On the Agency of Women and the Faults of Men

See that tag line/sub-heading there? That’s to make sure all the retards get outraged right away and don’t waste my time trying to “argue” how “AAAAKKKKSSSHUUALLY” Protestantism is just how the Bible was written in proper ‘murican English by our Pastor Bob from our Church of the Latter Day Grape-Swilling Multi-Child-Bride Saints. Or other “arguments” along those lines (i.e. all of them) that try to justify Protestantism in any guise as anything other than brainwashing and/or mental retardation mixed in with a pathological aversion to facts, logic, reading for comprehension, or historical reality that is verifiable thanks to there being multiple sources of surviving documents written by those living at the time that all synch up.

So… now that we have established that this post will be a further proof that Protestantism is retarded in all it’s infinite ways, let us now proceed with the topic at hand, which is a bit more nuanced than the totally retarded ones like Sola Scriptura, using the Freemason-creating, totally homosexual King James’ “Bible” as “the bestest Bible EVAH!” and other drooling retard things on that level.

Because Protestantism was one of the Enemy’s most successful attacks on Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) it permitted the slow and gradual infiltration of Christianity with flawed, erroneous, and outright heretical ideas and modalities. By about 250 years after its introduction, the Illuminati in 1776 were born. And these Jewish inspired, Freemason-like facet of Satanism (along with Freemasonry of course, which good old King James the flaming faggot begun, along with his version of the most translationally corrupted Bible ever created) were hellbent, along with all their various permutations (Carbonari, Rosicrucians, etc etc, their names are legion after all) to destroy the Church (the only real, one, holy and apostolic Church), and began by first destroying the protective arm of Christianity, that is the royal and noble houses that as armed laypeople always protected the Church in the physical realm. Kings, Princes, Barons, and so on. Once they had essentially got rid of the Royal houses in Europe, they then began infiltrating the Church in every way and means possible as well as, of course, start a couple of World Wars for good measure to increase the chaos and desolation.

By 1958, they had taken over the Papacy with Roncalli, and hence the Vatican, and today only a remnant of proper Catholicism remains in the few valid Bishops and priests that are 1958 Sedevacantists of the Totalist persuasion. The only Catholics in the Vatican might be lay tourists that in error think it’s still a Catholic country worth visiting instead of a nest of pedophiles and Satnaists that needs exorcism and the cleansing purification of fire.

Over that time, (about 1520 to 1776) the zeitgeist has changed from one of personal loyalty unto death to Jesus Christ and the dogmatic and divine principles of Catholicism, to a gradual but very real degradation of humanity by the secularisation of Christianity, as well, of course, as the normalisation of a wholly unnatural and disordered relationship between the sexes, which was a slow burn but then took off at breakneck speed over the last 100 years.

As a result, Protestants were the very first (and only people in pretty much all of human history) to push, claim and insist on “equality” between men and women.

This was, and is, as absurd an ideology as pretending that men can become women by cutting off their dicks and inserting plastic tits in their chests. Or stating that “men” can get pregnant.

Any objective observation of men and women will immediately realise they are different biologically and immutably. From their reproductive systems to the density of their bones, their relative muscle mass to fat ratios, hormones, and literal physical composition and structure of their brains, men and women are, and will forever be, different.

The Demonic inspired Zeitgeist of “equality” invented, created, and pushed by Jewish activism (and funding) ugly, bitter harpies that want all other women to be as miserable as they are, and weak, sexually frustrated men of the Protestant delusion, has been relentless for centuries, and since the invention of the contraceptive pill (by a Jew) has accelerated to near-light speed towards damnation.

The prevention of babies as a result of having sex has secularised the position that used to exist, that sex was a sacred thing, and that doing it was binding for life in a marriage that could only be dissolved by death, to an exercise-routine whose main purpose was to “feel good” for those few moments of lust, orgasm, and ever-more intense sexual activities required to chase the new “high”.

Once you pretend that women have the same degree of rationality, capacity for logic —and hence agency— as men, you have effectively done something that would be analogous to letting 6 year olds carry loaded weapons, drive cars, and pilot airplanes.

Now… all you Protestants (that already stopped reading a while back because I so offended your feelings and your brain can’t read for comprehension, facts, or logic anyway) and all you feminist women (that are screeching at what a woman-hating pig I must be, in your usual 100%-wrong-all-the-time fashion) that imagine I am saying women are somehow worth less than men because of this, take a pause.

Go have a camomile tea. Do a bit of holistic Zen breathing. Use your crystals, etcetera, and pay attention to the next bit of writing below instead.

It is PROTESTANTS that hate women.

Because just like giving a six year old a loaded gun, and telling him to drive to the airport where he is to then pilot the 747 to London, is not an act of love, pretending women are as capable of acting rationally and logically as men are, is not a kindness. Quite the contrary. It is absolutely a vile and hateful thing to do.

By pretending they are as capable in that regard, you are then justified in similarly accusing them of being useless. And factually that’s hard to disprove when presented in such a context. Which of course makes women pissed off and upset (rightly so) and then the backlash is an even grander idiocy, like “believe all women”. Or simply never holding women accountable for any of their behaviours because…oh well, they are women, so we must look after them.

Returning to the analogy of the six year old, this is the equivalent of blaming the six year old when she shoots his own brother, or a stranger, crashes the car, or destroys the plane (luckily before even taking off). Then when the six year old gets pissed off at this injustice (even if he doesn’t really know the reasons why he is right to be so) we begin to accept all his excuses as valid. So we then become a society that gives loaded guns to six year olds and then forces all of them to never play cowboys and Indians. We let them drive cars, but pretend all the roads are built out of gigantic rubber barriers all over and with speed limited to 10 km/hr. And planes that don’t really fly, but just use a special railway line (also made of giant rubber kit) that we call “flying” so everyone is now “safe”.

