) in order to further erode the baseline of Christianity and indeed human performance: the nuclear family.
A woman in her natural and ordered place in life is someone that enjoys taking care of her children and husband and home, and thrives when being respected, appreciated, and loved for her doing so by both children and husband.
The average woman today is bombarded constantly with lies about what makes her life “worthwhile”. So are men, but given the difference in constitution, it is women who are most affected by it, and there is plenty of evidence on this now, one only needs to look at the disproportionate number of teenage girls that have been affected by the tranny agenda and attempt to “become male” which is really merely the recognition that social pressure (in the form of peers but also propaganda on TV, the internet and so on) is more effective on women.
If you have understood the differences between men and women, as already described, this is fairly obvious. Their being more susceptible to emotional and social events, they are easier to fool into taking seemingly polite, friendly, conflict avoidant positions on various issues, especially if presented as the “acceptable” majority view, were instead a strong, swift, and decisive response or action is required. Alternatively, they are more easily led into manufactured “outrage” at some perceived “social injustice”, where once again the main driver is a sense of social acceptance and cohesion (which is generally entirely false but manufactured artificially by mass media outlets, which today are simply the operative branch of the constant psyops we are all subjected to daily)
The West has largely been led deep into Clown World madness, primarily because women can be swayed to “tolerate” and then “champion” just about everyone and everything.
In these terms then, a good woman is one that has primarily overcome her deep need for “running with the herd”, keeping in mind that this is and intrinsic and biologically driven imperative.
There is a reason why traditionally in disasters the priority is on saving women and children. Aside the male imperative (also biologically driven) to be more ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for the safety of their woman and offspring, there is a linked factor, which is the one of relative diminished capacity. We protect children in part because they are simply less able to do so themselves due to their smaller size and lower ability to understand and respond appropriately to a serious situation. To a lesser extent, due to their propensity to process the world through their solipsistic emotions, the same is true of women.
This is why women used to not be allowed to vote, and why when the idea was introduced (by the same usual suspects) the vast majority of women did not want to be given such a “right”.
A sensible woman that is well ordered and balanced knows full well that she has far more power of persuasion and influence as a dutiful and loving wife without the right to cast a vote, than she does as a “strong independent woman” with a vote she can cast herself.
The solution, would be a woman smart and self-assured enough to take this “right” and return her behaviour in any case to that of a dutiful and loving wife, which casts her vote whichever way her husband does.
Although it should he obvious, it needs to be spelt out for far too many, that such behaviour as a “good woman” is deserved only by men who similarly behave as “good men” described in part 4 of this series.
But what of the unspoken concept that a woman’s life being filled with raising children, cooking, cleaning, keeping home and being loving and respectful to her husband makes for a boring, lonely, isolating, limited, suffocating and even dangerous life (because the husband can always drop her for the younger hotter model).
I would say that the primary crack in that narrative is the selection of husband. There is as much danger for a good woman that she may marry the kind of man that will drop her twenty years later for a younger model, that there is for a good man that to marry a woman that will divorce him for no real reason down the line and take half of what he has built along with his children.
That is the pivotal and cardinal point that needs to be addresses first, foremost and above all other issues.
The entire global zeitgeist, driven primarily by the Freemasonic country of the USA, and the vast amounts of “entertainment” that it produces, is geared to destroying, polluting and making the nuclear family as hard and impractical as possible to have and create.
Doubling the workforce by “empowering” women to serve a boss instead of making a home and raising children, for a wage that is now required just to maintain a survival level quality of life, was the first of many methods introduced (yes, always by the (((usual))) tribe of suspects) to make the traditional nuclear family go the way of the dodo.
Shortening attention spans (mobile phones, audio books instead of reading, video shorts and pretty much the entire sound-byte rich but content free dystopia we are all subjected to) produces people that are concerned with short time preferences and who become functionally incapable of planning for the future or even considering it.
The consumerism that permeates every aspect of our lives makes the chase for the next shiny but ultimately meaningless object the objective of a perennial dopamine rush with no reward at the end except an empty and childless grave surrounded not by family and friends but by the decaying and forgotten objects and toys we have accumulated over the years. Perhaps in the not so distant future, with only the standard sex robot/maid/butler android to hold our hand in the final moments, just before the harvesting of our organs routine kicks in.
Ultimately while it is true that it is men that create civilisations, it is women that maintain the social fabric to a very create extent. Men may indeed need to build the structure that holds it in place and directs it into the wind, but women form the sail that gets the boat moving.
How then, is a good woman supposed to counter the constant (and intentional, and evil) push away from the nuclear family and hence a durable civilisation? What should she look for at a minimum?
