And the Incidendal Drawing and Quartering of Rollo Tommasi.
Adam has recently posted a couple of somewhat interesting articles that consider the prospect of sex before marriage, fornication, and the PUA mindset in general.
The key message I personally see as most relevant in the first one is the partial quote that derives from the reading of Goldwin Smith (a 19th Century historian) by the author of the piece Adam links to, JM Smith, which he however presents only in part, and I think deserves a fuller version of it:
He [Goldwin Smith] was appalled by the prospect of women’s suffrage, correctly foreseeing that it would make democratic politics even more emotional, and that Anglo Saxon men would be to soft, silly and spineless to stop it. He explained this as the dolorous result of gynæmania, a “disease” of the Anglo Saxon male that was characterized by a morbidly excessive craving for the good opinion of women. The word gynæmania was first coined as a scientific name for satyriasis, or a morbidly excessive craving for carnal knowledge of women, but Smith saw that slavery to sex was becoming slavery to the female sex.
The emphasis on Anglo-Saxon is mine, and I maintain it remains the key point of the article, as it was indeed in the post by JM Smith, and indeed Golden Smith’s original work, even if Adam did not seem to focus on it particularly. So keep this point about the Anglos in mind for later, we shall return to it.
The second article can be summed up as a strong and unequivocal advice —almost an order, really— to men, to not indulge in sex before marriage; and he takes a post by Rollo Tommasi as his jumping off point. Tommasi is somewhat “revered” in PUA circles as being one of the grandfathers of the PUA movement. Personally, though I have weird hobbies, and looking at PUAs and their thirst for raping incels’ wallets was one of many such entertainments, I have never found Tommasi to be especially insightful of much of anything. And the article Adam links to is definitely of the stupidly degenerate category, although my take on things is considerably different from Adam’s in many respects.
Rollo’s post is a car-crash of bullshit and lies and simply illogical nonsense and deserves a point by point take-down even just on its own (non-existent) supposed merits. And… because… you know how I said I have weird hobbies? And typing doesn’t hurt me, I’m going to do just that right here below, between the fancy page breaks. If you don’t care (which is absolutely fine), or if you can’t hold a key point in your mind for more than 3 minutes, or are particularly pious and find vulgarity distatesful, then avert your eyes and skip the Rollo Tommasi take-down below, and scroll to the second fancy page break.
The key points by the way, so far are:
Anglos are weird about caring about what women think of them, and,
Rollo is full of shit. The detailed takedown below is for those not experienced/logical/clear-headed enough to see why Rollo is full of shit, and I am here to help! [insert sociopath smile here].
Rollo in fog-fart grey background your friendly host in standard text.
Rollo, do you think “Body Count” matters?
Absolutely. And the higher, the better. I need a girl who’s DTF (down to fuck) from the jump. For guys after 50, all that pretentious bullshit about long-term commitment should melt away to sexual expediency. It’s not about experience or some contrived want for a virgin bride. It all comes down to guys who fuck and guys who don’t. If we’re talking from the perspective of evolutionary effectiveness, women (and men) with higher body counts are effectively proven commodities in a sexual economy.
The sexually unfulfilled and deprived Rollo tells us several things right in the first paragraph:
He is over 50 and not married or settled down, still chasing the ever elusive “high” of some sex with a random “hottie” (but at over 50 I am fairly sure he’ll take whatever bone is thrown at him).
He in fact has given up on being “pair-bonded” as the PUAs call it, to one woman. He tries to cover it up with absolutely false bravado and machismo, but it is painfully obvious he is in pain from this. Whether his pain is always conscious or not is not clear yet, self-deception in people like Rollo is over 9,000 and also eleventy.
UPDATE: I stand corrected! He’s been married since he was 28, which means I was completely correct about his being a fraud with regard to his “experience” with bedding women, it’s literally all made up theory. And since I did not “correct” any of the subsequent points after this point, you can verify immediately that I really did not know anything about this guy besides read maybe 10 lines of his stuff over the last decade and concluding he was irrelevant, and secondly, that my dissection of his nonsense post is spot on, despite this.
He talks absolute nonsense with regard to “evolutionary effectiveness” because banging as many random women as possible, or, for a woman, even worse, as many guys as possible, throughout human history was only a recipe for absolute disaster and death, and the end of your genetic line. Staying together, regardless of the difficulties, and ensuring the survival of your plentiful children was the only successful strategy, and it still is. The obvious idiocy of his thinly veiled self-justification/rationalisation is clear to anyone with a functioning neurone or two.
“Oh, oh! but you say he is sexually unfulfilled and deprived, when he clearly has (or had) sex with a lot of women, you’re just bitter!”
No, young Padawan, pay attention now:
Firstly: PUAs LIE. And Lie spectacularly about their “body count” trust me on this, I looked into the subspecies of “male” that labels themselves as PUAs in some depth. Feel free to use the Search Me button on the right there. (heh… in light of my not bothering to research Rollo at all and then it turns out he was married the whole time he pretended to be a “player” this is kind of hilarious.)
Secondly: Let’s in any case ass-u-me Rollo does indeed still have regular sex with random hotties every week. Even if that were the case, considering by his own supposed “reality” he has been doing that for 30 years or so, you have to wonder… what can he possibly still be chasing? As regular readers of this blog will know, I am no stranger to the female form myself, and went through a lot of women in a short period of time after I gave up essentially on long-term relationships. And after a few years of it, I tell you, I was essentially bored of it. And no, I am not a guy with low T or lack of energy or any difficulty in securing a regular flow of pretty, usually above average intelligence, women to my bed. I assure you, my pointing this out comes from having lived that way and not any kind of misplaced envy, lack of understanding, or inexperience at the “thrill” of a new woman under me. The fact is that only a man that has yet to fill the hole in his soul can continue to behave this way, in the erroneous belief that if he just beds enough women, somehow, at some point, he will feel fulfilled. Don’t get me wrong, there is some truth to the fact that if you become able to essentially pick up women for sex almost at will, it does give you a certain… I am not even sure what to call it, but I guess… level of general life confidence would be it. But in reality it has little to do with how many women you take to bed and more with your attitude when with a woman. There are men that have this sense of confidence innate to them and only marry and stay with one woman for their entire lives, and there are men that may go through some women to realise they have it already. It’s a little like martial arts. There are guys who never take a class but in a certain circumstance will not hesitate to fight back, and there are guys who need to go training for a while to feel strong in their sense of justice, or whatever. The reality is that a man who forever chases sex with an ever growing number of women, is simply a malformed man. He is not, I assure you a self-actualised man, to borrow a Maslowian term. He is like the perennial teenager, still trying to be “cool” at 70. Or if you prefer, he’s like the Boomers, who keep insisting 80 is the new 40, or whatever. And that is no way for a grown man to be.
Third: Remember that point about the Anglos being far more desperate in general for female approval than say, well, your average dago, spic, South American, Greek… oh look… it’s a divide between Protestant and Catholic or Orthodox religions… again. Things that make you go hmmmm, eh?
Are you starting to understand what I mean by deprived and unfulfilled yet? (It seems clear he wishes he was a “player” which he clearly is not, and never was so…)
Guys who don’t fuck spend lifetimes consoling themselves with moral high-ground narratives to explain why they don’t fuck. At least 80% of guys don’t fuck, so there’s a lot of narrative inbreeding and self-congratulatory bullshit passed around among them. This bullshit has been de rigueur for millennia, but in the social media age, it’s an obvious cope. We’re just more aware of it now.
Of course, the best narratives are the ones that make guys who don’t fuck feel good about not fucking while simultaneously making guys who do fuck feel bad about fucking. This disqualification tactic is one of the many forms of bloodless intrasexual competition tactics that 80%er men have consoled themselves with since the Middle Ages. If you can make your intrasexual rival feel guilty about fucking – because God hates fucking for any reason besides making babies – then you have a tactical advantage in the sexual economy. It works even better if you can gaslight a superior sexual rival to believe he (or she) is going to Hell if he pursues his biological imperative to his fullest potential.
Good God. Talk about gaslighting. If you take him at his word, Rollo is saying that fucking, just that, fucking, not procreating, not making children, just fucking, as many women as possible, is what makes life worthwhile. I have met men like this. Several PUAs are like this, and let me tell you, they are absolutely pathetic. They are a kind of Gollum about pussy in general. My Preciousssss they say, obsessed, salivating, masturbating furiously, whether alone or inside someone else, and that is all that their lives revolve around.
He also further blurts out obvious absolute lies, imputing 80% of men in the Middle Ages did this thing: which was about telling you that way to live (that he thinks is the epitome of existence) is a shallow, discivilisational, unfulfilling, unhealthy way to exist, and not live at all, and they did it to prevent other men from having sex with lots of women. This is complete nonsense, since most men in the middle ages got married, did not have lots of partners, and raised children with their wives, and in the Catholic world at least (which was the ONLY Christianity), most marriages lasted literally until death parted them.
According to him, the entire structure of the Catholic Church was set up so the celibate priests could get all the poonani. It’s ridiculous on its face, ahistorical, and frankly smacks of Gollum-like backward rationalisation that would make a crack whore trying to justify her habit blush with shame.
Generally, lesser men cannot openly challenge greater men (men who fuck) in physical prowess. So, more intelligent men who don’t fuck contrived forms of social gaslighting to improve their chances of reproducing. Smarter lesser men have always devised workarounds to solve their reproductive problems. It’s actually one of the strengths of our species. Nothing sparks innovation quite like a man solving his proximate need for sex and his ultimate need to reproduce. And nothing has been more expedient a tactic than convincing a greater man that he ought to disqualify himself from the sexual economy.
According to Rollo, the Gammas have been “successful” throughout the ages at getting Alpha men to not reproduce. Oh, no, sorry, to fuck, for the sake of fucking alone; reproduction be damned. Once again, anyone who has actually been successful with women over a period of some years, can tell you this is absolute bullshit, and it makes me suspect Rollo, like so many PUAs after him, is likely also full of shit about his supposed sexual prowess with women. It doesn’t matter what the Gammas do. Alphas and Sigmas (that are that way inclined, some Sigmas are not) will be with women sexually even if you imposed the death penalty for doing so. And they would still find ways to get away with it. Gammas have never been very successful at anything really, except being annoying, redundant, and getting women to avoid them like radioactive plague. And notice also that for Rollo the sole qualifier of what makes a man “great” is how high his body count is. Truly it is so pathetically ridiculous that it makes me laugh at both the stupidity of it, and Rollo’s own intrinsic amoeba-like existence. And while he wants very much to paint my view of this as some sort of “envy”, there really is absolutely zero of any such intent or reality in my perspective. It is genuinely the somewhat ironic mild amusement one gets from watching a complete fuckwit trying to be clever and spectacularly showing his ass to the world for the fuckwit he really is.
The problem is, guys who fuck are usually too preoccupied with the logistics of fucking to be bothered by the self-loathing moralism of guys who don’t fuck. At least, that’s how it’s been in a post-Sexual Revolution sexual economy. If it ain’t broke, fixing it isn’t even an afterthought. When you watched the now infamous AMOGing scene in The Wolf Of Wall Street where Leonardo Di Caprio swoops Margot Robbie from a trust fund yuppie, you’re really watching the intrasexual combat between a guy who fucks and a guy who doesn’t. It’s how human males lock horns over sexual access in rutting season. The only thing a guy who doesn’t fuck has in his arsenal is his cunning and nerve.
The emphasis is added by me to point out yet again another logical fallacy. The men who are successful with women do not preoccupy themselves with the logistics of fucking at all, beyond possibly getting their maid, sister, or slutty FWB, to change their semen-stained bedsheets from the night before, because they have a new girl coming over. Literally every man I have known that was… well… a “guy who fucks” like Rollo wants to put it, gave his interactions with women less consideration than he did his enjoyment of a film with a good friend, or his sport of choice, or reading a book he was into. The fact Rollo does not know this, again, makes me suspect he is not quite the lady-killer he presents himself as.
This is why body count only matters to guys who don’t fuck. Their moral crisis isn’t about their inability to find a virgin bride. Guys who don’t fuck couldn’t give two shits about whether a woman’s ability to pair bond with him is impaired by her body count. All they really want is the kind of sex women give to guys who do fuck but never need the ‘value added’ benefits he had to qualify for to get her to fuck him. You see, the gaslighting goes both ways – outwardly towards a sexual rival and inwardly to convince himself that his purpose is righteous. Moralizing over body count is as much about the guy wagging his finger at women as it is about their indiscriminate fucking. There’s actually nothing indiscriminate about it, but sour grapes and making your necessity a virtue are necessary to make Strategic Pluralism an unfalsifiable sexual strategy.
There is a hint of truth to this paragraph, but it is presented as the only absolute, which, as usual, is nonsense. Most men in general actually do care about body-count for any woman they would consider as a long term partner, and at times even for ones they would consider only for a temporary fling. The fact Rollo does not know this, is a clear indication that he is still at the teenager level of sexual immaturity.
Strategic Pluralism Theory
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value in the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring (guys who fuck).
In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities (guys who don’t fuck), is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits (true hypergamy). Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues (guys who fuck). Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
Guys who fuck are usually typified by physique. Usually.
All that theory says is what has been known since the dawn of time. Women want the fittest and most successful male to breed with, and those types of men have unlimited options so tend to make use of them. Also, water is wet.
Much as I despise Destiny, the guy DOES fuck. Maybe not like Justin Waller, Jason Momoa, or Mike Sartain, but he certainly ruts like a feral animal compared to Ben Shapiro. Guys who fuck don’t sit around comparing dick sizes or bask in the glow of the imaginings of the third-party validation they get from filling a void in their souls/egos by fucking. These are tropes that guys who don’t fuck tell themselves to explain why guys who do fuck are fucking the women they’ll eventually fuck because those women ran out of options. The concept of fucking for some ephemeral form of validation is part of that gaslighting I mentioned above.
Here we see a rather convoluted bit of chaff-firing, self-delusion and gaslighting in order to justify and rationalise both to himself and the world, his ultimately meaningless way of existing.