Quite frankly, if you can’t see this is Demonic, I don’t know what to tell you.

Oh, wait, actually I do: You’re fucking STUPID!

Now… let us also notice a few other things:

• The almost visceral hatred Protestants have for Mary, who LITERALLY gave birth to Jesus, who even Protestants (mostly) admit is God. This is not a coincidence. It’s been the poisonous trickle-thought of Protestantism starting right from Luther —who expressly stated if the wife was not willing (to have sex) you should rape the maid— his later enthusiastic sponsor, Henry; he of the murder-to-divorce attitude, not to mention all those sexually repressed degenerates of the puritans, which are really just offshoots of Calvinism, a most retarded branch of Protestantism. The visceral hatred towards women, mostly because they were and remain unfuckable, unattractive and intellectually sterile men, is palpable in the Protestant zeitgeist. And even the attractive, intelligent, genuine Protestant men, still consider women at best as second-class citizens because they can’t match up to men in capability in most respects that men are active in. As a result, the veneration and respect afforded to Mary irks them, and is a kind of witch-test of its own. How DARE anyone make a woman so important!
• The generic viciousness, lack of charity, incivility and at times outright hatred against women and the very attributes that make women lovable, is a strictly Protestant perversion of reality. Even the Muslims, while abusive, degrading, and certainly far from “good” in their treatment of women, haven’t gone so far as to essentially try to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes as much as the Anglo and Teutonic Protestants have. It is a peculiar aspect of the Anglo-Saxons that they are, as a race/ethnicity/culture, possibly the most inept men sexually in relation to women, in broad statistical terms. No one has ever accused the British, nor their offshoots, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, and so on of being great lovers, seducers, or ladies men in general. And while the Anglos being inept, shy, puritanical, or totally degenerate, with little balance or good calibration in between, is a definite aspect of their character, with the Teutonics it seems to be either an almost sterile and mechanical view of sex, or the most perverse and extreme version of “sexuality” one can imagine. Both Anglos and Teutonics are essentially Protestant in zeitgeist, and even before Luther, the Brits and their various ethnic composites were always kind of pussy-whipped. I mean the Romans had to fight a FEMALE leader (Boudica) way back when. No self-respecting people ever needed a woman to march them to war, except the Anglos.
• The Germanic (Teutonic) people on the other hand treated women essentially as ball-emptiers and child producers with little other value beyond that. In either case, whether motivated basically by fear of the female sex (as the Anglos) or contempt for it (as the Teutonics), this is the general “vibe” of Protestantism and what it has led to over the last five centuries.

Let us now compare this to the attitude the Catholic-inspired countries and people have towards women.

First of all, the reverence shown to Mary, the literal human mother of God, is interpreted by the pussy-fearing Anglos and Teutons as some kind of “weakness” or some kind of elevation of Mary above Jesus. Neither of which is true, but as you may have noticed, guilty people tend to project their flaws on those they hate for being their betters.

As Catholics, we give tremendous respect to Mary, because imagine what that poor young girl had to go through as the mother of Jesus. One can hardly imagine a more painful life, and yet so utterly devoted and loving.

The attitude then, also to women in general is completely different. And it is also a fact that the Italians, Spaniards, and even the Portuguese (closer to Australopithecus than the other romantic tribes) are generally known to be more shall we say “capable” with the fairer sex.

But the attitude is completely different. As a man we do not expect women to be as capable, logical, or rational as we are. It would be idiotic. Instead we appreciate their sense of nurturing, their care of the little things we ignore or tend to think are, if not a waste of time, not very important, but that nevertheless make a difference in beauty, day-to-day living, and the overall sense a home, or a child may express or feel.

Dads don’t worry if a child of theirs has the right sandwiches for school. We’d as easily give the kid a tin of tuna as a slice of cake or a bunch of ham slices. Mom makes them sandwiches with the crust cut off.

Similarly, the irrational warmth a woman provides to a man she loves makes him a better person. It tends to make him care for her, look after her and ignore her regular irrational freak-outs at minor events from time to time. A woman is not there to organise life for society. She is there to maintain the social fabric of politeness, loving concern, dignified beauty, and pleasant small-talk that makes the shitty neighbour tolerable and prevents the issue of their noise-making at odd hours resolve in a bloody murder by claw-hammer at 4 am after one stern warning and no more.

As men, we Catholics recognise that the shortcomings women may have in the male sphere, are merely mirrored by these we have in the female sphere. And since that female sphere, that femininity, that irrationality that gives life a certain zest only a woman we care about can provide, and since only they can literally create another whole human being inside their body before bringing them into the world, it is our duty to care for them. To give them enough safety and care and love to have them bloom into helpful, loving, happy creatures.

And yes, it is true that there is now a preponderance of gold-digging whores in the West, but it is not really the fault of women any more than it is the fault of a child that he gets a stomach ache if you leave them unsupervised in a candy store.

It is MEN who failed themselves, society and women too.

It is MEN that let the enemies inside the gates, and it matters not if they were scheming Jews hellbent on destroying Catholicism, Satanists by all their various name, genetic misfits like the atheists, and materialists, flat-out enemies of God, or any combination of the above.