And here we come to the reason why I have always stated that if civilisation is failing, it is men that are to blame. Yes, it’s possibly quite true that women have been manipulated into becoming gold-digging, selfish, shrews, and as such they need to take responsibility for their own agency and stupidity in falling for it, but that said, let’s not pretend that this has not come about for the simple reason that men stopped acting like men and started to “act” (that is not act at all) like effeminate losers.
It is an absolute fact that your “civilisation” has clearly lost any semblance of having functional testicles anywhere in it when tens of thousands of children get raped and sexually abused by invading foreign gangs of organised pedophiles, and the native police protects these criminals and both the police stations, the politicians and the criminal foreign ethnic rapist aren’t all burned to the ground.
As for whatever clown-world faggotry might label my comment above as “inciting hatred”, I would put it to you that anyone who even remotely thinks that way, is fully deserving of not just hatred, but physical removal from society altogether, and is better to be put to forced hard labour until they either die or genuinely see the error of their ways.
Any adult that thinks that “people” who behave like the organised Pakistani gangs that operated (and probably still do) in the UK to rape and abuse tens of thousands of children deserve anything less than death, as do their enablers and protectors, is not just “not a man”, they are unworthy to belong to —nor are they capable of being members of— any functional, viable society at all. Such people, that have such absurd and dangerous ideology, should NEVER be permitted to be part of a healthy society, and certainly should never be placed in any positions where they may have ANY level of authority over anyone for any reason whatsoever.
In fact, people who advocate against the death penalty on general principle should be shunned and ostracised, as they are obviously mentally, emotionally and spiritually unfit and cannot be considered as healthy members of a functioning society.
Most women, sadly, fall into this category. They do this because being solipsistic, a woman cannot imagine passing the death sentence on someone without also imagining themselves as the executioner on some level. While this mode of thinking is acceptable for a man, and should be, it is not true for a woman (because remember, diminished responsibility for those that are less emotionally stable).
Which brings us again to the “right” to vote.
It is NOT a requirement, and should never be, that a woman actually, physically, is the executor of a death sentence. It is an unnatural state for a woman to be one. As it would be for a child. Even if a woman (or precocious child) understands and agrees with a death sentence, the execution of it should never be for them to perform. It is the duty of a man to do so. In fact, one could argue that if a man lacks the mental and emotional stability to execute a death sentence himself, he probably should never be allowed to have a say in it being the punishment that is justified for a specific crime.
The reason I write all of the above and discuss seemingly disparate topics like the death sentence, the introduction of women in the workplace and so on, is because in truth they all are interconnected strands of the social web of civilisation. And as such are indeed the very “material” of which the social sail of civilisation is made and which women very much construct and are a part of.
A good woman recognises that certain crimes absolutely warrant the death penalty, while also being perfectly aware that she is not the one that should push the button that executes the criminal, and as such should have no “vote” on the guilt of the criminal in question. Nevertheless, she absolutely should have the ear of her husband, who may be on the jury and does get to cast said vote.
Similarly, a good woman should have the strength of character, intelligence and imagination to notice how a theoretical nuclear family, difficult as it is in reality to have even under the best of conditions, and so much more so today, is nevertheless preferable and a better way to spend your life than “building a career” and being a cubicle dweller in an office for the next 40 years, even if it means you have to give up on having the latest iphone every year.
Understanding of these concepts comes to women in a different format than it does men. Mostly it is not achieved with pure logic in the case of a woman, but more by a process of a gathering of feelings and emotions and realisations that over time form a cloud of probabilities the overall sum of which comes to the same conclusions that a man’s direct and cold logic may arrive at faster and with simpler explanation.
A woman that is able to see past the lies and illusions of feminism and the entire class of cultural marxism that has thoroughly infiltrated Western Civilisation and all but destroyed it, is a woman that is not only seeing past the lies, but is also in the process of regaining her true power: her femininity.
Never forget that it was the female beauty and femininity of a single woman that launched ten thousand ships and the decade long Trojan war.
A woman’s power is not in trying to be a man, but rather in fully embracing her femaleness.
A woman that does that and also who has the capacity to devote herself loyally to the family she creates with her husband is not only a good woman, she is literally the co-creator of a functional civilisation. And while it absolutely is our duty as men to rebuild, reinstate, and maintain those structures that support, glorify, and sustain such a woman, as well as tear down, destroy and delete all such structures that are actively trying to suppress her, it remains for the woman to first of all make the choice to BE such a woman.
As to how such a woman finds a suitable and worthy man to pair up with and create that nuclear family and thus eventually rebuild a functional, effective, just society, we will cover that next in part seven, although if you are able to piece together the various concepts from this series so far, you should have a pretty decent idea already..
No related posts.
By G | 8 February 2025 | Posted in Social Commentary, Theoretical Models of Society