He says guys who have his (supposed) lifestyle do not worry about their image which can be “true” to the extent that some men do not care how their womanising makes them look to other men (or in some cases to women too) or society in general, but they tend to be the exceptions, most Alpha types do care about the way they are perceived, and in any case, they all care at least about what women, or at least any given woman in particular, at a point in time, thinks of them, if only to get them in bed. It is also generally true that men who are successful with women do not tend to over-analyse themselves (unless they are PUAs) but the fact remains there is a deeply unfulfilled part of them, whether they realise it or not consciously, that has quite a lot to do with needing to feel loved, and paradoxically, their womanising tends to almost ensure they are ostracised from that very sensation they crave (consciously or not).
But ultimately he ends with yet another nihilist absolute. According to him, such men (as he presents himself to supposedly be) fuck for… just the orgasm I guess. They don’t do it for any self-validation, they don’t do it for love, they don’t do it for procreation, they don’t do it for long term companionship… right Rollo, nice of you to finally admit (if passively aggressively like a whiny bitch) that all people like you do, is really masturbate themselves to death, and it really makes little difference if you do it alone or with a human you empathise with about the same as you do with your no-doubt well-used fleshlight.
It’s intended to get your genetic superior to disqualify himself by contemplating his filling the void of existence with meaningless sex. Meaning plays another big role in the game of guys who don’t fuck. “Meaning” is a container word. It’s a term you can subjectively fill with anything you like. Even fucking if you’re clever about it. Meaning is intentionally ambiguous, and that’s what makes it so effective in being unfalsifiable. As a rule, gaslighting depends on unfalsifiable concepts, but meaning is one of the capstones. Any time you listen to some child on the Fresh & Fit podcast prattle on about how she’s living her truth, you’re listening to a variation of the meaningfulness horseshit.
And here Rollo doubles down on the idea that his life has no meaning. None whatsoever. All there is, is the fuck, for the sake of the fuck, the ultimately masturbationary orgasm for the sake of the orgasm itself, not any other reason. Not self-validation, not self-improvement, not marriage, not reproduction, nope, nope, nope, just the ever omnipresent “fuck”.
Do you see why I compared him, and people like him, to Gollum?
Guys who don’t fuck, like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, are actually the ones who need validation. Because soul-void fulfillment means confronting the reality that they’ll never enjoy the uninhibited feral lust their wives reserved for the men in their past who fucked. Men who never had to prove their value-added bona fides to fuck the women who would become their wives. Men who don’t fuck live lives of ceaselessly qualifying for a desire they know their wives were capable of with other men but can’t seem to provoke themselves. This is why validation is a thing for guys who don’t fuck – and women who need a Jungian term to explain why guys who do fuck won’t fuck them.
And now he takes the doubled down absolute idiocy to truly stupefying levels. According to him, the men who “fuck” are the be-all and end-all of life, the utter epitome of manly manness. Yes, there is some truth to the self-soothing half-truths and lies men and women tell themselves for not being as successful in the sexual marketplace, but what Rollo tries desperately to shove under the carpet with his tracer-firing barrage at what he considers “inferior” men is the question: What, exactly, are the men who “fuck” better for, or at, in life? And the ONLY thing Rollo keeps coming up with is the purpose of “the fuck” itself. Which is, of course, either ridiculous or nihilistic and pathetic to a suicidal degree. And we know more than one PUA has gone the suicide route too. (And as it happens, Rollo himself turns out to be one of the guys who “does not fuck”, in his own terminology, which according to him, makes him the same as Ben Shapiro. Well… I got nothing, the man is entirely a fraud whichever way you look at it.)
Guys who don’t fuck are the dutiful, loyal, supportive, and nameless husband who Rosehad children and grandchildren with, yet pined for Jack (a guy who fucks) and dropped a priceless diamond to the bottom of the sea in the final moments of her life at the end of Titanic. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the moral crises and ethical concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Validation and body count are just two heads of a conjoined twin. They haven’t gotten the memo that their 20th-century moralism-as-strategy is meaningless in a 21st-century sexual marketplace.
Ah yes. Using Titanic as the masterpiece of philosophy that it clearly was, and making the vapid, stupid, callous, utterly self-absorbed narcissist Rose, the “heroine” of the piece, because she throws away a fortune she could have given to her progeny, in quintessential, wicked, super-boomer format, is indeed, a bold strategy, Rollo! Not a good one, valid or sensible one, but certainly “bold”. As in the same kind of “bold” that would stick his dick in a bar-cutting industrial machinery to “prove his manliness”.
Body count only matters to nameless husbands who don’t fuck. It doesn’t matter to anywoman because they would rather fuck a lot of Jacks on a sinking ship than be bothered by the purity (paternity) concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Guys who fuck don’t care about body count because they know women hate guys who don’t fuck, and those guys care about body count.
Again, it is quite obvious that Rollo protesteth too much here, as he has throughout the entire vapid, ageing PUA post.
Rollo is the male equivalent of a post-wall woman who has ridden the cock-carousel so long she is now left on the shelf. And Rollo is the post-wall “bad-boy” (assuming he ever really actually was one at all) who is left with spent cigarettes, a ruggerised fleshlight, wrinkles, and increasingly creeping despair, at the beginning of the end of a life wasted on ephemera.
FINAL UPDATE: As I said right from the start, PUAs lie, and as it happens Rollo lied about pretty much everything concerning his supposed “ability” concerning women, and he advises men to do the exact opposite of what he himself has done, which is to stay married to one woman for 26 years. If he had been the ladykiller he presented himself as, the above vivisection would be absolutely correct, and as it happens, remains so, regarding the fictional would-be Rollo. And since he is an absolute fraud that advises others to go down a path he knows nothing about and leads to nothing good long term, one can hardly imagine anything he has to say is relevant or worthwhile. Even by his own (retarded) “measuring stick” Rollo himself is the exact guy who “does not fuck” that he so denigrates in his post. And yet he also advises against being married. So… what exactly is Rollo, what does he actually have to say that is relevant, or true, or valid?
Right, now after that vivisection, let us return to the original points, which are that:
Anglos are weird about caring about what women think of them, and,
Rollo is full of shit.
And seeing what that says about men who chase after women for sex and so on in general terms and in spiritual terms.
First of all, I think the point about Anglos being afflicted by gynæmania is a real thing. The English speaking world of the Anglos is indeed, culturally, regardless of whether British (though these are the epicentre of it) Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, or even the more Anglecised parts of America, tends to be irrelevant, as a people, they tend to be grossly united by the Protestant Zeitgeist and a kind of fear/intimidation/shyness of women in general.
Certainly none of the Catholic countries suffer from this to anywhere near the extent the English people do. And it has been this way for centuries. The writings of Italian travellers to England recounts the same view of things that we Southern European tend to have even today of the English men and the English women.
I believe in part it is due to the nefarious influence of Protestantism, as it is an invariably mechanising of humanity and the minute you do that, the first errors will be with your understanding/handling/appreciation of women, because human females are in a way the very embodiment of the chaos of humanity at its best and its worst, and any reduction at binarium pensierum (binary thinking) will invariably produce vast errors in your model of reality with respect to women. And as such they will become only more mystifying, unpredictable and dangerous for you. The other part is due to the fact that as a rule, the Anglos tend to be a logical and shy people, neither of which quality lends itself particularly well to being easy-going in relation to women, who as a rule are not logical and only pretend to be shy in the company of men, if at all.
For such men, the eventual “ability” to bed a lot of women does in fact begin to become a form of validation for them. It remains essentially a false one, but one they believe in and buy into as much as the people they try to convince around them.
These are the men that despite having slept with a hundred or even a few hundred women or more, remain nevertheless prey to their own desire for women and susceptible to how they are perceived by the women they are attracted to. They invariably appear as what the Zoomers call “cringe” to men who have the self-assuredness internally that these Anglo types seek perennially, and hardly ever find. I have known men that only had two women as sexual partners, the first was their wife and the second also their wife, after the first one died, and yet these men would have zero problem genuinely attracting almost any woman they set their eyes on, and they would do so free of the anxiety and self-doubt that plagues the supposed ladies men with hundreds of notches on their belts.
For me, discovering I was able to get women to have sex with me successfully, was not self-actualising in any way. It was more like discovering I had a natural aptitude for fencing, or skiing. A kind of pleasant surprise about something I never really gave much thought to one way or the other. And a good part of why I was successful has very much to do with the fact that that is pretty much how I treated it, not because I wanted to pose as such a person, but because I am such a person. And I cannot with certainty say what makes a man that way or not. I think at least some of it is genetic, but life experiences probably formed in childhood also has something to do with it.
And if I had to give it my best guess, I would say it is probably mostly due to whether your relationship with your parents, and primarily your father, was honest and direct and loving or not. The English sense of “logical detachment” I think is ultimately damaging to children, which is why the entire Anglosphere is a fucking mess of feral youfs with no sense, no honour, no dignity, or discipline to speak of, and increasingly illiterate at that.
The more instinctual and visceral love of an Italian father, who may well kick your ass, literally, for some small or even wrong reason, but who would unquestioningly jump into a harvesting combine to save you, is a far healthier way to be raised than the cold logic of the Anglo-Saxons. And instills in you a profound sense of self-assuredness that I think nothing else does. And that sense comes through to women like a lighthouse in the dark, whether they are aware of it or not consciously (mostly not).
I hope this explains the reason why some men, regardless of how many women they have slept with, ultimately remain on some level… uncertain. Doubtful. Unfinished. And women can in fact sense that.
Now, let us get to the concept of fornication in general and so on, which in fairness, was the topic that Adam was trying to cover, and to which, my extremely long preamble above is merely introduction to give you my context.
On Fornication
First of all, let me state unambiguously that yes, in an ideal world, the way that the Catholic Church says we should behave, both as men and women is indeed, the best and ideal way. No question. I unreseveredly agree.
That said, being as I am Catholic, and being as I lived like a heathen for at least 43 years of my time on Earth, and given that I made no attempt to resist temptations of the flesh in that time, I think I can say with some authority that:
We live on a world that is decidedly fallen and very far from ideal.
Every one of us is utterly flawed in many ways even after we see and realise and accept the truth of Catholicism.
Men who have yet even to see the truth of Catholicism cannot, in all likelihood, even begin to see why what are known as the sins of the flesh are even bad, never mind actual mortal sins.
So, if unmitigated fornication is the equivalent of a blind and deaf man walking towards a cliff-face, how can I possibly begin to even make him aware of this truth? The temptations of the flesh after all are not a fairy tale. They are very much real, and they certainly never felt bad or sinful to me when I indulged deeply in them, nor, do I expect they feel that way to the average 20-something or even 30-something year old male that is “finally getting some!”
And while Adam and people like him, including Catholic Priests and Bishops are absolutely correct that it is a damaging thing, it’s not as if I had not heard that sort of preaching when I was indulging deeply in fornication and then some.
And my reaction to it all was usually, something like, Eh, poor bastard isn’t getting any and he either doesn’t know what he’s missing, or maybe would like, much as the feminists, everyone to be as miserable as him.
And I expect any young man that has got this far (if any have) in this long post, is probably thinking the same thing, and they also do not have a counter-example as a reference frame. Not one they have lived certainly, because that counter example you only get once you are married, and fully committed to one woman, and she is to you too.
It sort of feels like a lie. Oh, don’t you have any fun now, boy, you just wait and just take the ONE sweet, and only that one, for the rest of your life, and trust us, it’s better this way. With all the bullshit you have ingested by age 20, and your at least seeing some of it (if you are not completely retarded) one can hardly be blamed for thinking this too is a massive lie.
And because I am Catholic, and because I have also the example of my own life, and the awesomeness of a real priest that Baptised, Confirmed and presided over my Marriage, and had the benefit of his wisdom and kindness, I also understand that fallen as we are, erroneous as we are, mistaken as we are, we are not necessarily evil or shunning God. We are just wrong. Badly, desperately, tragically, sadly, wrong, but mostly just wrong, not intentionally evil. And we are sad, weak, feel unloved and uncared for by anyone and we try, like drowning rats, to scrabble some sense of worth and love and kindness, wherever there is any illusion we might find some. And so we make mistakes.
And most of you reading this who are unmarried will be in the midst of those mistakes, and I am not here to chastise you, or rain thunder and fire and brimstone and judgement from God on your weighted and desperate heads. Far from it.
I was one of you. I walked your path deeper and longer in the swamp of godless life than most. So, young man, if you will, after this very long set of words, take a seat near my camp-fire and let me tell you a story and may it help you navigate your own swamp, and may it be shallow and brief.
So you are fornicating. So you may even like a girl you are with and be boyfriend and girlfriend, and you may even be thinking how it would be nice if it will last. Or maybe you’re so infatuated with the sensations of sex that a new girl every week or every day or two, or whatever, is intoxicating and draining all your thoughts and actions, wallet and testicles. Whatever the case may be, listen to this and think it over:
What do you want for your life? What do you want to think about your life when you are 99 years old and on your rocking chair and you can see the grim reaper finally walking towards you? And you’re fine with it and smile at him even, recognising that this supposedly terrible and fearful boogeyman is nothing more than a tired and misunderstood boatman, taking you across the veil (or the river Styx if you prefer).
Do you think you will be pleased reminiscing over your 287 sexual conquests, aided by your printed out spreadsheet in large letter format, because your eyes are no longer what they used to be? Playing out the sex tapes on the projector of your study to remember better what you did or felt or what they did? Or who they even were? Do you think that will warm your heart as you face the final journey?
Or your sporting achievements?
Or your financial ones, absent children and grandchildren to leave it to?
Tell me, young man, what do you think will make you able to face the final boatman with serenity and peace?
I’ll tell you what it is for me now and what I hope it will be for me at 105, but I say only 105 because I started late, otherwise 99 would be perfectly acceptable to me too. And yes, I know I’d be lucky to get there.
It is the idea of my children grown up and married and with children of their own, and doing well, and if God grants me the energy and the fortune to do so, the idea of leaving them as much as I possibly can, to make their lives and those of their children good ones.
It is the idea of watching my grandchildren and possibly even my great-grandchildren (hence 105!) running around nearby, screaming and making noise and playing joyfully and laughing full belly-laughs and thinking my sons and daughters and their wives and husbands are good women and men who will be with them to the end of their days and help them raise the next lot of joyous Crusaders for God, Truth and Justice, as my family line has done since the literal original First Crusade.
Now you may have a different religion from me (because you’re still young and stupid, heh, heh, heh) but I don’t think it changes the equation. I don’t think it changes it at all.