If your own brother starts to talk about “equality” and the boons of “diversity” and how “all religions” say “the same things”, punch him the face, then drag his bleeding nose to the pages of the Talmud, the Koran, the Baghdad Gita and the Bible, and if need be smack the back of his head every time he misses the obvious and irreconcilable differences between them.

Protestantism is NOT Christianity. It is the abdication of maleness, responsibility, AND Christianity.

It is the very antithesis of Christianity.

Christianity recognises the intrinsic value, truth and beauty of the irrationality, hormonal, and right-brain way of “thinking” (feeling) of women. And while doing all that, also recognising that letting a woman pilot the ship is going to get your ship smashed on rocks or stuck on a sandbar. So you don’t do that.

But by all means let her pick the colour of the sails and decorate the cabins, and cook the meals that keep you alive and fed at 3 am in the gale you need to navigate your ship through. But don’t let her near the cannons, the charts, or the compass and sextant. Do listen to her description of the sunsets. In fact notice them. And look at the curve of her hip as she contemplates that pod of dolphins that follows your ship from time to time.

The current state of things is almost entirely the fault of men. Or I should say, the weak men that have permitted liars, schemers, and women, to rule over them.

And it’s time the Protestants shut the fuck up, repent, and start to look into what it means to be an actual Christian, instead of LARPing at it.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I came up with my own version of a way to differentiate between different types of men long before I met Vox and read about his SSH , and while I have written about this in Caveman Theory , for this piece, it is useful to explain it a bit so that the differences between his Sigmas and my Scouts are a bit more in evidence.

According to Vox, Sigmas are a “rounding error” in terms of numbers of men that fall into that category. Perhaps this so in his version of the SSH, but frankly, I doubt it.

My own version of the SSH only had three categories: Alphas, which match pretty much 1:1 the Alphas of his SSH, Betas, which are an agglomeration of all the other male types he has further categorised as Betas, Deltas, Gammas, Omegas, and Lambdas, but which to me were in essence, all about equivalent for my purposes, which were more vicious and fundamental I suppose.

Alphas can be dangerous. Betas (the agglomeration of other types) not really. Not so in a direct confrontation anyway, which is what I was primarily concerned with for the first 20 or 30 years of my life. And then there were Scouts. People like me.

I never had any desire to lead or be seen as the leader, main guy, etc etc or have adoring fans. Above all I really just wanted to be left alone to do what I wanted without bugging anyone else. I had no interest in all the normal social activities kids and teenagers and people in their 20s normally engage in.

I found going to clubs a waste of time and stupid. Team sports I hated because invariably if you screw up you feel bad you let the team down and if there are a bunch of lazy assholes on the team that didn’t give it their all I similarly got frustrated. Karate was different. I could function well there, either as a follower or as a leader. I always gave it my all, as a follower, and when leading, anyone not pulling their weight you can literally kick their ass. It’s extremely effective at motivating people, so it worked well. I don’t mind people’s limitations. We all have them. But I can’t abide shirkers, cowards, and liars.

Scouts were to my mind possibly the most dangerous of all. Like myself, they could fit into various and diverse roles. Like a chameleon they can work well as part of a team, solo or even leading for a short period. Leading long term is not something we are willing or keen to do. It’s something we do out of sheer necessity or survival from time to time.

The defining characteristic of a Scout is that he is an explorer at heart. Curiosity and a certain level of fearlessness or disregard for almost all social rules that aren’t life and death stuff is kind of the norm. And they are good with women, because in general, a man of that sort has to have an uncommon confidence as well as ability to be effective and resourceful all on his own. All attractive qualities. In short, yes, they can be evil or good, but in either case they are alluring to some degree.

The reason I called them Scouts is because I figured in primitive times various different types and tribes of humans would almost always tend to kill each other on sight, but yet… humans spread all over and mixed with all other humans, so at least SOME men must have had an ability to infiltrate or join communities that were not their original ones, and also be able not only to survive there, but also reproduce effectively.

No small feat to infiltrate another tribe and breed successfully enough to create a new coalition of those two tribes.

Scouts pretty much correlate to Sigmas in most but probably not all respects. So this may be a reason why Vox recons Sigmas are a rounding error while I think at least in the past, Scouts may have been as much as 2% of the male population. The number has decidedly shrunk in more modern times, because comfort, ease of life, and so on has stunted the adventurous spirit of such men and their probably have been watered down due to breeding with less adventurous women (because keep in mind that a woman pairing up with a Scout would ALSO experience some social stigma, so they too were probably of some different-than-normal variety).

I am also of the opinion that Scouts run in family lines and genealogies. My own family certainly has this pattern. As far back as we can find information on any of our ancestors, (some 800 years) they turn out to be characters that may as well fit in some swashbuckling adventure novel in the Edgar Rice Burroughs style. The first definite historical appearance they have is on returning from the Crusades around the late 1200s AD. Which means that sometime in the nearly 200 years previously, some from that line had gone there, and probably created other offspring that were born, lived and fought their entire lives in the Outremer.

My great-grandfathers on both sides of the family were pretty outrageous characters if in radically different ways. So were my grandfathers, and certainly my own father.

My own eldest son, though only 6 is already exhibiting so many Scout-like traits I am pretty sure he’s made from the same mould.

Now, it is not fair to say only Scouts/Sigmas are PC characters in this game of life. Certainly Alphas too would very often qualify. And so would some of the various Betas (from the gay Lambda like say Freddie Mercury, to the fully artificially created Omegas like Bill Gates, or Gammas like Jeff Bezos) but proportionally, almost every Scout is a PC and so are the majority of Alphas, if at varying resolutions of “power”. Some may be PCs in their immediate locality only. Some may be global level players. And conversely, some very globally active “players” are in effect just NPCs really, if very powerful ones. For example, sure, Trump can change the lives of millions and affect entire countries or even continents, he is a VERY powerful NPC, but he is still controlled by the Zionist Jews that are also geocoding the Palestinians without one mainstream media outlet saying a word about it.

So a Trump is the LARGE background character that in a game of Dungeons & Dragons would be the King whose edicts would affect all the people in the land. But in terms of personal freedom and ability to be a PLAYER CHARACTER, in the same spirit as one would have in the game, he is not. He’s just an NPC. While your first level Scout, weak and only armed with his wits and a longsword, may well have a far more interesting and worthwhile life from a personal perspective.

Now… my question to you, dear reader: Are you a PC? Do you want to be?

I mean… sure… it’s more dangerous, there is more pain involved, but also more rewards and more real life.

So… let me know. I am curious.

Share

Subscribe now

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Feminists, cowards, fags, and associated commies and socialists would like you to believe that masculine traits are all “toxic”.

Well, the reality is that there is no such thing. The minority of men that could be classified as bad/evil/unreasonably violent, 1 etcetera we all know are people who behave wrongly, so we need not discuss them at all.

What instead we will discuss (briefly because it should be obvious) are the POSITIVE aspects of masculinity:

1. Men built civilisation – It’s simply a fact. And not just in the West. Everywhere. Anywhere there is any functional civilisation, whether in Feudal Japan, the Roman Empire, wider Christendom, the Chinese Empire, and so on and so forth, it was MEN that built it. And insofar as anything is collapsing, it is the triplet forces of:
   1. Feminism and feminisation principles, which poison everything they possibly can poison, (marriage, the nuclear family, society in general, the courts, the legal process, and on, and on, and on).
   2. Diversity, which means trying to force people of diverse cultures, ethnicities and religions to function co-operatively, which works about as well as throwing rocks into an engine to act as lubricant, and,
   3. “Equality”. An absurd ideology that pretends equal outcomes for everyone regardless of intelligence, ability, effectiveness, dedication, honesty, finite resources, or any other objective difference between people, or indeed reality as a whole.
2. Men have always protected their family, society and native country from predation – They may not always succeed, but they always try, and where they have failed has generally been for erring on the side of tolerance, especially of infiltrating, dishonest tribes that tend to parasitically drain the host before moving on to the next one. And we all know what tribe in particular behaves this way. In essence the main fault of men in general has been the fault of being too polite. As soon as a member of ANY tribe, ethnicity, or group acts in ways that are clearly detrimental to the common good, he should immediately be put to death. Of course, such drastic measures people (now feminised into utter faggotry) will scream to the high heavens are barbaric, open to corruption and the killing of innocents, and who watches the watchmen and so on. Well, it really is not that hard. Let’s start with pedophiles. Anyone that rapes a child, or tries to, gets burnt at the stake. Do you know what would happen if that law immediately got passed ANYWHERE on Earth? All the pedophiles in Hollywood, with a pronounced nose, and all the pedophiles in the Vatican, with a pronounced Freemasonic tail instead of anything Catholic between their legs or brains, and all the pedophiles in Israel, who are protected from extradition for the sole reason they are jews, and all the pedophiles in all the various governments, would immediately call for war, economic sanctions, and the regime change of any such country, even though a VAST MAJORITY of men on Earth would absolutely agree with such laws. Why do you think the death penalty has been “abolished” almost universally? Look into it. It’s NOT because of any real humanitarian concerns (though useful idiots will tell you that is the reason). And then look into who funded such movements.
3. Men have built almost every single technological advancement that has ever existed on the planet – And they continue to be the ones running it. From robots to mining by hand, there are jobs and works that if we left them to women would collapse every civilisation within a week.

The ONLY reason everything has become so absolutely trannyfied lately is because weak men have gradually hobbled actual men, with legalism, bureaucracy, unhealthy food, even less healthy “medicine” and the use of men’s basic general decency as a shield to try and shame them into inaction. Some did it to get more “access” (illusory for the most part) to women for sex. Some did it for money. Others for far worse proclivities (access to children for sex) and so on and so forth. But the fact is they did it and they will try to pretend that every act of violence or confrontation is wrong and evil, when in reality many are perfectly logical, good and necessary.

Today if you kill an armed home intruder that shot at you and luckily missed, you are liable to go to jail for it instead of receiving a medal and a state pension for having made the world a bit better.

SO: What to do?

The Solution

The solution to this shitty idiotalypse of cowardice and mealy-mouthed faggotry is actually quite simple. But the average “man” is today almost entirely incapable of reasoning things through statistically and so is stuck in the Protestant curse of binary thinking. Like Androids they can only think in terms of ON/OFF, YES/NO. etc. and as such become functional idiots, because they do not grasp the very concept of appropriate calibration to whatever the present circumstances are.

So I can bullet-point the solution, but most readers might need a book for each bullet-point to explain it in enough autistic detail that they may “grasp it”. Except they still won’t because a whole book maaaaan…

So here are the bullet-points. Follow them at your own peril and at your own responsibility. Do not blame me if you can’t figure out the way I mean each of these, or the nuances each is prone to in various contexts.