And here is what else I think. I think if what I just told you is NOT what inspires you, is abhorrent to you in some way, then I hope very much it’s only because, as I said, you’re young, and really fucking stupid, and you have bought in to a lot of Boomer-era lies, And I sincerely hope you grow out of your mental retardation.
And if not, if that is who you really are, then fuck you. I hope you die young and rid the world of another noxious creature that only spoils the Earth and everything on it. And I’m not talking about climate change, you fuckwit.
Now, if you get the impression that I am a kind of bastard for an old man, I would say, fuck you at the “old man” I can probably still kick your ass at 54 if you are in your twenties, depending on some factors, but that aside, yeah, I am not the most pleasant human being. I don’t like humans much because mostly they are weak, and because they are weak they lie. And they lie a lot. They lie to themselves first and then to everyone else around them. And the lies cause the harm. They cause ALL the harm. Which is as the god of this world wants it. Because this Earth is under the dominion of Satan. And no, young man, I don’t give a shit if you think “The Devil” is a superstition. He is more real than the heart-attack all the poor imbeciles that took the genetic serum are probably facing in the not too distant future.
Oh, and this is just a side note, but listen up: The Earth is NOT Flat!
And if you think it is you are a stupid bastard and I really don’t care what happens to you and with a level of stupidity that high it is definitely a better thing if you do not pass on those retarded genes at all.
Back to my story, now.
So, if you agree with me so far, then you also must realise that you get that kind of old-age satisfaction only if you make children and raise them well. And this means finding and marrying a woman that will also want to be with you until one or both of you die and raise children together. No matter what difficulties you will both face. No matter if you are so fucking stupid one day to fuck your secretary, or hire a prostitute, or become a heavy drinker, or make a bad business decision and lose your shirt. And conversely, no matter if she is so fucking stupid to spread her legs for the sexy postman, or her co-worker, or the neighbour, or she becomes a heavy drinker, or more worried about what the neighbours think of you and her than looking after her husband and children, or she splashes out on stupid shit and drives you to the brink of bankruptcy.
So is it easy to find such a woman? No.
Is it easy to stay married to such a woman, delightful as she might be? No.
Will you come across things in life that will hurt you in ways you never imagined, and that would seem to make leaving her a better option? Yes.
More than once? In all likelihood, yes.
And will she come across such things? Yes, without shadow of a doubt, and probably even more often than you.
And if you are thinking right now, Well Old Man, this is a really rosy picture you’re painting for me, what the fuck do you want me to do, and is the light at then of the tunnel also an oncoming train?
I say this to you:
Firstly fuck you twice for the Old Man again, you wet behind the ears know-nothing. Secondly, it’s not rosy. It’s just how it is, so you know what you’re facing. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. What I want you to do is immaterial. It’s what you want to do, or not do, that matters. Realise whether you pick something, or pick nothing, you’re still picking something. So choose, and choose consciously, because at least then you got no one to blame but yourself.
Oh, and yeah, in the end, the light at the end of the tunnel is always an oncoming train. Sometimes it’s got a boatman riding up front. Smile and run at it, because fuck the train. Live like a man and die like one too if need be.
So now you might be thinking, Ok Old Man, so how do I find such a woman?
And I say to you, firstly, fuck you three times for the Old man. Secondly, unless you have uncommon good luck, unless God for some reason decides to send you an Angel in disguise as a human woman, most likely, you cannot find such a woman walking the Earth today.
Young man stares blankly at me.
You have to build her.
Young man says: What?
You have to build her, boy. You find one that is as close as you can find to a finished product, and I sincerely advise you to find one that is in your category of looks. If you are a 7 don’t try and stay with a 9. You’ll be so worried about keeping her that you will fuck up a myriad things and she will end up fucking your “best friend”, the neighbour, your boss, her boss, and if you did marry her, she will take the kids and your house too when she inevitably divorces you.
Take your time in your courtship. Learn who she is and pay attention to what she does and how she acts in various situations and feel free to almost totally ignore whatever she says she is like. You can really only go badly wrong if you believe her when she describes all her good qualities. Pay her words no mind. Observe her actions instead.
If you feel you have enough to work with (at least 51% good is a minimum) then begin to go about leading by example. Do NOT request of her efforts or sacrifices you are not willing to exceed. And yes, some things are not comparable on a like for like basis, because she is a woman and you are a man, you can no more give birth or breastfeed your child than she can write the alphabet in the snow when urinating, and don’t think the one is equivalent in value to the other, but realise that as a general rule, women can provide three things to a man:
So do your part and gently show her the way, so she feels better about herself, as women invariably do when they begin to act in accordance with their God-given, biological imperatives, that have been subverted by lies for the last hundred plus years or so.
That’s about it, boy.
And if you are still wondering where this puts you in the fornication scale, well, to not put too fine a point on it, according to the Church, until you marry and commit, your fornication is going to send you to Hell. So I would hurry up and get to finding that woman as quick, yet also as careful, as you can. And try not to get hit by a bus until you get married to her and repent and foreswear your heathen and fornicating ways, you miserable sinner.
And if you have any brains at all, about now, young man, you might be having a little smile at the apparently hypocritical, arrogant, bastard, old man in front of you.
That’s why I no longer describe myself as a libertarian. Not simply because I have rejected the ideology, although I have, but because I no longer believe that most ideologists, past or present, are even remotely interested in, much less connected to, truth and objective reality. Despite its grandiose and universalist pretensions, ideology is the detailed rationalization of an identity group’s immediate interests, and it will always be subject to further modification and mutation as that group’s interests change over time.
It is the mark of one of the vanishingly small number of men who are capable of changing their minds based on facts when a man admits to in fact doing so, and it is one of the reasons I respect Vox’s often apparently contrarian thoughts. And of course, anyone reading this is probably thinking “from what pulpit comes the preaching!” because as contrarian as Vox may at times appear to be, I think I am the only man on Earth that has been labelled as responsible for the need to create an entirely new class of role-playing game character: The Theologian-Berserker by a Hugo nominated author.
The reality, however, is that neither I nor Vox are actual contrarians for the sake of being contrarians. I believe we are simply men that observe the world and try, to the best of our ability to interpret and share, our honestly objective conclusions or theories based on the available evidence.
Even as a much younger man, when I was not even remotely Catholic, I always rejected the concept of ideologies. In fact, in the Villains section, I specifically explain as the very first point, why all ideologies are ultimately an error.
All ideology is ultimately dehumanising. This is of course a broad statement but it is a mostly accurate one. The moment you make something become a rigidly fixed “belief”, almost regardless of what it is, it will ultimately become a tyrannical yoke on the neck of natural and honest human beings. If you need a good example and exposé of this, you should really read the essay The Power of the Powerless, by Václav Havel. He basically predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire at a time when the collapse of it was essentially thought of as mostly unthinkable. He did this because of an intrinsic understanding of the human spirit and the nature of such a spirit. Human souls are born to be free and joyous, not oppressed and repressed by dogma. Modern ideologies tend to be far more sophisticated in their insidiousness, but the end result is always the same, a dehumanisation, an increase of strife, both internal and external and an alienation of humans from each other in terms of how they relate to each other. Ideology forces us to try and relate to each other as cogs instead of souls. Regardless of whether you even believe in souls, do you really want to be related to as a cog in a machine?
The above was specifically written in 2018, but I had the concept clear in my mind certainly from my mid-twenties.
The holding on to ideologies is really a form of infantilism, and while I do not want to place ALL of the world’s ills at the feet of America and Americans, especially because the people who control America are for the most part not American at all, but mostly Jewish, it remains a fact, that Americans (actual Americans, not paper Americans) are, as a general people, some of the most gullible and infantile humans on Earth and certainly in the Western World.
While individual Americans can be quite brilliant, the vast majority are maleducated, malnourished (as in fed badly, not as in starving), vastly ignorant and almost entirely brainwashed into believing in American greatness. In their defence, it does need to be said that they are also the first pretend-nation that was created by Freemasons and entirely on Freemasonic principles, so they never had much of a chance from the start.
And since America, thanks to its vast resources for a time, became the most militarily powerful country on Earth and with almost unlimited funds, it zeitgeist has pretty much succeeded, until recently at infecting most of the planet with its ideologically based lies.
Protestantism, of course was the precursor and raised its Satanic head shortly after America was discovered by Columbus.
The reason why Ideology is always at best an error and usually ends up being directly evil in due course, is because human beings are living beings, and ideology is a dead and static thing. Ideology is the mechanisation of human beings, as is, Protestantism and indeed any facile, binary way of thinking.
A small child wishes for things to be clear and simple. Good and bad. Light and dark. Yes or No. and so on. As we grow in abilities and life experience, one hopes we begin to understand that while there are definite absolutes, at least in the moral sense of human affairs, these are relatively few and reserved for extreme cases, and because human beings are weak, petty, stupid, selfish, brutish, vindictive, fallen creatures, yet imbibed with an eternal soul loved by God, we tend to, for the most part, play out our worst characteristics more than our divinely inspired ones.
Simply observing life as we find it, makes this rather obvious, or rather, so I thought. As it happens, what is often obvious to me is apparently shrouded in mystery for most people. Even intelligent ones.
There are many such examples, and I mention a few not to show you what a clever special boy I am, but merely because most people simply haven’t even thought of this stuff:
Free Speech– Has never existed in the entirety of human existence and never will. This was obvious to me from the first moment I became aware of this Americanism in my early teens while living in relatively remote Africa.
Ideology (all of it)– as described above from early 20s at the latest.
Intelligence behind creation of some sort – About age 16 but confirmed by basic mathematics by age 19 when I explicitly stated it clearly.
The difference between Principles, Dogmas, Axioms and Ideology – Ideology is always an error, to whatever degree. Axioms might, eventually, prove to be somewhat erroneous from totally (if based in ideology) to partially, to perhaps never (certain divine concepts, or Mathematical realities). Dogmas can be a thinly veiled ideology, or a sound axiom or a simple universal truth (math is logical for example, could be said to be either axiomatic or even dogmatic). Principles are personal choices, often, but not always, based on a man’s best understanding of reality. Conflating these different terms just because there are overlaps however is an error and should be avoided, as all conflation in general should always be.
The Paradox of Truth with a capital T and the Human condition – Concepts such as Justice, Honour, Courage, Honesty and so on, are principles that in their ideal, or theoretical form are perfectly clear and free of ambiguity. In the world of humanity however, these noble truths, for they are true, and they are noble, cannot help but be tinged with our humanity, which —even a blind and irreligious man as some of us may have been for decades— is akin to being soiled with a bit of raw sewage. In short, while Justice, Love, Mercy and so on are all true and theoretically perfect, on Earth, we can only come to close approximations at best. This is the hard reality of course, which is why religions of a simple-minded, binary nature, like Protestantism or Islam are ultimately patterns of thought that lead to a beastly existence. The Protestants of course either become puritanical freaks for which the flashing of an ankle at a ball is grounds for wearing a scarlet letter, or lascivious degenerates for whom strumming a guitar explaining Jesus is their gender-neutral boyfriend is the height of their “christianity”, While Islam simply does away with any pretence of reason at all when it merely says that everything is the will of Allah. In that respect, the only religion that properly takes into account both the human failings but also the truth and nobility of these concepts is Catholicism. No other religion does, and for that reason it is the best model of reality we have ever had as a species.
As I progressed in my observations of life in general, and people in particular, the objective noticing of reality always served me well, and once I became a full blown Catholic (which I ALWAYS explain means a sedevacantist since those are the ONLY Catholics actually left on Earth) the model of reality that Catholicism offers, fits the observable reality better than my own Zen-Agnostic philosophy of some 3 decades or more, at least an order or two of magnitude better.
Humans are indeed complicated, and only Catholicism truly appreciates and answers, the multi-faceted aspects of the Human condition with equal measure, Mercy, Forgiveness, and Charity as inflexible Truth, Justice and Virtue.
I therefore invite you to at least begin to study actual Catholicism and actual Church History from the very beginning.
My own books can serve as a shortcut and are filled with references so you can verify what I say, but it doesn’t matter how you get there, just get there.
UPDATE: One of my biggest detractors sent me a link to this video where the Bill Brockbrader guy is said to be a complete fake and worse, a pedophile. I didn’t do any research on Bill, and as I said in today’s stream, I was never a fan of Kerry Cassidy, so I don’t know what’s real or not, but I do know that Kerry Cassidy did interview a bunch of people that are clearly frauds. Whether she is involved and knows or not about Bill Brockbrader being a pedo etc, I don’t know. At any rate, the short and the long of it is this:
If Bill is a pedo, he deserves to be burnt at the stake regardless of whether his story is fake or absolutely real. My stance on that will never change, if I become Emperor, burning pesos at the stake will be the first law I resurrect and put in place.
Even if everything Bill says is a lie, which is entirely possible, my personal data points regarding not just Looking Glass, but the reality of precognition, telepathy, the effectiveness of prayer, the aether, the work of Harold Aspden and so on remain valid, and I came up with those long before I ever heard of Bill or Looking Glass. So the overall theme of this post remains unchanged other than for the point that you can eject everything related to Bill.
The overall theme of keeping a faithful belief in the good and our being able to reach it is important and I have personally lived through the reality of this for decades, so the baseline message does not change either, and neither does the possible route I present of how we might get there in real time.
The guy in the video says Crenshaw the one-eyed politician is a guy who will get the truth out there… and on that basis alone, his own ideas become somewhat suspect to me.
As always, we can conclude a few things either way.
First of all, listen to everyone but always make your own mind up, that has always been my advice in life to literally everyone and isn’t going to change.
Secondly, don’t sweat the enemies you have in life, sometimes they unintentionally prove useful in their efforts to criticise you.
Thirdly, even if you remove the entire Bill Brockbrader stuff and indeed the whole Looking Glass stuff from this post, the overall message does not change, because as I tried to point out at the start it’s based on physics. Physics very few people know about and even less people understand fully, but actual physics nonetheless, and the metaphysical aspects are actually also supported by this physics. Nevertheless, it is important to keep things straight, so you need to be aware of the critique.