• Do not listen to women. Make up your own mind. You really should do this anyway with everything and everyone, but with women, in particular, when they tell you how to run your life, that is not anything you should pay attention to.
• Become effective. At your work. At your hobbies. At being a good friend. At being honest. At not being afraid of confrontation. At DIY. At anything you put your mind to.
• Associate with other effective men. Learn to be part of a team. Learn to follow well if you are a follower, and to lead correctly and humbly if you are a leader.
• REJECT any woman that is fully invested in the feminist narrative. None of the hot ones are really invested in it so this should not be too hard.
• DO NOT stay quiet about trannyfags in schools, homoglobo agendas, the genocide in Gaza, the US and Israeli involvement in the whole Ukrainian situation from 2014 on. The fact that Trump may be the best option but is still a total puppet of Israel. The real numbers of the Holocaust. The absurdity of the Charlie Kirk official narrative. The trannyfaggism that Candace Owens has exposed concerning the French president and the older one of O-bummer the ex-US Kenyan president. The fact that 9-11 was an inside job with the dancing Israelis. The fact October 7th was a green flag Israel was 100% aware of and let happen as well as killed their own people with helicopter gunships. And on, and on, and on. MEN do not sit in cowardly silence when ANY of these topics come up. Unlike THIS UTTER FUCKING COWARD. And why THIS is the correct response. And so is THIS, even more so.
• DO NOT pair up, marry, or breed with a woman that has a problem with you being MALE and a MAN in the same fashion that the Crusaders, the Spartans, and the Romans were men. The soldiers of WWI and WWII. Gary Plauché, and every normal father that has ever walked the Earth before you.

Are there consequences to being a man? Sure. And there are consequences to getting out of bed in the morning too and acting like a trannyfag too. It’s all about choices. And YOU make them, and YOU take on the consequences. No one else does it for you. No one else can, or should. Now, you may well decide trannyfaggism is for you. So be it. But you’re gonna have a problem the minute you try and impose it on me or people like me. So stay in your lane if you’re a trannyfag. Because we have all just had enough of you as well as your masters and the ultimate owner of your soul.

Only you can decide what kind of man you will be. And only YOU are responsible for what good or bad may come of it in your life. And remember, just going along to get along means you better lube up; because the trannyfags are hankering for that nu-male ass.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

You know that tired trope of the marines (or is it the Seals? The Army Rangers? Whoever) “never leaving a man behind”?

Well, I don’t do that. I leave all the retards behind. All the lazy ones. All the weak ones. All the ones who can’t be bothered to show up, be on time and work their ass off at whatever we are doing?

I don’t just leave them behind. I kick them out of my immediate sphere of anything.

I don’t want retards near me. I don’t enjoy their company, they are toxic on every level (Professor Cipolla’s Fifth Law of Human Stupidity) 1 and worse of all, they are not simply ineffective, they literally bring down the entire operational capacity of any team they join.

So, while this guy writes about the current zombie masturbatory apocalypse with obvious concern, and I understand where his angst is coming from, I do, but I just can’t bring myself to wring my hands in any kind of anxiety over it.

My only concern with this stuff is the Zombie Horde.

There are SO MANY of the stupid bastards, that they will invariably become a problem when, using them as an excuse, there will be new “laws” passed forcing you to register how many times you breathe per minute on a daily basis to prevent death from lack of energy to breathe, and other such “complications”.

Share

Is it sad? Sure. Is it a tragedy? Yup. Are eveil people orchestrating all this misery? You bet.

AND

It is also your absolute best time to shine and NOT be a zombie. Be one of the heroes who makes a good life DURING the current Zombie Apocalypse.

And just as a reminder, here is the manual I wrote in the guise of a fun game you can play with your friends.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

For the TL;DR version, see this site that is AWESOME, and explains why Sedeprivationism is obvious nonsense.

Sedes Sapientiae Fidelium

In my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church from 2020, I essentially showed why the Novus Ordo “Catholic” Church (called the Novus Orco by me) is a false Church, a total usurpation of actual Catholicism and that there has been no valid Pope since 1958. I also stated it very clearly there that Sedeprivationsim is a non-starter and completely outdated idea that has nothing of value to offer today. Sedevacantism is the only route left. The only thing sedeprivationism has is that the etymology is more correct in the name. the seat is not exactly “vacant” but rather “occupied” illegally and invalidly by an usurper, that is “preventing” a proper Pope from sitting in it validly and legally.

Unlike all the heretics pretending to be Christians, Catholicism has its doctrines and dogma ALL written down, so one can’t argue that X means Y or that up means down, like the 45,000+ denominations of Protestantism all invariably do.

The rules, both Divine (immutable and unchangeable in time) and Ecclesiastical (human rules for the efficient running of the Church which can and do and have changed over time) are ALL codified. And as of 1917, they are all embodied in ONE volume that had some 40,000 documents vetted both before and after it and over 40 years of scrutiny by theologians, clergy and academics in order to find any flaw with it or any Church documents that contradicted themselves in its creation. There was never anything found that required changing anything or “reinterpreting” anything.

Now, because these rules are based on ROMAN Law, and not the ridiculous loophole filled nonsense that passes for “law” in the American system, the entire code of canon law of 1917 is a beautiful document that is perfectly consistent, logical and absolutely irrefutable. 2000 years of historical documents were sifted through to make sure everything that was ever declared a divine law was retained exactly as it was meant to be, infallibly, since the start. And the rules for the Church laws (that can and have changed) were too codified, with the clear and logical understanding that the past cannot invalidate the future nor the future invalidate the past.

As a result, WHY the fake Popes since 1958 are actually NOT Catholic and as such cannot possibly be Popes or clergy of any kind, is crystal clear.

Anyone of normal intelligence and with a reading comprehension that I call normal, and that WAS normal, for any 15 year old child in 1985, but which today is probably rare, given half the planet thinks men can get pregnant, can read the CoCL of 1917 and see with very simple logic and clarity, as well as with historical precedent WHY and HOW the fake “clergy” is fake. they are at best heretics, and at worst never-where Catholics but merely Satanists posing as “Catholics” like Roncalli, who even took on the name of a previous antipope John XXIII to make it obvious he was a Freemason.

Anyway…

So as far as anyone reasonable is concerned, the only Catholic clergy left are the Sedevacantists.

HOWEVER, mostly driven by an American Bishop, who clearly thinks very highly of himself, but with no real reason to, since he obviously has tried to superimpose American legalism over Roman law, which has no such “loopholes” on Canon Law, the thesis known as Cassiciacum Theory, that was originally invented by Father Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, has been pushed onto most of the remaining Catholics, be they clergy or laity.

The thesis, basically states (counter to ALL Catholic history, teaching and dogma) that a Pope can be validly elected but spiritually not elected, making them a kind of Pope-Elect 1 that is “materially” Pope but not “formally” Pope.

It’s an absurd theory that was invented at the time of Vatican II as really a quite obvious way to allow the cowardly clerics that had not immediately grabbed Roncalli and afterwards Montini —and thrown them out of the Papal throne with serious kicks to their posterior if not a literal burning at the stake— to “reconsider” and boycott the Freemasons now squatting throughout the Vatican. The fact the Vatican was already infested with Satanists was of course exposed by the list of Freemasons in the Vatican published by Mino Pecorelli in his magazine Osservatore Politico , and for which, at least in part, as well as exposing the corruption of then Minister Andreotti, Mino was assassinated, being shot four times at close range with a .38 revolver, by a man that was never caught.

Unfortunately, the Bishop/s and clergy pushing this false doctrine or theory, apparently are hoping that the Satanists currently squatting throughout the Vatican, like pedophile-and-cocaine-snorting prone Gargoyles, will miraculously have a change of heart and revert to being “good guys” and all will be well.

Only two problems with that:

1. They are in essence saying a Satanist can just say “Oh yeah, by the way, Vatican II was all wrong so I am the real Pope now, okay guys?” And they would all go: “Okay then!” And clap like trained seals. It’s absurd and ridiculous.
2. Catholic Canon Law expressly forbids a heretic, even if he were to truly repent to have any kind of clerical authority over ANYONE, ever again. They are to FOREVER spend the rest of their life in perpetual penance hidden away in a monastery.

All of which is logic a normal 5 year old can understand.

There is really NOTHING to argue about.

It’s ALL encapsulated in three legs of an absolutely immovable stool:

Canon 188.4 which basically just states that clergy who publicly act as heretics, promote heresy and do so repeatedly and obviously are heretics and not Catholics and NO ONE need to say or officiate or do anything to make it so. The law and fact themselves make it so. Which is obvious because otherwise you’re saying a priest that eats babies at the altar instead of the host would still need to go through some “legal process” before it is clear he is not Catholic. It’s nonsense of course. A heretic is a heretic. End of. And the crimes of heresy of the fake Popes that enacted Vatican II are all over the 16 documents of Vatican II. All of which I covered in autistic detail in my book RTCC .

Ex Cum Apostolato Officio which clearly states once a heretic you will NEVER be acting as clergy to laypeople again, as well as make it clear that this rule applies to ALL levels of clergy.

Roman Law which is based on basic principles that are codified and logic and reason, not past rulings (case law) like Anglo and American law. There are principles to be generally followed, but each case is judged on its merits and logic and reason rules. For example the law of silent assent is Roman Law. If you keep silent, then it is assumed you agree with whatever was said about you or the situation. You don’t get to stand on the sidelines and claim later you never agreed.

As a result Sedeprivationism is nonsensical, ahistorical, and completely illogical as it goes against established Canon Law, Catholic dogma, basic reason and Logic, and ultimately truth. And it also opens the door for the Satanists to fool even MORE people.

Now, it needs to be said that not all the clergy who subscribe to Sedeprivationist are some kind of evil schemers. As far as I am aware they are all VALID clergy, VALIDLY ordained in accordance with proper Catholic dogma and the CoCL of 1917, so in that respect they are good guys.

However, they are, at best, in error. And this site that sprung up a few days ago and is in four languages as far as I can tell, has taken that theory, and demolished it piece by piece in a work so clear, so pristine, and so absolutely logical and transparent that no one sane that reads it can in any way keep to the “The Thesis” other than by wilful ignorance, severe cognitive dissonance, pure emotional “feeling” (one of those people that cannot be convinced by facts, as Aristotle pointed out over two and a half millennia ago) or, pride, ego and a need to be right. I pray, and to date have not (yet?) seen any evidence that any sedeprivationist clergy are actually intentionally trying to subvert Catholicism. So this is not a personal attack on any of them; though a certain Bishop DOES stand out , having acted arrogantly, in contravention of Canon Law, and basic logic, as well as the common good. But even in this instance, I still think it’s ego and pride, not intentional wish to deceive. Nevertheless, even if one has good intentions, their errors need to be pointed out and stopped. And the time for private conversation on this has long since passed, as well as been fruitless. So a public dialogue f these errors is certainly required now, and I salute the producers of the Contra-Thesis website , because it is one of the better theological documents I have ever read. And one I am certain despite much gnashing of teeth, no sedeprivationist can make a logical and valid refutation of.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So, as some people know, we had a problem with truffle thieves. several have been photographed and reported to the local authorities, which, to my eternal surprise are ACTIVELY investigating and pursuing the issue. And my own genteel ways have managed to earn me a nickname “The English”, which is quite funny as it obviously descends from my wife being English, and besides to the Average Italian that sounds more disparaging than “The Venetian” who after all, they do consider assholes, but still “Italian” (we are not).