This is gonna be a weird one, and if you are not familiar with some of my theories on physics and metaphysics, you might even go on to think it’s unhinged. Those of you who have used the Search Me function on the right and typed in key words like Maxwell, aether, Peter Garajev, solitonic waves, and Harold Aspden, might at least give me the benefit of the doubt.
After describing the situation for that game, marginally more dystopia than the present day, I had a section titled Light at the beginning of the Tunnel.
It read as follows:
The current situation is undeniably bleak. However, there are at least three separate scenarios that give us hope that there is not just a way to survive the current times, but to get out of them in a way that will provide an awakening of conscience and empathy that will render the Earth much closer to a paradise than it has ever been. Personally, I presume this will take place only after all the evil responsible persons involved have been hung by the neck to the nearest lamppost or burnt at the stake as the demonworshippers they are,[1] but some may have more optimistic views. In any case, I present them here as a way for you to have a clear sight of the fact that all is, most assuredly, not lost. Nor must you ever act or believe as if it is.
[1] After a fair trial by the Holy Inquisition, of course.
The three settings were, in turn:
The End Times (really only “good” if you’re a Sedevacantist Catholic of absolute Faith AND are really prepared and really lucky), The Not Quite End Times (really not fun, but you might survive if you are, again, a Sedevcantist Catholic, prepared, lucky and dangerous), or… Looking Glass.
Which I copy below in full for your edification.
Looking Glass: For those of you who harbour a hatred of religion, were raised on the Kool-Aid of I Fucking Love Science! Faceborg Groups Idiocy, or possibly were molested by a Novus Orco or Protestant “priest” and thus have resolved to drive a stake through the heart of anyone professing to be a Christian, or, yet again, are simply agnostic and have not yet found an overarching truth about the intelligence behind creation that cold logic and basic math indicate must exists,[1] this may be the most interesting perspective yet.
In the early to mid-1990s there were various “disclosures” about all sorts fantastic things.
Satanic ritual abuse of children was one of them. The Franklin scandal got swept under the carpet as magistrates, Judges, Police, Politicians and wealthy elite were all involved. Then it was relegated to the fevered imaginings of… you guessed it: Conspiracy Theorists. As were the scandals involving most of the Belgian parliament in a child sex trafficking ring. And the one involving most of the British Parliament and all of the BBC with Jimmy Saville at its centre.
There were UFO disclosures. There were Alien Hypothesis disclosures. One guy with an Italian name even released a book called The Face on Mars that posited, from a coldly scientific perspective, the idea that Mars had been destroyed by an interplanetary war and the survivors had been worshipped as Gods and Demigods on our Planet.
Various military or supposed military experts were crawling out of the woodwork discussing everything from Roswell to secret Nazi bases in Antarctica and weird genetic experiments. All, of course, were conspiracy theories.
There was a lot of information about HAARP, and Chem Trails, and MK Ultra, and the CIA, and gun running, and cocaine. All conspiracy theories. Even when they turned out to be true.
And mostly, they all turned out to be true.
At any rate, one of these conspiracy theories was about something called Looking Glass. The premise was that a system of quantum computers as well as possibly some paranormal technology linked to precognition had been created to predict various possible outcomes of the future.
One such military contractor that was involved with the project became a whistle-blower and stated that the powers that be that got the reports on the possible outcomes, which we can assume today are synonymous with the Evil Ones, had become very worried.
Apparently, no matter what scenario they presented to the Looking Glass technology, a result always came back that they would lose control of the sleeping, teeming masses of humanity. No matter what they did, there was a Great Awakening of consciousness coming and nothing could stop it. No matter what wars, or economic crashes, or diseases, or misery or other technology they would release, the end result would always be the same. An enormous shift in human consciousness that would result in unparalleled freedom for every human being on Earth. This was, as I say, the early to mid 1990s.
The whistle-blower described it as a chess game between two masters that both realised one player would win. It was inevitable, but the game was not yet over. The only options open to the losing player was to either resign now, or try and play every possible delaying move to the end even though the outcome was a foregone conclusion. This way the loser could cause as much damage and take as many pieces as he could off the eventual winner.
Some 30 years later, the Looking Glass project would seem to be playing out its death throes. Keep in mind that the UN Agenda 2021 and 2030 which outlined much of the events that started to take place in 2019, were supposed to take another decade to play out. And now it had all been ramped up suddenly. Making all the puppet governments, especially of the Western world, dance like monkey in so obvious a fashion that even many of the people of average intelligence began to see through the cracks.
Why the sudden warp-speed on the serum to every man woman and child? So rapidly introduced that the massive death they caused was eventually impossible to hide. Once everyone knew a few friends and relatives dropping dead of serum shot “complications,” which were really the designed and intended consequences, the medical establishment would cover up for it, along with the perennial mouthpiece of the indemoniated, the Mass Media.
Still, over time, the amount of people dying after taking the serum shot became so pronounced it started to affect national statistics. And the news was not good. The higher the percentage of the population that took the serum, the higher the overall mortality rate. The serum was deadly to young, healthy people, not just the elderly and it was sterilising to the females.
But despite all the damage the forced serum mandates were causing, if Looking Glass was not just a fable, no matter what they do, they will, in the end, lose. So, you just have to hold out long enough. Just like in the other two possibilities above.
[1] Seriously, the million monkeys on a million typewriters theory is abject nonsense. Do the actual math. There is a better chance of the Sun blinking out to the other side of the universe and back every time you snap your fingers a million times in a row than the universe being created by random chance. There is just not enough time in the created Universe for it to have happened. It’s not even a stretch. It’s just flat out impossible.
Here is the Youtube video where this came from. The stuff about Project Looking Glass starts at about 1 hour and 55 minutes in or so. But I would go in at about 1 hour and 47 minutes and listen to ten minutes before looking glass starts too. It’s worth it.
This interview was done in January 2012, and given he is first discussing things I absolutely am sure are real (space fleet, bases on Mars and the Moon, and so on) and I have been writing about since the mid 1990s, I find him fairly reliable and not crazy, and he does not appear insane to me either. Whatever you do, listen at least to the very last minute of this video too, it may be the most important bit of all.
But all this is preamble to my point.
From a “miracle” perspective, sure, anything can happen. From an End Days perspective, Jesus will come back on a white horse and trample all the bad guys. Ok.
But from a purely secular perspective, assuming what we are actually going towards is The Not Quite End Times and project Looking Glass and the event that the bad guys can’t avoid is the Great Awakening, instead of their planned Great Reset Dystopia, what would that look like? What set of circumstances might make such a supposed new age of prosperity, peace and goodness happen?
And to answer THAT question, I thought of a few possible things that could or maybe need to happen for such a situation to take place.
So… crazy introduction to the topic? Absolutely, but bear with me…
One thing that I think the Globohomo Pedovores have utterly miscalculated on, is that their desperate attempts to remain in control, have tragically backfired.
Any of us that have a functioning brain and kept at least half an eye on things have known since 2014 that the Usual Suspects wanted to destroy Russia via Ukraine “regime change”. And that Ukraine had zero chance against Russia in 2020. And shortly after the SMO started, that NATO and America too, also had —and continue to have— no chance against the Russia/China block.
But did you have “Israel tries to wipe out Palestine at the end of 2023” on your bingo card?
And Houtis with the equivalent of TL7 technology are crippling the US/Israel empire/alliance of TL9 military (Tech Level is a term from the Traveller RPG)?
So… how does the current atmosphere that is being daily fomented towards fear, hatred, chaos, starvation, economic collapse, and so on make you think we are heading towards?
Now, according to Bill Wood (real name Bill Brockbrader) what you ultimately really believe in your heart of hearts tends to become reality. I have had this sense internally, very strongly since I was a child.
[This is where the metaphysics, solitonic waves and so on comes into it… in other words, it’s not about me and my important feelings… it’s about how the vary foundations of reality work]
I was not worried in 1986 when the various predictions of the End of the World —supposedly based on Nostradamus— were prevalent. Nor when the Y2K catastrophes were being stated, or the 9/11 tower attacks by the deep state and blamed on the phantomatic Muslim terrorists happened, and even when the more recent Covid bio-engineered scam for the use of deadly genetic serums, did not concern me too much.
The fact is, that even BEFORE I became a hardcore Catholic with a strong faith, I have ALWAYS had a sense inside of me that whatever apocalypse comes my way, I am simply NOT the type to go quietly into the night. And if there is any type of possibility of survival, I am very likely to make it and then even thrive.
AFTER my becoming Catholic, it is an absolute reality that my faith has been tested in the scariest, most painful, deep ways. And while I at times wondered if I could survive some of these events, the reality is that it has increased my personal faith in a good outcome to a level that a few years ago I would have thought of as being not accessible to human beings, or at least certainly not to me, mere mortal.
So, while I already had the mindset that Bill Wood/Brockbrader mentions in that last minute of video above, and I would have had it regardless of me ever being aware of anything he discussed, project Looking Glass, or anything else, and while I absolutely advise you to have the same attitude, to reject the fear they are bombarding you with daily and the anger they try to provoke in you second by second, I also wanted to point out, what I think might happen in the worldly world of things.
What would happen if one of the Arab countries around Israel decided all of a sudden: Screw this. Let’s wipe out the Jews.
America, driven by the Jews who run it, would undoubtedly launch warships, planes, bombing campaigns… but… if they shrink from using nukes, there is just no boots on the ground they can place in that area of the world that would be effective at all. The US with a scant half-million soldiers or so, can’t even muster enough active troops to take on Russia, much less China, and not the Arabs in the Middle East either.
And if they did use nukes, it’s very likely Russia would too. And given the Americans literally have nothing that can stop the Russian hypersonic missiles, it would mean that in a nuclear war America is not quite as “safe” on the other side of the Atlantic as it might think. Especially since the Russians have already floated a few Russian nuclear subs along the USA’s coastline in a not too subtle silent statement that said: We can nuke you in your home too.
But in any case, the Americans simply don’t have the numbers for a land war in the Middle East.
Even if they brought the draft back, who would actually obey it?
And the soldiers they DO have now are partly MS13 Mexican gangs looking for citizenship, soyboys that will melt in the sun, trannies and homosexuals whose main aim in life is to get “shot” into daily, but would also get shot into out there in a far more penetrating experience they bargained for, and sub 85 IQ grunts that will likely cause more “friendly fire” deaths than enemy casualties.
And if one Arab country decides to go all in at Israel, the other Arab countries might join in too, logically assuming that the fastest they wipe out Israel from the map, the sooner the “Americans” have nothing left to fight for. And if the Arab world wipes out most of the Jews in Israel, and the truth about the various practices of those people comes more and more to light, as it has been doing for the last four months, other people around the world, be they Muslims or something else, might decide the time is ripe for solving the “Jewish Question” once and for all.
And if most of the Jews on the planet get wiped out, it is a virtual certainty that it will not happen bloodlessly or easily, or that it would be fun for pretty much anyone, but… if it happens, a lot of the puppet-masters of the American deep-state, and therefore also of the various European satrapies on a leash too, would begin to no longer have anyone on the other end of the leash.
Concepts like usury and fiat money might begin to be questioned in light of the sudden vacuum created by the bloody removal of a people that historically have created both of those mechanisms. And with those questionings might come the swing of the pendulum in the other direction on a lot of other things. Feminism, Transgenderism, the whole LGBT agenda, child trafficking, the reinstatement of the death penalty for various crimes and so on.
In short, the bloody and ugly wars/genocides and so on that may happen and that potentially could start tomorrow and be sudden and drastic beyond anyone’s imagination, could lead to a situation where nations return to being ethnically simple. Germans in Germany, Russians in Russia, and possibly even Venetians in Venice and Scots in Scotland, and so on. And such nations, unhampered by artificially created debt, with a reset of the very concept of fiat money, and a festooning of lampposts with current politicians, making way for less corrupt, WEF lapdogs, the Klaus Schwabs, Bill Gates, and so on of the world cemented permanently into their expensive underground bunkers, might very well begin to create a prosperity and human progress hereby unseen yet. And it would be founded on the creation of wealth based on the production of each man and nation, instead of the creation of a debt to serve, by each man and nation.
If that happened, if we didn’t already have bases on the Moon (I am sure we already do) we would put some there within a decade.
In short, a nasty, vicious, brutish war that no one expected, might wipe out Israel and the diaspora, and global financing and all things relating to the very concept of wealth and money and how it works, might just get redefined almost overnight. Other professions that would be almost instantly affected too would be politicians in general, the mass media, journalists and so on. In countries where honest but terrible men (because willing to do the unpleasant tasks of taking out bad people) came to power, journalists, lawyers, corrupt judges and so on, would be swinging right next to the politicians in rapid succession.
So, given the above, it would certainly begin to look like The End Times, but then it would revert, and a decade or two later it may very well come close to a paradise on (and off) Earth, meaning it was only The Not Quite the End Times.
So, anyway, that’s my take on a possible outcome that in a decade or two might make life on Earth a lot nicer than it is now, but also a lot nicer than it has ever been in the entire history of our species that we know about.
As regular readers of this blog know, I am not exactly the spiritual guy to go to for correct advice on the Catholic perspective on sex.
I don’t actually have any issue with the Catholic position on sex, I believe it is indeed the best way for a married couple to relate to each other.
Thanks to Adam for this video, which he posted at his blog a little while back, and which I present here below:
It is definitely one of the better discussions I have seen on the topic, even though it is clear both are Novus Orco believers, so, I do take everything they say with a pinch of salt. It may be of interest to readers here that I give the video high marks, because my position on sex in Catholicism has at times been seen as wrong, or perhaps leading people to sin, or something along those lines, so, if you had a rather debauched sex life, as I did for most of my life, it might interest you to see the interview, since I found it very well done for the most part.
Given my first 40 plus years of sexual experiences prior to becoming a Catholic I think it’s fair to say that it wasn’t going to be an easy transition. And there are some aspects of the theology behind it that I find difficult to reconcile with logic from a spiritual perspective. Nor is sex the only area I have this with, just because I am Catholic does not mean I don’t think about these things. For example, my perspective on Confession is that at a practical level it makes you into a better person, so it is a definitely good thing overall, and there is no reason not to do it or not to have it, but the idea that God would not be aware of my sin, or conversely, send to Hell despite my genuine repentance and atonement to the best of my ability if I did not manage to go to confession before I drop dead, is, to me, at the very least extremely unlikely, and honestly, I think erroneous. Nevertheless, if everyone said “oh that’s not how it works” pretty soon you’d get… well… Protestantism; because humans without rules are for the most part, no better than cattle or sheep without a Shepard to keep them in line.