Anyway, this morning I heard about 6 rifle shots in quick succession, a larger caliber than normal, probably a .308. later in the morning a couple more, and then about an hour ago, as I am working away in my office the wife comes to tell me she hears dogs barking. I’m busy, so I say “Ok.”

then she comes back to say the girls went to the bottom of our field and saw a man with a gun. He tried to talk to them and they said they don’t speak Italian and ran back up the hill.

Now, it needs to be stated that in this country hunters have the right to cross fields that are not fenced in and since fencing in 5 hectares of land (through a forest too) is rather expensive, they are legally allowed to pass through. Even so, I have only seen two in the last two years and both came to ask if they could be on the EDGE of my property, not even on it. Because by now, I think from here to Rome they all know about “The English”.

So I know there are hunters, they are in the area, it’s all pretty well regulated and they are always careful about safe distances, and directions of fire etc etc so again I’m not worried.

I asked the important question though: “What gun was he carrying?”

Blank stares.

I don’t even know what they teach kids in schools these days, I tell ya.

Anyway, more time passes, the wife again:

“There are voices really close to the house…”

Sound carries in this valley in a really weird way, you can sometimes hear conversations being had half a kilometre away on the hill above us.

“Ok babe, I am working…”

“I know but…”

Ok, fuck it. I’ve now been interrupted a half-dozen time sand I can’t work like this. So I set off.

I must look VERY menacing, in my tracksuit pants, old, torn long sleeved top and a 35 year old fleece with a broken zip and my bright yellow glasses (I use for writing) clipped to my neckline.

But I AM in a mood now. And truffle thieves would have bad day.

After traipsing through the field, then the forest, I hear the voices, and I go to the edge of my property, a filed of the neighbour. Cars and posted hunting safety officers about 30-40 metres away. All perfectly organised, legal and safe.

I politely ask if they are hunting boar, they say yes. I ask if they are shooting anything to their right, they say, no, not at all, and I think them letting them know I have small kids on the field. They reply that they are done anyway and just collecting the dogs.

We wish each other a good day.

On the way back up the hill, rather slower and less ready to compost for my truffles, I see the wife at the top of the hill, she comes towards me gingerly, concern obvious on her face. I figure she’s worried I will tell her she bugged me while in the middle of work for nothing, but no such thought enters my mind. I just let her know it was all in order, no trespassers, just hunters and being very correct about everything. She sighs relief, “Oh, good, good!” And hugs me spontaneously and tenderly. She’s not much of a hugger most days, and she’s clearly feeling weak in the knees.

“Hey what’s wrong?”

“Oh I just got worried!”

“What are you scared about? It’s all fine, nothing bad happening there.”

“Yeah, yeah, good, I just got really worried!”

Still hugging me. Ok, clearly she got scared about something…

“Ok, but what did you get worried about? The kids are all in the house anyway, right?”

“YOU’RE NOT!”

I was honestly stunned. Me? She’s worried about me?

It’s kind of… well, a little absurd frankly, but very sweet, I have to say.

“Babe, what can happen to me?”

“Well I don’t know! I don’t know who’s down there, or what they got!”

“But babe, honestly, what difference does it make? They would hardly shoot me on sight, and once I am close it doesn’t matter what they have, even if they have guns, they will be fired only after I shove them up their ass if they tried anything.”

“Well, I don’t know! I thought I heard someone say ‘ Let Go! ’”

I smiled and shook my head, thinking silently to myself, But the kids were inside, why would you think someone grabbed one of our kids? or something like that?

Gave her a kiss on the head and went back inside.

About three minutes later it hit me.

OH! She thought me or one of the hunters shouted “Let go!” which maybe one of them did, talking to a dog. She was worried about ME! Again, the thought never even crossed my mind.

I went back outside and hugged her again.

“Still babe, if you were that worried, why not come out armed?”

“I thought about it….then I figured no. My best weapon is my wiles. It’s what I am best at.”

And she is.

Now, regardless of the fact I was under no threat whatever, other than possibly my own foul temper if I had caught a truffle thief in flagrante delicto , the reality is that in her mind, her husband was possibly about to be assaulted, shot, stabbed, or killed by potentially evil truffle thief-murderers that could be roaming these here forgotten hills.

And reasoning it through in very much English fashion, far more coldly and rationally than I did in my Venetian temperament, since I didn’t even take my phone to photograph the potential thieves (and I only realised this half-way down the hill which only made me more pissed off, which would have made it worse for any would-be thief encounters) she nevertheless came out to help me, in nothing but her admittedly rather sexy and quite shapely black tracksuit outfit.

Quite frankly, that is a level of courage and loyalty that is uncommon in most men, never mind women, who are biologically wired to think of themselves and the kids FIRST.

Thing is, that like with any marriage we have arguments and in the past these were relatively nuclear sometimes, but thing also is… I knew the day I first saw her, even if I didn’t know how I knew. She’s The One.