Similarly, I have no problem with the Church’s teaching on sex, which in a nutshell (forgive the somewhat “scandalous” pun) is as follows:
No contraception, ever, of any kind, except for NFP (Natural Family Planning) which in the related video starts around 1 hour 30 minutes or so and is well explained.
No homosexuality.
No refusal of sex from either spouse other than for serious reason, like illness, the potential duty to NOT have any more children, for whatever reason, and so on. The concept here is not that you are the other person’s sex slave, but rather that marriage itself is the gifting of yourself to the other person bodily and your body is literally now their property and vice versa. That, along with the reason of producing children, is literally a fundamental aspect of marriage. This of course is seen as evil, rape-adjacent, sexual slavery from all the degenerate feminists, but it is spelt out very clear in Corinthians 7: “3 The husband should meet his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should do the same for her husband. 4 The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Don’t refuse to meet each other’s needs unless you both agree for a short period of time to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come back together again so that Satan might not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” The level at which a man or woman understands this passage, in my experience, is pretty much indicative of their level of spiritual understanding of sex and intimacy in marriage.
Modernised women have now been “taught” for almost 100 years, that using their bodies to withhold sex from their husbands is “obviously” their “right” and the reality of it is that it has been “weaponised” to essentially cow men into a kind of sex-starved submission.
Even in my pre-Catholic days, I found that there was broadly speaking (and I will generalise a lot here) two types of women:
Those who instinctually understood that using sex as a bargaining tool in a relationship (other than perhaps as a joke in some role-play) was a despicable way to act, and never indulged in it.
Then there were the others, who, as my brother once crudely put it, thought their pussy had the key to an actual spaceship in it (he knew I cared nothing for gold if I could just get access to a small hyperspace capable starship!) and limiting access to it in order to get what they wanted (regardless if it was some specific (and usually unnatural) behaviour from me, or more crudely, material things) was how they operated. This second type of woman tried that tactic with me precisely once. Because the minute they tried it, the relationship was instantly and permanently over. Their shock at this reaction, which was delivered calmly and with absolute finality, was always somewhat amusing. And I can’t recall an instance where they did not then (sometimes immediately) try to reverse the situation, but there was never any coming back from it. A woman that behaved that way was in a space mentally that I wanted nothing to do with, and I strongly advise all men to take a similar approach in this regard. It’s nothing to do with “needing” sex so desperately, or being “angry” at the lack of it, and so on. It is to do with the very foundational issue of how she sees sex, intimacy and indeed marriage as a whole and in context.
Frankly, I find an actual prostitute that says it will cost X amount for a set time to be with her sexually, to be less offensive to the entire concept of intimacy than a woman that uses sex as a tool to “control” or manipulate a man. And similarly, I find any man that submits to such behaviour to be unworthy of being called a man.
There was also another type of woman, and these were those that unfortunately had been sexually abused, and given the numbers, it is inevitable that I came across everything from incest to gang-rape. One positive aspect of it was that as far as I know, every woman I was with that had that happen, felt comfortable enough with me to share it, and a second positive aspect is that, again, in I think almost all cases, the resulting physicality between us, helped them resolve many issues.
There was also, a notable example or two of women that had been sexually abused (rather extremely, really) who, while not at all shy or withholding sexually, at least with me, did have certain difficulties, and occasional really strange behaviours, and I am not referring to various kinks, which can be understandable, but I mean sudden bouts of sadness, depression and so on. These were more difficult aspect to improve rapidly, but in any case, open and honest communication always improved things for them, and did so even in their subsequent relationships, which they did let me know about in most cases.
Now, setting aside the cases where sexual abuse was present, and given our secularised approach to sex in today’s day and age, it is interesting to note that the women that were most balanced sexually, instinctively never treated sex as a bargaining chip.
It is a quite fascinating topic really, and one that older women (grandma aged ones) with successful families that are happy and well-balanced will (if you have their confidence) unashamedly tell you that their husbands were never turned away from their bodies. Conversely, a lot of supposedly “Catholic” women, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, will be prudish and miserly with their bodies even from their husbands.
The women have been taught this is their God-given right as a “strong independent woman”, their “dignity” as a human being and not being a sex object and so on. Totally inverting the reality of the issue.
It is precisely because sex has become transactional and objectified in the extreme, that most people have absolutely no idea of what an actually properly intimate sexual act can feel like, or even is, that they assume and “teach” that as with any disposable property, you have to “work” to get it. An analogy might be making your four year old “work” before he can get access to eating food for his dinner. It is an absurd inversion of the concept of a sexual relationship, as much as making your little child work for his food would be an inversion of a parent’s duty.
So even mentioning this aspect of essentially unrestricted access to your spouse’s body, gets you labelled as some kind of sexual slave-trader, probable human trafficker, or whatever.
The reality is, of course, as usual, quite different. Although in the modern day, the pleasure of truly gifting your body to another has, for the most part, in many women, been reduced to a pleasure in being especially submissive during the sex act, the reality is that a true and natural submission to your spouse (husband or wife as they may be) is of incomparably finer and deeper beauty than a mere sex act, however “accomplished” that might be.
It is a difficult concept to transmit to another human being that has not experienced both the degraded version (which almost everyone today that is asexually active knows only too well) and the correct one, but the difference is obvious and unforgettable once experienced.
The unfortunate (and intentional) barriers to understanding these things have been hammered into all of us with such persistence and over all of our lives, that regaining a properly ordered sexuality is going to be quite the task, and will require conscious effort. But I assure you it is worth it.
I hope the video helps clarify many things for a lot of people.
Sometimes, it is actually worthwhile pointing out something that even the most basic wide-angle or bird’s eye view observation of affairs on Earth would make blindingly obvious, and yet, seems to escape the vast majority of humanity. More often than I’d like, including me too.
If the last four years have made anything absolutely crystal clear it is that this whole planet is almost entirely under the rule of people and organisations that not only lie blatantly about pretty much everything, but that, in the main, are hell-bent on trying to kill us, wipe us out and destroy our families, children and general lives.
If you pay attention at a global level in a dispassionate, objective, coldly mathematical sense, it become absolutely obvious that IF we accept the premise that “most people are basically good” then something is badly wrong with the world. Because literally most of everything that goes on is certainly not good for you. From the foods they promote and produce to “feed” you, to almost everything pharmaceutical, to the ways in which governments around the world work (in case you are wondering, in the parasitic and self-sustaining-at-your-expense way, best explained by Lysander Spooner in his outstanding piece on Natural Law) to how the “laws” are applied, to how commerce between people is often designed to “work” and that’s even before we bring up usury, banks, and the absolutely criminal practices those bunch of degenerate thugs indulge in. How is it possible, that if “most people are basically good” so much wrong, so much structurally painful, and really outright evil is going on.
Statistically, even if you were to put it down to the average person being a complete moron (well intentioned as they may be, morons cause all sorts of problems) you have two problems: That level of global stupidity would not be capable of creating, nor maintaining the very evil structures we now have in place. In short, there needs to be a certain level of intelligence behind it. And yet, even in countries where the average IQ is relatively low, sometimes even greater evil is absolutely prevalent (see the kind of things that go on in African genocidal wars of the 1990s). Secondly, even if you consider “stupid but basically good” people as indeed damaging (they are) the (supposed) preponderance of intelligent and also basically good people, would build systems that the average moron can navigate with relatively little potential for causing endemic evil.
So, while stupidity is certainly a contributing factor, it cannot be a pivotal factor. Nor can misplaced “good intentions”. Because again, if “most people are good” the intelligent ones go ahead and build systems that are safer from “good intentions” with bad outcomes.
Then you take another data point. The average human. Or even just you, the superior kind of human being that reads this blog (and understands it). Well, good as you may be, you lie. You may only lie infrequently, and mostly to avoid hurting others, but the reality is all human beings lie. It’s just a matter of degree. Personally I have a sliver-thin tolerance for it in general and pretty much none in my private and family life. And of course, yes, I have lied in my own private and family life. Nothing big, really pretty innocuous stuff for the most part (but hey, if I was some kind of freak it’s not like I’d tell you on my blog, right?). And we all have such hypocrisy in our lives. Of course the reasons “vary” but not really. In essence, lies all originate from fear. A fear of the consequences of the truth. Whether to us or loved ones.
But let’s imagine a planet where no one lies. Where everyone just always tells the truth as objectively and unafraid as possible. If we also assume that human beings on this planet also have the same general emotional maturity (or rather lack of) that we have now, and that event (the no lies thing) switched on suddenly at midnight today, the body count would be astronomical within 24 hours.
But let’s say after a week, when most of the human population has killed each other off because of the radical honesty, and there are only a few of us left, strong and emotionally secure enough to survive the truth and noting it daily (assuming such a rose-tinted outcome would even happen, because the mass murders would lead to more, etcetera), what would such a planet look like? Well, it might actually be a kind of paradise.
Imagine the consequences. No stealing, no theft, no injustice. Because if everyone was honest, we all know what is right and wrong, and if you are truly honest, you can’t justify any of your shitty behaviours. And really, why do we not live on such a planet? It would clearly be a better world. So what keeps pushing humanity into ever deeper pits of deception and self-deception? And why is it we tend to crucify those few who really try to tell the truth?
Well… and here is the obvious part:
Do you realise that the Christian explanation of reality fits these conditions precisely, explains them and can be used to predict many, many, many things accurately?
And in specific I mean the Catholic (yes, yes, only the 1958 Sedevacantists are Catholics today) explanation. Original sin explains the fact that despite our supposedly “good intentions” and our supposedly all being “mostly good” we all behave like shitty humans. We are all, literally, flawed.
And the fact that this planet is under the dominion of evil and lies, can hardly be denied when you look at things from a bird’s eye view.
Plus, if you look at history with the same bird’s eye view, (assuming you can find the truth in the events that actually took place) then the general trend you will note is that literally every other philosophy aside from Catholicism has led humanity to a place of, at the very best, not totally horrific stagnation. And in most cases utter malignant societies. And Catholicism is literally the only perspective that has factually improved humanity’s lot.
In short, regardless of your personal beliefs, if you actually take the time to observe the human story of the last few thousand years, it is utterly undeniable that Catholicism explains reality better than any other model.
Of course, today, the supposed “catholic” Church as presented in the Novus Orco is yet another nest of indemoniated pedophiles, and only a remnant is left. But this too happened before and, again, if you educate yourself on all the times Catholicism by all rights should have disappeared from the Earth, it become nigh-on impossible to explain how it has survived unless it is miraculously protected, at least on some level, by a benevolent and all-powerful force.
And as I always say, regardless of your own ideas, if a model works, use it, at least until you find a better model that better predicts reality in all its multi-faceted possible outcomes.
And if the model works, then there really is no reason to not embrace, it. Or at least, to seriously investigate its less obvious underpinnings.
Well, at least that’s the way those of us who are not playing the part of the apes in our very own version of Planet of the Apes.
So, I hope you will at least consider this obvious but oft-ignored perspective, and may it be fruitful to you.
Thanks to TrevorGoodchild on Gab, I was made aware of this long but very good post on the female perspective of the modern radioactive wasteland that is the current era in terms of social interactions.
One of the most insightful passages was this:
Feeling alienated from your body, disliking the male attention your body invites, secretly feeling a kind of thrill when your beauty benefits you, enjoying the power you hold over men: these are feelings girls commonly experience as they transition to womanhood.
In a healthy society, young girls eventually come to terms with these complex and somewhat contradictory feelings. This is not the case today. Today, young women are rewarded most for acting on their most pathological impulses. Platforms such as Instagram and OnlyFans incentivize some young women to profit from the male gaze to the detriment of their future well-being. On the other hand, for young women who feel alienated by their sexual desirability (or lack thereof), there exist a plethora of alternative online communities like FTM or pro-eating disorder spaces that offer young women refuge from the male gaze, while offering them emotional support and subcultural status.
What is not at all encouraged is coming to terms with the complex feelings womanhood induces within young girls, coming to terms with that mix of terror and thrill. This process is entirely disrupted by modern social norms. Why? Because sexual norms today skirt around one obvious, horrifying fact: women like being sex objects. That eighteen year old on OnlyFans? She’s not motivated by entrepreneurial drive, economic desperation, patriarchal socialization, or any such external factor we may want to point to. No, she simply likes the idea of being a hot commodity, of being so sexy that men would pay to see her. She likes being a whore. Acknowledging women’s innate desire to be sexualized, to be objectified, is sacrilegious; it is a truth conveniently avoided by both feminists and traditionalists alike. Instead, they posit that women’s behaviour is entirely downstream of that of men’s, that if men didn’t desire women so much, that if they stopped watching porn, stopped “objectifying women,” stopped having sex outside of marriage, that all sexual degeneracy would disappear. And so, male sexuality is criminalized, and female sexuality is conveniently ignored. And while this set of social norms preserves a rosy, hapless image of women, it harms young girls through its complete lack of social regulation of feminine sexual impulses. If you do not restrict female sexual impulses, what you get is a race to the bottom, with young girls intensely competing with each other for sexual attention. A lack of common sense limitations leads to a rise in things like unnecessary plastic surgeries, the proliferation of photoshop, hypersexual online personas. The digital landscape is flooded with images of inhumanly beautiful women. Intense sexual competition has adverse effects on other young girls by either encouraging them to adopt such behaviours, or by alienating them from womanhood entirely.
“Male fantasies, male fantasies, is everything run by male fantasies? Up on a pedestal or down on your knees, it’s all a male fantasy: that you’re strong enough to take what they dish out, or else too weak to do anything about it. Even pretending you aren’t catering to male fantasies is a male fantasy: pretending you’re unseen, pretending you have a life of your own, that you can wash your feet and comb your hair unconscious of the ever-present watcher peering through the keyhole, peering through the keyhole in your own head, if nowhere else. You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman. You are your own voyeur”
.—Margaret Atwood, The Robber Bride
Ultimately, what growing up means for girls, is coming to terms with the male gaze. The male gaze, contrary to the popular feminist conception of it, is not a product of patriarchal society. Rather, the voyeur in your own head is a native facet of feminine psychology. The voyeur in your head is awareness of your desirability, the power it holds, the danger it can bring; this awareness is crucial for women to have as they navigate the world around them.
And the most insightful sentence in that extract was this:
She likes being a whore.
That one sentence, in the context it was written, is, as the writer correctly identifies, the biggest taboo of the modern world. That admission can never be made in public without the person saying it being essentially cancelled as some kind of woman-hating, (internalised if you are female like the writer, of course) patriarchal pig/slave (depending on if you’re a man/woman) and so on.
Now, those men among us who had a past that involved being intimate with a rather high number of women, in a secularised context absent pretty much all religion of any kind, will know that pretty much every woman has that impulse somewhere in her make up. I’m sure there are exceptions, but they are generally not what one would refer to as “normal” women. Some may be the result of rape, sexual abuse, and so on. Some may be neuro-atypical and so on, as always, nothing is always all the same, there are always exceptions, but by and large, the average woman, has in her a “I want to feel like a whore” button. Some are more aware of it than others, of course, and some are unaware of it until a man flicks that button a few times expertly, but as I say, in most cases it’s there. It is, in essence, a normal biological aspect of femaleness, just like it is a biological aspect of maleness to like feeling like a conquering hero (or anti-hero, whatever, the conquering and winning part is what makes us feel alive).
Did you see that Sci-Fi film with Arnie called Total Recall (it’s badly based on a PKD story) but anyway when they are presenting him with a fictional fantasy holiday and they ask him what romantic partner he would like for his fantasy induced “holiday” and they say “be honest” he gives up and indeed says: “Slutty”.
Using the word all/every in the same context as above, i.e. a generalisation, it is simply a fact that every man wants a whore in bed and a lady outside of their bedroom (well, ok, home in general, maybe public toilets, secluded spots in parks, back of cars… you know what I mean!).
The ideal woman for most men is a complete slut in bed, open to all the sexual excitement and fantasies he might have, but… loyal most of all and forever to just him.
And the ideal man for pretty much every woman, is a man that is manly enough to make her want to behave like a complete whore in bed. But who has eyes only for her.
The ideal relationship for both sexes is one where the other partner inspires almost unbridled sexuality and sensuality for you, while at the same time confining it within the limits of your relationship.
Yes, I am aware that there are large (and growing) areas of the population where wife-swapping, cuckolding, orgies, multiple sex partners and other fetishes actually take place, but those relationships where those aspects of sex become a regular reality instead of remain limited to a private fantasy, invariably end in tears and tragedy. There are no successful “polyamorous” relationships or long term “throuples”. Every one of those perversions of the natural order of one man and one woman is not conducive to the maximum happiness for both. Some might be artificially sustainable, such as the practice of having multiple wives. Historically there are instances where powerful men or certain societies permitted men to have multiple wives, and such societies still exist and one could say “function” after a fashion, but the reality is that neither the man nor the women in those situation had reached their maximum potential for true, deep, lasting serenity, and that is for a very simple reason:
Maximum serenity is achieved when you have real, deep, intimate connection to another human being and that can only be achieved at its deepest and most pervasive level in an intimate relationship between a man and a woman.
Oh, you might touch aspects of it in certain fetishised moments of a relationship that is not classical of that kind. Certainly I have experienced in my pre-catholic days a certain level of sexual gratification/understanding with some women, that even though was at times simply limited to that singular or infrequent encounter due to the temporary nature of the “relationship” achieved a certain level of “understanding” or feeling of mutual acceptance without any judgement or however you want to label it, that it does achieve a sense of closeness, an aspect, if you will, of “love” or at least a facet of it. But one might make the same statement of perhaps a pair of serial killers finding a moment of “spark” as they hunch over their latest victim to cannibalise it. Yes, yes, you might have felt something that you might think is “deep” and insofar as your experience of life might go (you know as a serial killer, or serial slut (of either sex)) it may well have been the “highlight” to date of your connection with another human being, and because sex is so powerful, if you just had your third and most mind-blowing orgasm in a row while trussed up in some S&M position in your full gimp outfit and a livecam to your only fans only “enhancing” the thrill for you, you might think you have reached the pinnacle of human intimacy. But you have not. You may have touched bottom on a deep dive into some fetishism, specific degenerate thing or even wide-spread generic degeneracy, but true, deep, pervasive intimacy, you have not reached sir, or madam. And trust me, I speak from a rather extensive degenerate past and experience on the matter.
The level of human intimacy that truly calms and fills you with a genuine and pervasive experience of love, is only generated between one man and one woman. Instinctively we all know that from birth. As the ancient Greeks and others knew, there are various forms of love, and we can define different relationships on the basis of it, but the one that covers all of them the most is simply the one that is of a man and woman who choose a life together to make children and raise them. Anything else is a shadow at best if not a cruel parody that brings only misery (gay “marriages” and the accompanying child trafficking that results from gay “adoptions”).
Your relationship with a woman you are particularly compatible with sexually might feel fulfilling, and indeed such relationships usually last quite long if there is at least a baseline of other factors to support it, but amazing sex on its own will not do it, yet, in the modern era, the focus is on that first and foremost.
If you have daughters and are raising them and you are unaware of these facts, or worse, you try to ignore them pretending they are not realities, your daughters are headed for the rocks in the metaphoric navigation of life.
Acknowledging a girls’ natural inclinations due to her biological sex is required, as is required your duty as father to teach her how to avoid the pitfalls of her own biology. Just as you do with a boy you would raise. But as a man, raising a boy is easier, because firstly, we are simpler, secondly we are men, so we know what it’s like to be one, and thirdly, boys are generally responsive to plain logic and direct line of thinking. The pitfalls for both boys and girls are mostly handled by the same skill: The ability to regulate your own emotions. Difficult as it is for all human beings, the skill is generally a lot easier to achieve for boys. and once again, the reasons are mainly biological.
Female brain structure is physically different in some important aspects from male brain structure. Their hormones affect them and their thinking, mood, mind and brain to degrees that men can only imagine, but rarely experience outside of perhaps drug induced stupors.
Helping a young girl navigate not only the outside world, but her own biology and emotion-inducing hormones, is a far more delicate and complicated matter.
You do need to be aware of her biology and not demonise aspects of her that are natural things, but you also need to teach her to regulate these things in a way that leads to healthy and positive outcomes for her and steers her away from negative outcomes. And you also need to appreciate that for a girl or woman, the ability to control her emotions in a positive fashion tends to be far more restrictive. Historically every functioning society has known this, placing heavy and strict restrictions on female sexuality. And of course the feminists will tell you it was all to oppress women and so on, but the reality is that (as the article mentioned also points out clearly) women, left to their own devices tend to make horrifically bad decisions and civilisations tend to collapse in short order when this is the case.
An innocuous example might suffice.
In teaching self-discipline to my children, the approach with the boy, who is only 4, is very much simpler and direct. He’s been told eating too much sweets or say chocolate, or whatever is not good for him and we want the best for him and as a result he simply asks if he can have this or that and when he is told no, at most he asks why. Provided a clear explanation he accepts the decision most times. His little sister seeing him do this is more disposed to following suit… I say more disposed… not how much more… It’s a tiny amount. She will argue and try to pull a fast one a lot more than he does. My eldest daughter on the other hand is a complete choc-aholic. I was the same and even in my thirties and later I could eat three full chocolate slabs and think nothing of it. When I was swimming competitively as a teenager and living alone in the UK I survived on cheese and chocolate and random meals I microwaved. I was never fat, because I always moved and I have lucky genetics. She is very similar in this regard, but when I explained it is not healthy and she should not devour whatever chocolate is in the house (something she did like a thief in the night several times) and I finally put my foot down hard, far more on the sneaky way she had done it than the thing itself, the next time we went shopping and it was just me and her and I said should we get some chocolate, she said no. Surprised I asked how come. Her explanation was enlightening:
“Because I can’t really control myself if I know we have it in the house. So if it’s not there, at least I can’t go and eat it.”
The boy would simply be ok with not touching it until he’s told it’s ok to do so, or limit himself to one or two pieces a day or week or whatever we decided, but the girl realised her own will-power or discipline was not enough and so took steps to safeguard against her own known weakness.
That subtle but extremely important difference plays out throughout most of a woman’s life.
And returning to sex, because it is such a powerful force, if a girls’ (also natural) defences against being bedded are bypassed by some slight of hand/emotional manipulation/general social pressure, and then repeatedly so, her ability to bond deeply with another human being becomes scarred over by each encounter, making it progressively harder to make it a possibility.
Being aware of these things as a father is of paramount importance, and I am astonished at the level of absolute incompetence we see today in the parenting skills in general but especially of how pathetic so many men are at being fathers for their daughters.
I see comments from apparently fathers that ask things like: “What can I do? I mean the sex stuff is everywhere and my daughters dress like whores, but it can’t be helped, and where will they find a good man?”
Well buddy, short a miracle, they won’t because they never had one in the first place where they should have: Their home! You weakling, metrosexual, pathetic excuse for a father.
Seriously, the more I look at Clown World with a bird’s eye view, the more I realise that I was absolutely right ten years ago, some 3 years before I even got baptised, when I said that two things would be pivotal: Christianity (which I have since come to view as being limited to actual Catholicism i.e. 1958 Sedevacantism) and city states, because once the SHTF it will be communities that stick together that will resit and survive whatever evil wind comes their way.
I hope more and more people will see these truths soon, and that is happening, even if I know the numbers will never approach what my blue-sky tinted heart would wish.
But you never know; God does act in mysterious ways; and he does have a powerful sense of humour, after all: He made me a hardcore Believer.
This last piece from the article is another important point (emphasis added):
Why are young women today so deranged? Because no one is honest with them and they cannot be honest with themselves. Parents lie to you, teachers lie to you, friends lie to you, everyone lies to you. If anyone dares tell you the truth, they are ostracized.
There is the ultimate betrayal. Parents who lie to their children about reality. Life. Basic stuff. And many do so because they are so retarded and brainwashed themselves they honestly don’t know any better.
But many do it because of the fear of running against the grain. Of indeed, being ostracised.
Luckily for my daughters, I never gave a flying fornication at a rodent’s anus what pretty much the entire rest of humanity thought of me or if I was well-liked or feared or infamous. As a result, no matter how counter-narrative the truth may be, there is never any worry that they will not be told how two plus two is always, without any exception, forever and ever, four.
I was recently sent some statistics about how the Novus Orco fake Catholic Church is in impressive decline.
On spending some more time researching global trends not just in the USA but all over, the picture that emerges is not as clear cut for most. There are however, large trends which can be observed:
Attendance at Mass is generally dropping in the Western world
Overall numbers are in general decline in the West
Attendance and Overall numbers are in general increase in Africa and Asia
The largest number of priests are in the West and their fake seminarians are in decline, while they are on the increase in the fake priest starved African and Asian countries.
Demographic changes in places like the USA can give false positives, for example, Florida and Texas seem to have increased in the number of Catholics in general, however, much of this is due to influx of several million people from South of the border over the last decade.
All of the above fits perfectly with the general pattern that any empire, organisation or global institution follows when it is collapsing.
Generally it has the following steps:
General demoralisation of the core participants
Lower attendance/use of the services
Despondent attendance/use by those who do continue
Frantic efforts to “modernise” by the organisation
Apparent “increase” in client base (temporary)
Real decrease in core clientele
The “increase” are non-paying/non-participating general hangers-on
collapse of the core functions of the organisation
general malaise
splitting/merging “diversification”
morphing into something different in survival attempt
generic collapse with pockets of residual hard-core subscribers
eventual death of the organisation with mere “colourings” of its passing lingering on for a generation or two
Vox Day wrote a more detailed work concerning the corporate cancer of wokeism and how it destroys organisations from the inside, and you may want to look at that if you need to understand the process more thoroughly, though it may not map as well on a religious organisation that is in one respect almost 2000 years old, and in another respect came into full effect only in 1958 (when Roncalli became the first fake “Pope” of the currently unbroken era of Satanists pretending to be Catholic sitting in the Vatican).
In my estimation the fake Catholic Church is currently in stages 11-12.
The situation is a little complicated by two main factors:
The change was a subterfugeous hostile takeover that remains mostly completely not understood by the average nominal lay “Catholic”. While the takeover is always hostile and always subterfugeous in this kind of situation, at some point, the greater part of the company understands that it has been parasitically taken over, and shortly after that, the customers leave in droves. Here, the greater part of the company has literally been swept under the carpet as the replacement took place over about 200 years, and the tragedy is that the average “customer” is aware that the “product” now sucks but has not realised that management and all staff have changed from normal humans to soul-sucking vampires and so remain in a generic state of confusion that tends to “resolve” as: “Oh well… I guess Catholicism isn’t really real… or for me…” and they wander off in a daze, or “remain” and “attend” in a daze, in both cases the result is a basic “zombiefication” of what used to be Catholics; and that is precisely the intent.
The second point that complicates this greatly is the timescale. This is not a hostile takeover measured in the normal course of human business affairs. It is a hostile takeover that has been repeatedly attempted for 20 centuries and began to really bear fruit at its start in the late 1700s and came into its own by the early 1900s and achieved almost all its aims by the current date of 2024. Human minds are not generally geared to realise a plot that spans that length of time, even when the results are obvious is pointed out in chronological order and summarised.
The process of infiltration ran from about the 1780s to the 1920s so about 140 years, with the first 100 years or so of that dedicated mostly to the destruction of the royal houses that surrounded the Church.
From about the 1920s to the 1950s and beyond the absolute stuffing of the Church with malicious actors (fake priests with he sole intent of destroying the Church) went into overdrive and continued to the present day. In fact it was so successful that there isn’t a valid priest left in the entire Novus Orco organisation. They are all impostors and have been since the mid 1960s but certainly all of them by 1983 at the latest when they produced a “new” fake and satanic “Code of Canon Law” to try and destroy the immutable one of 1917 created by two valid Popes with a dedicated team of properly Catholic Cardinals and theologians.