We really are Fire and Water. And you need both for life to be good.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

As I have decided up to shot n. 400 I will only be doing instinctive shooting at 20m the posts will be more about the lessons learnt in pursuing this instinctive shooting, keeping in mind the interim goals:

• 100% hits of 8” radius target at 20m – This would mean I might actually also hit the overall goal of 40% hits on the 4” target (after 1000 shots) – keep in mind a 4” circle inside an 8” circle occupies 25% of the area. So a 100% hits on the 8” target would mean approximately 25% hits on the smaller inner circle. So still a ways to go to achieve the 40% hits on the 4” target.
• Interim goal option 2 – 80-90% hits on 8” target 20m – This would then mean going after either 80% hits at a 6” target, or, going back up to 50m and see where I am with the main objective of 70% hits at that distance. I am undecided as of now if I get this which option to go for. I am probably leaning towards going for the 80% hits at 6”.

Currently on a set of 6 I can do pretty much 100% on target if I just instinctively shoot, however, accuracy is limited to the full box, which is probably close to 18”.

I did experiment with a bit of a hybrid aiming/instinctive way of shooting, but it doesn’t rely on using the riser as any kind of aiming mechanism, rather changing my posture so that the bow is just that much more vertical (I shoot vertical either way but this way it is a few degrees closer to, or actually fully vertical instead of a slight can’t to the right to keep the arrow in place on the shelf. In this respect I can then get about 4/6 within 8” which is getting close to 70% accuracy for 8”, so I know it’s doable to get to option 2 above.

Lessons learnt:

1. Shooting with the glove is really sort of necessary. After about two shots without, the “burn” on the fingertips is real enough to make me screw up the next shot. BUT… I do also believe it is more accurate to fire without a glove. It might not be a HUGE difference but it is perceptible. If I were ever to hunt with a bow, considering your first shot should pretty much be your only shot, I would likely not use a glove.
2. I need to be more consistent with how I do my instinctive shooting. Eventually, instinctive shooting will mean you can be decent from any firing position, but it’s good to get a solid baseline before trying to alter it.
3. The blend of more formal position/aimed shot, the bowstring more or less dissecting my right eye’s field of vision, combined with more consistent welding of my drawing hand to somewhere on my face, definitely improves accuracy overall, even though there is no actual aiming mechanism or sight as such.

The wife continues to enjoy her shooting too, which is nice.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

The first session was a couple of days ago, and I did it with the wife, who scored 8/13 with her 30 lbs. bow, so she beat me, (which of course she LOVED). I tried to use specific aiming styles and it wasn’t working. I missed the entire target in one set of 6 shots entirely doing that.

Lessons learnt (well… with MINDSET it’s really the same lesson STILL not learnt, rather):

1. MINDSET – Worrying about her own learning and trying to impart what I knew and helping her was distracting me from doing my own things and it was only once I reverted back to instinctive shooting I “caught up” with her, so as before, MINDSET is paramount. No matter how much I try to sidestep it in ways I always “got away” with mostly in hand-to-hand or firearms, with archery it really seems to be a main issue. Which is good and probably the thing I like best about it. You can’t lie to the bow. If you don’t calm yourself and focus, you will miss.
2. INSTINCTIVE SHOOTING – today instead, I tried to actually put a temporary sight (a red line on the bow riser) and use that to aim. First shot went high. Second shot went low. Third shot I missed high again, and I was trying in each case to hold consistently in the same spot. Obviously it was not working and I was doing something wrong. So I thought that for now I’d switch back to instinctive shooting. No aiming mechanism at all, just a sense of my own view of what I wanted to hit. I didn’t miss the target a single time then, and I came fairly consistently close to the centre 4” bullseye as you can see from the two images below. One shows the three arrows you can see still partially through the box, the next shows you where the ones that went through were in relation to it. In essence, at 20 metres, I will not miss a human sized target that is standing still, and will hit a roughly circular ares of 10-12” in diameter pretty much 100% of the time, just on instinctive shooting.

CONCLUSIONS – I will probably focus on just trying to become more accurate on an instinctive basis and forego the whole trying to put sights on the bow in any way. I am certain it is possible to become as accurate as I want to be just from instinctive shooting, because the human brain/mind/body is capable of doing some amazing things if you unchain its potential, which thanks to Systema training I am better than most humans on Earth at doing. Whether *I* can get as accurate as I want remains to be seen. I am basically 20% of the shots in that I assigned myself at the start and I can hit the target basically 100% of the time at 20 metres, but now I need to hit the 4-6” target 40-50% of the time and presently I have only hit it once, which is mostly random luck rather than accurate shooting. BUT… the accuracy is definitely improving, so I will see how the next say 200-250 shots go if I just focus on instinctive shooting only. If I can get it down to 8” radius 100% of the time, I think I will be fairly well on the road to hit the 4” target some 40% of the time.

I think now it’s just a matter of firing the next 200-250 shots instinctively only. At 20m only. And see how much improvement there is. If adequate (say generally 8” diameter 80-90% of the time) I can then either do the next 200 shots or so to try and get even more accurate (down to say 80% for a 6” target, which frankly would be awesome and I’d be very pleased with) or try to get back to 40-50m distance and see if I can retain the accuracy in line with approaching my original aims (reproduce below for convenience).

FINAL WORD – I know these posts get a lot less readership, and that’s fine. But I hope it is of use/interest to those who do enjoy them.

AIMS – Within 1000 shots total. Currently at 187 shots total

• 70% hit rate of human sized target at 50m – Good. 80% Excellent.
• 40-50% hit rate out to 100m. 40% would be very happy. 50% Outstanding.
• 40% hit rate at 20m for 4” target.
• 60-70% hit rate at 20m for 6” target. 60% – Good. 70% – Better than Good.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

If you want to see some really special boomering by a boomer, see this thread and perhaps read the post it is nested under first.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here