From 1958 to really the fake election of Bergolgio to the “Papacy” in 2013 the process was really steps 8 through 11. from about 2015 to 2023 it was a period of realisation (which continues and will continue for several years yet) that collapse is setting in. The death of Ratzinger made the fact that the present Satanic institution masquerading as Catholicism is not Catholic in any way, far more apparent to many more people. And when Bergoglio finally kicks the bucket and goes to meet his boss, in all likelihood in the 9th circle of Hell, the next absolute clown show of a “Papal” election will be the death knell of any illusion anyone can have that whatever has taken hold in the Vatican is Catholicism.
However, the complication remains that because of how this was all done, most lay-people remain abysmally ignorant of what Catholicism was from the beginning, what it remained and what it still exists as, in real Catholic Churches, priests, bishops and laymen, that is, in the remnant of actual Catholicism that is left: Sedevacantism.
If the average, nominal, cradle “Catholic” was suddenly faced with the facts concerning what really happened to Catholicism and by whom this was orchestrated and how, that is, if the average human still possessed the attention span, intelligence, focus, and drive to pay attention to a lecture or two of a couple of hours and bothered to research things themselves that are mentioned, or simply read Reclaiming the Catholic Church, they would convert to Sedevacantism with a vengeance. At least, insofar as any human being is able to change their mind based on facts instead of their cherished (but erroneous) opinions. And we know thanks to Aristotle that many people are actually unable to change their minds even when incontrovertible facts are placed right before their nose and they are free to test and check them for themselves (they invariably never do and instead just stick to their illogical, flawed, childish “belief” because it is intimately tied to their self-identity). We also know thanks to Professor Cipolla’s first law of human stupidity that there are always a far larger number of idiots than you can possibly imagine or guess, and the last four years have demonstrated this in spades, of course.
So, my estimate for the generic collapse of the Novus Orco is that over the next 50 years it will essentially be reduced to some kind of social club, kind of like reader’s digest of the 1970s and probably have faded out in terms of any belief system certainly by the end of the 21st Century. However, the vast resources of the original Catholic Church will drag out the “survival” of a demonic infested structure of some kind or other possibly for centuries unless there is some kind of quite spectacular reconquista; especially since the indemoniated will not go quietly into the night, but will fight tooth and claw to hang on to the corpse and material spoils of what used to be property and wealth of the Catholic Church.
On the positive side, real Catholicism, in the form of Sedevacantism continues to grow. New Chapels and Churches continue being acquired, congregations are becoming standing room only and Sedevacantist families continue to produce a lot of children regardless of the perilous economic conditions we are all placed under and real Catholics in particular since we are already under attack from not just the Satanists posing as Catholics, but as recent leaks from the FBI demonstrated, all the secular Satanic forces are also specifically aimed against real Catholics. More so than any other religious denomination. Which of course, is a sign we are over the target.
At some point, the puppeteers that see themselves as masters of the world, who have started and continue the ongoing WWIII, a mixture of fake, bio-engineered pandemics (which they make more deadly in due course), actual war, false-flags, pervasive homosexual and transgender agenda aimed primarily at children, and so on, will end up wanting to wipe out the Sedevacantists altogether.
In our favour is the fact that Clown World is so spectacularly idiotic that they are currently in freewill thanks to Russia, China and the various BRICS nations. which if nothing else, buys Sedevacantists time to grow and become more organised at national and international levels. However, the eventual global economic collapse that must at some point take place (because math, sooner or later, comes to roost and really doesn’t care about anyone’s opinions) will no doubt put a lot of strain on everyone, and even if the BRICS political faction “wins” it’s not to say that Sedevacantists will have any better time under that regime. In the first place China has been absolutely oppressive in regard to actual Catholicism, seeing it as a competition for authority, which cannot be allowed in a political milieu that call it what you like, still follows the model of a supreme leader/emperor having total power and crushing anyone that challenges him. Russia is nominally “orthodox” and while they might not directly attack Sedevacantist Catholics, it is unlikely that Catholicism will be viewed positively, given the long history of schism.
The best hope is that in the ruins of collapsing Western Civilisation, two things happen:
The nationalists in each European and Western country win and take power. With any luck relatively bloodlessly, because the longer it takes the less likely that things like civil wars will not happen.
These nations expel almost all foreigners from their nations and return to the primary function of any actual nation, which is the care and protection of its native population.
Under those two conditions then actual Catholicism is very likely to make a strong comeback and perhaps even in my lifetime, make the facts known so clearly and so widely that an actual real Papal election takes place.
The only current objection to a real Papal election taking place now is that the Sedevacantist faction is still too small to not be drowned out by the prostitutes in the employ of the secularists and the Vatican Satanists. I am speaking of course of all the outlets from which the mass media vomits it lies. And yes, once again, I apologise profusely to prostitutes everywhere for comparing them to something as disgusting as journalists. I assure these hard-working sinners that my comparison is merely due to the unfortunate metaphoric representations the average idiot has in his head. Comparison of journalists to plague-ridden, sewer rats covered in filth, would still be insulting to the rats too, but until the larger population realises what journalists actually are like, I will have to go with the unfortunate popular metaphors.
If the Sedevacantist Bishops elected a real Pope, it would be made into a laughing stock and labelled as “yet another” trailer-park Pope. Awareness of the truth needs to be far more widespread before the actual Catholic Church can rise again from its ashes, as it eventually will.
So, that is my take on things and it should be a source of inspiration, since our enemies have no way of avoiding their ongoing, inevitable, even if slow, total collapse. While we, are just as inevitably growing and will return to a wider glory across the Earth. That is even more certain, because as we know even if this were the End Times, in the end, we win. And I for one, am not concerned whether we are in the End Times not, because it does not matter, either we are, and we win, or we are not, and we win. So just keep on going and keep on building Sede communities and making more Sede children.
Referencing all the relevant documents, this work is a historically impeccable source that records the work done by Benigni with his secret service network tasked with discovering who the infiltrators in the Church were. The name of this network, Sodalitium Pianum remains alive in the tag line of the Instituto Mater Boni Consili, which I urge any would-be actual Catholics to investigate and get baptised by and support to the best of your ability. Their priests and Bishops remain among the last Catholic clergy left on Earth and they are superlative individuals with a moral fortitude and spiritual tenacity I can only admire and hope to emulate in my lay efforts, however miserable they are compared to theirs.
This is not a light article, as it run to some 217 pages, so is a proper treatment of the matter.
And… should you be inspired to become a proper Catholic and then create a proper Catholic community, or join the one I am trying to create here in northern Italy… well… studying the work of Msgr. Benigni should probably be required reading.
May God have him by His right hand and may He see fit to send us many more such men among our ranks.
There seems to be either some confusion, or perhaps a new and fancier attack on the Church and it is the trying to drive a wedge between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists, as if there was any real theological difference today in 2024.
So, let me nip this in the bud, as much as any layman who can read and think logically at an elementary level at least, can easily do. And which, in fact, cannot be disproved by anyone.
Keep in mind that I have read the entire Cassiciciacum theory in the original French too, so am not exactly jumping in here like some ignorant moron that hasn’t reviewed the facts, relevant Canon Law and so on. The point is that while I could write another 530 page book explaining everything in minute and fully weaponised autistic detail, it really is not required, because the core concepts are really quite simple and easy enough to understand and Canon Law is, as usual with Roman Law, exceedingly clear, humane and just.
As I say, all that is required is a normal level of ability to read and cogitate and a basic but correct grasp of logic and objective reality, which, given the state of Clown World today, is hard enough, but one hopes the average reader here, given the semi-constant insta-bans for not following the rules has purified the gene pool enough that he or she is easily capable of grasping the concepts I will present and further able to review them on their own for further clarity of verification if they have any doubts.
Let us begin then by first of all pointing out a couple of aspects of Catholicism that is quite misunderstood by the average anglo type:
Catholic charity requires that if there is doubt, one should try to (when possible) be charitable and allow for some mercy given the fact that all human beings are flawed and miserable sinners. However…
When logic dictates that there either is no doubt, or the doubt is minimal, then prudence requires you treat the suspect thing as suspect. In fact, in proper Catholic behaviour, the charitable act of being merciful does not invalidated the just act of pointing out the sin/flaw/error or downright evil of whatever is in doubt.
To Anglos this appears to them as a somewhat schizophrenic way of dealing with life, because while on one hand in a proper Catholic world, say, a pedophile would be burnt at the stake, the act of doing so is in the first place one of charity (giving the peso the opportunity to truly repent while he contemplates the fire burning him) and in the second place one of charity towards the victim and the other members of the community, protecting them from further harm and also educating them on the consequences of certain unacceptable acts. But even more confusing for them might be that the very parents of the child raped might pray for the soul of the pedo burning to death. Which does not in any way mean that the father of the child would not be the one applying the torch himself, nor that his prayers are in any way insincere.
This apparent “schizophrenia” is not due to any flaw of logic or reason in the Catholic, but rather, generally speaking, of a stunted and child-like grasp of human affairs, including justice and charity in the Protestant milieu in which Anglos tend to be raised.
Furthermore is the fact that Roman Law works in a far more just and fundamentally correct way than Anglo Laws, which is that Roman Law is principle based in general terms but with each case being judged on its own merits regardless of precedents in the law. A murder under Roman Law is not always the same kind of murder, and while Anglo Law pretends to also have some exculpatory levels of crime (manslaughter instead of murder one, say) in general terms, previous law dictates current law, which is, fundamentally, unjust. Since the very concept of a legal system is mostly absorbed by the zeitgeist of the environment we live in, most people perception of actual Justice is also fundamentally corrupted to some extent by their assuming (unconsciously for the most part) that Common Law, or the British, or American legal system is in any way representative of actual Justice. It is very far from it and while even Roman Law can obviously be used improperly by a judge, it is, in general terms, a far closer representation of Divine Law than any other system of Law ever created on planet Earth to date.
Right then, with that long introduction aside, let us begin.
The Basic Premise of Sedeprivationism
First presented by Father Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers the theory of Sedeprivationism was in essence an extremely charitable proposition designed to allow anyone of the clergy that was either confused, too timid as a result of al lifetime of obedience to their superiors, or otherwise unclear on what a Hellish turn the Vatican II documents had created and how Roncalli (who personally set up the wheels of Vatican II in motion and also approved the first two documents before dying) and Montini (who published the next 14 documents of Vatican II, every one of which is replete with absolute heresy) were obvious heretics, to be able to take a position that allowed them to continue being actual clergy, non-heretics and yet also give an opportunity to the arch-heretic Montini to possibly repent and return to Christianity (impossible to do in my view since I believe he was an infiltrator and non-Catholic from the very first).
Vatican II was the equivalent of a poisonous neutron bomb, that left the buildings intact but reduced almost all the then supposedly Catholic clergy to a bunch of infected zombies spreading heresy and the few survivors dazed and confused.
Sedeprivationism, in simple terms, basically stated that although Montini had clearly produced 14 documents replete with heresy and as such could not be a valid Pope (as per Canon 188.4), he might have been validly elected, as theoretically might have been Roncalli. In Roncalli’s case the very idea he was validly elected has since been absolutely demolished since he was a practicing Freemason and his election was forced by blackmailing Giuseppe Siri (who HAD been voted Pope, twice!) by telling him that is he became Pope a lot of Bishops behind the Iron curtain would be killed by the Communists. A convenient lie that was in fact pushed by Roncalli himself, an absolute Freemason and hence communist friendly plant whose entire intent was the destruction of Catholicism, as has always been the case by those who promote and even start various secret societies like the Illuminati, the Carbonari, the Freemasons and indeed Communism itself. If you are curious, you might want to figure out what ethnicity Karl Marx was and who pushed his agenda.
In any case, back then, when it was not yet clear which of the Cardinals that voted in the various false Popes might have also been heretics or not, since their position was not public and clear, as was Montini’s (and posthumously also Roncalli’s) des Lauriers’ theory allowed that it was possible (slim though that chance was) that both Roncalli and Montini had been technically, that is, materially, validly elected as Popes, but that given their behaviour, they clearly were not spiritually valid Popes, at least not until and if they repented.
This was, in the sensibilities of the time, a rather polite way of saying:
These two guys are thugs and murderers of souls, and if a bunch of you morons elected them as valid Popes, you should see it by now, repent and make it clear you don’t see them as actually valid Popes, given their thuggery and murder of souls. As for the thuggish murderers themselves, whether you are Jewish/Protestant?Gnostic/Satanist or simply secular apostate and imbeciles, if we assume you were materially validly elected and you make a 180 degree swift turn and repent and correct all your public heresy, well, God is merciful and we can pretend you are now a redeemed actual Pope by the Grace of God that promoted your absolute, sincere and true change of heart.
As I said, it was the most rose-tinted glasses, optimistic, and charitable view anyone could conceive of to allow a tiny margin of possibility of self-correction to the cowards, infiltrators, Satanists, Freemasons, Communists, pedophiles and homosexuals that had been injected into the clergy for decades (see Bella Dodd’s book to understand how this was done to the tune of thousands of fake clergy whose sole intent in joining the seminaries and the Church was total subversion), as also the list I reprinted in RTCC of Mino Pecorelli clearly evidenced beyond any doubt the massive number of official Freemasons (complete with codenames) that were already in high offices at the time of the third fake Pope in a row, Lucani.
Such a slim possibility filled with charity was indeed a viable possibility certainly up to at least 1965 when the last Vatican II documents were finally presented to the world, and given the slow movements of the Church on grave matters, one could reasonably extend that charity even to the 1970s, even the late 1970s, but by 1983, when the Satanists decided to come out with a “new” code of Canon Law, in order to try and invalidate the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which to date remains the most vetted document on Earth, having compiled and reviewed and checked and double checked every dogmatic document and position of the Church from the time of Jesus to 1917. And then having remained unchanged for the next 65 years except for a tiny modification to Canon 1099 part 2 done by the last valid Pope, Pius the XII himself. And when I say unchanged I mean unchanged despite an invitation to all Catholic clergy around the world to present any objection, question or argument against any canon. Tens of thousands of documents had been reviewed and checked to produce the Code of 1917 and tens of thousands more after it to make sure they had got everything right. There literally is no other document like it on Earth. And the “code” of 1983 is not even logically consistent within itself, as I have made clear before on this blog. So at this point it was absolutely clear that the Satanists now in the Vatican only aimed to continue the destruction of the Church and there was no repentance or halting it. I described this situation briefly in RTCC but since it is a 530 page book that refutes every single argument against sedevacantism ever produced to date, and no one has been able to counter it validly in any way, not everyone has read it. Hence this blog article to make the topic more accessible to all.
Given what we now know about Roncalli, and the constant unrepentant promulgation of the heresies of Vatican II, and absolutely following the Magisterium of the Church in the form of the infallible Code of Canon Law produced by two valid Popes in conjunction with a team of valid and pious Cardinals led by Cardinal Gasparri, it is absolutely clear, that anyone that continues to hold to the Vatican II fake Church is simply not a Catholic. No “clergy” who does can be considered to be anything other than at best a heretic and more likely a knowing Satanist with pedophile friendly intent at a minimum. And as such, as per Catholic infallible dogma as produced by Pope Paul the IV in his ex cathedra pronouncement Cum-Ex Apostolate Officio, such heretics should be shunned, others warned against them and deprived of all natural human kindness. In Catholic thought they are worse than mere murderers, for they intend to cosign your soul to eternal Hell.
As I said in my book RTCC at the end, the term Sedeprivationist today, should really only be used for two reasons:
Etymologically it is a more correct term, because strictly speaking, the chair (sede) of Peter is not actually empty (vacante) but rather it is filled by an impostor that is preventing (privation) the proper filling of it by a valid Bishop.
As a memory and remembrance of a great and courageous theologian and Bishop, Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. keep in mind that because he was made Bishop in 1981 by Bishop Thuc he was later “excommunicated” from the fake “Catholic” Church of Satan by none other than Ratzi the Nazi in 1983, just when the “new” (fake and perverse) Code of Canon Law was produced.
In all other respects, Sedevacantism is absolutely correct and no one can make any argument against it, theological, canonical, logical or of any other valid kind. Let us therefore now look at that.
The Basic Premise of Sedevacantism
The essence of Sedevacantism is literally childishly easy to understand
1. If you are not catholic, you cannot be Catholic clergy.
2. If you defect from the faith publicly and notoriously, you are not Catholic.
That’s it. That is literally it. It really is not more complicated than that.
The Satanists pretending to be Catholic (fake clergy) will try to tell you that no man has a right to judge the “pope” as being a heretic, which is a conflation of one true fact with a lie, as is their usual modus operandi.
It is true that no man can pass judgement on the Pope. But there are two important points to note:
ANYONE can judge a non-catholic, non-Pope as being a non-Catholic non-Pope. In fact it is dogmatic catholic law that ANYONE can call out a heretic.
Secondly, it is not any man that decides if a pope is or is not a heretic, regardless of whether he had been voted in validly originally or not. It is, in fact, the INFALLIBLE Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which in its valid and infallible wisdom, produce the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which was approved by two Popes along with their Cardinals and therefore made infallible. And the Code of 1917 in Canton 188 part 4 reads as follows:
Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus:
4º A fide catholica publice defecerit;
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
See that? Without any declaration and upon the fact itself. it really burns them. And if you want a totally autistic view of the whole of canon 188.4 that atomises the ghosts of dead horses, well then, here you go.
Right then, given canon 188.4 it is absolutely clear that anyone who does not specifically and actively condemn the fake Popes since 28th October 1958 and their heretic Vatican II documents, and changes to the UNCHANGEABLE Holy Mass (see Quo Premium also in RTCC), cannot be thought of as properly Catholic, and any “clergy” doing so are absolutely not valid clerics of Catholicism.
So we now come to the distinctions between current day Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists. What are they?
Having discussed this matter in some detail with a valid priest of the IMBC, the statement told to me was that this priest and thus most of the IMBC I would guess, simply take the charitable position that they, as individuals prefer not to pronounce the current heretics in the Vatican as being actual heretics, including, the (in my opinion) never-was-catholic Bergy the Oleous.
That is a valid personal position that a clergyman can take. It is based on the fact that only God really knows the Foro Interno of a human being, that is, his true heart concerning anything at all.
HOWEVER, and it is a big however, by ALL external indications (Foro Externo) the (at best) heretics in the Vatican (actual Satanists as far as I am concerned) ALL, without exception fulfill the precepts of Canon 188.4. And canon 188.4 refers to and does NOT invalidate in any way Cum-Ex-Apostolato Officio which was an ex-cathedra pronouncement of valid Pope Paul the IV, and which in any case, was even before this an obvious thing anyone of normal intelligence knew. In general, Papal ex-cathedra pronouncements are made only to further clarify an solidify a simple and obvious fact known to all but under attack by gnostics, Satanists and enemies of the Church. So, these fake Popes absolutely ARE to be treated as heretics in a practical sense. Which of course, all Sedeprivationist clergy does. They do not perform Una Cum (one with) masses (they do not use the names of fake popes in the Mass) and they do not promote or promulgate Vatican II and warn people against it, all as they should. The only practical difference is they do not outright call Bergoglio and such as actual heretics because, in a spirit of charity they hold the position that perhaps, by some miracle or mystery unknown to them, Bergoglio and such are all afflicted by some mind-worm, or whatever that makes them not actually responsible, somehow, for their heresies.
Well. They are entitled to their personal view, of course, and for the record, I do not have a personal view as such on Bergolgio etc. I mean, if I had to bet my life on it I would bet they are actual Satanists, non-Catholics from the start and heretics only in the best of cases (because to be a heretic you have to first have been Ana actual Catholic at some point), but honestly, absent any enforced need to make a judgement, I don’t have an opinion. I simply follow Canon Law and Catholic dogma and since they walk like a heretic, quack like a heretic, smell like a heretic, act like a heretic, and do everything else under the sun as a heretic, I will treat them, as is my duty as a heretic.
That’s it, and that’s all. In any case, the Sedeprivationists do that too with the only exception they don’t call them actual heretics due to their rather (in my opinion) unnecessary charity towards what I consider to be spiritual, intentional would-be mass-murderes of souls.
So, in essence, in practical terms, there is no real difference between a Sedeprivationist and a Sedevacantist.
One last note, if anyone says that if Bergoglio were to repent he would become valid Pope, this is, of course, absolute nonsense, since a heretic, even if he repents, by infallible and perennial dogmatic and divine Law, as pronounced infallibly in Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio, cannot ever again have ANY authority over anyone and must spend the rest of their days in constant penance in a monastery with, again, I repeat, no possibility to teach or have authority over anyone, ever again.
So, in essence and practice we are all Sedevacantists today. Sedeprivationism was a kind idea that has, in the course of time, been demonstrated to have been mostly overly charitable wishful thinking.
Nevertheless Father (and later Bishop) Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers was an outstanding theologian and Catholic clergyman. May God keep his soul in the eternal presence of His beatific vision as per His Will.
I am first of all reminded of this funny meme which is of some woman on twitter/X saying:
It’s true, men only want one thing, and it’s disgusting!
and the reply below it by some Chad:
So, wash it.
While the response is funny, the reality is a little bit different, and that reality is why I don’t rate PUAs as anything good in general, losers almost to a man, and missing the point of life and teaching others to miss it too.
Vox recently had a post about how the lure of the forbidden, or the hedonist, or worldly pleasures of life, are very real and only a Churchian type that has no knowledge of life can comfortably and arrogantly counsel things like, no, no, never any sex before marriage, or whatever the mortal sin is, as if simply stating that were protection enough from the temptations of the world.
And I tend to agree. The way I put it before is that while the ideal is indeed ideal, and it absolutely worked in the past, in the current post-apocalyptic moral landscape of radiation pools, death-plague, and zombies, the old chaste ways might indeed still work, and perhaps they do and are really best regardless. Perhaps, in some hidden Shangri-La I never came across yet. However, my personal experience has been that given the hellish landscape, you need to be able to navigate a little hell before you can climb out of the pit, and so far, three marriages by people under 30, all three couples now expecting, and all directly or indirectly as a result of becoming sedevacantists and navigating various scenarios before landing a properly converted and Catholic wife (in all three cases very pretty women too, it needs to be said) convince me that my ways and advice have at least some merit in producing the seeded for results of what men (and women) really want. In short, while my methods (such as they are) might not have the imprimatur of Church Bishops, or anything remotely approved by anyone Catholic, they do seem to produce positive results.
To my mind, when at war, the rules are partially decided by the enemy, and if the enemy in this case perverts everything good into a parody of itself, my approach is to take all his perversion and convert it to a parody of itself and thus back to the good.
So, the slutty trampy girl with a good heart, who gives herself to anyone in a heartbeat in the delusion of seeking love, while not the ideal first choice, in the extreme of the examples I am making, might just be the one that turns around with the allure of a properly respectful marriage where you have a LOT of sex, to make a LOT of children, and have them fill your home and hearts. They tempt the nominally Catholic schoolgirls with ever more degenerate behaviour, well, how about we tempt the degenerate girls to wear strictly longer dresses, wear a veil in church and become awesome housewives and mothers? Let’s see who wins that fight, shall we?
In that vein then, let me tell you what every man in today’s fallen world really wants:
They want a woman that is sexy, beautiful, sensual, sexual, kind, nurturing and loving and loyal to them, that shares the views on marriage, children and family.
99% of men, if given the choice between being a fuckboi with endless pussy on demand from all corners of the world, but never a family, or one woman for the rest of their life that is sexy and sensual, able and willing, a good wife and mother and loyal and kind and nurturing to him and their children, that also challenges him with her views and humour and thoughts, would choose the good wife.
Those men who would not are mostly:
Boomers. Yes. Still today.
Immature, having tasted the fruits of easy fornication, and been intoxicated by them, they are like an alcoholic, mistaking the over-indulgence of drinking with the pleasure of having a drink with friends and good food while never losing yourself in drink.
Perverted or damaged by sexual trauma early in life, twisted life experiences and so on.
Neurologically (physiologically) defective from birth.
It is true that a normal man, absent sex, and wanting it, unless he has made a conscious decision to be an ascetic monk, a priest or whatever, can begin to go slightly insane from his unsatisfied lust (women go even more insane and faster when they are sexually ignored and neglected by men, by the way). And the overwhelming availability of pornography is also likely to spark unwholesome expectations from a woman or women in general.
PUAs prey on such men. “Teaching” them all sorts of nonsense in terms of relations between men and women, based on flawed and only partial truths or at times completely baseless assumptions, and all in the quest to: Get married? Have children? Have a functional, happy life? No. All in the quest to simply get laid. Because in their tragically useless and shrivelled lives, the mere achievement of having sex with some women, pretty, good looking or “high status” as they may be, with the definite intent of also impressing your friends with your “ability” to bed such women IS the Holy Grail of happiness. Well, it isn’t. And PUAs intrinsically, whether directly or indirectly are essentially selling the message that it is. The “learnt” attitudes are extremely ruinous for the prospects of an actually happy and meaningful life. It’s not even that the prize doesn’t exist. It can exist. It’s just that the prize itself is a cheap plastic imitation of the actual prize in life.
I truly believe that it is far less damaging for an incel to hire a professional to get over his curiosity/lust/physical needs, a few times, and get over that desperation, so as to rebalance his brain and begin to take the necessary steps to seek and find the relationship he really would prefer, which is almost always, the good wife.
Look at the supposed “masters of seduction” that were PUAs a decade or more ago, where are they, what have they done, how are their lives?
Jail, suicide, broken families, married to a potato with a kid, and still pretending to be “masters of seduction” and so on. Mystery has at least one child with some woman he is not married to (she apparently is quite pretty and not a potato, by the way, I don’t know, I don’t care) and is still pretending to be the aging wise man of “getting women”. Which I think in modern parlance of the younger generation, elicits only a heightened sense of red-alert levels of “cringe”. It’s sad and pathetic.
But to return to the original point, do not think I am unaware of the allure of the carnal pleasures. I didn’t start out that way, that is as a manwhore risking drowning by pussy juice, but I always have had a good imagination, and perhaps Italians really are more naturally sexual, and then when the relationships I had tried my best to be good for failed, I eventually concluded that I simply was not built, or able to, have them, so I simply indulged my preferences and avoided any tensions by simply walking away from any encounter that in any way started to have the hint of red flags, or issues, or whatever. The minute it wasn’t fun anymore I’d simply say “Sayonara” and “Next!”.
So I am well aware of the lures and traps and temptations. Mostly because I indulged every single one of them, pretty much. And somehow, despite this, because of how I am built internally, I managed to survive. Not a light navigation through Hell, but rather an extended tour of it with side passages into the lowest pits, you know, just to get the full measure of the place, and then, by Grace, (some) prayer, and truly just God’s Mercy, found myself in a position where the right woman (for me, that is, she could be thought of as having all the red flags one might think of for a “normal” man) was gradually, then suddenly, there. And for every red flag she had of her own, I probably matched it with one or several of my own.
And certainly it has not been all roses and daisies floating on a cloud made of unicorn-rainbow farts and harp music, but… as only two scarred and battle-hardened veterans of worldly life can do, once they have tried every pleasure, survived every outrage to their minds, bodies and hearts, and knowing yet, still, despite it all, that love counts, that truth matters above all, that justice is a thing, we helped each other heal and feel loved. Not always kindly, not always easily. But in between, underneath it all, always knowing, in our own separate and different ways: She is the One. He is the One.
I absolutely do NOT recommend my path to anyone. Please be smarter and faster and kinder and easier and more intelligent, wise and loving than I have been. And seek someone suitable for you that is already well on her way to it, or maybe already there. If anything, I am but an example of how, even when you are lied to from the start, and you believe it, and are hurt and damaged and broken, time and again, by life, by people who are supposed to have been on your side, by your own heart not letting you give up even when you should, and you just keep getting up, eventually, even the devil gives up; and God finds you. As long as you too, are seeking and not just whining about your lot in life.
So, if you have travelled on the dark side, and been poisoned, take heart. No it is not easy. No, you will not suddenly find a virgin nymphomaniac nurse that loves cooking and cleaning your one bedroom rented apartment in the wrong side of town. And yes, you will have to get off your own ass and work, and scrabble, and train, and get your spine to be erect, and stand, and take it, and deliver it. To learn justice and honour and truth and discipline and not lose heart or mind even when life seems hell-bent on breaking you. It is. The enemy is. And are you going to let it? I don’t know about you, but, true to my namesake given to me by online friends, a thing I always thought even before I saw the film as a teenager:
It’s better to burn out than fade away.
So. Get yourself and your own sense of self squared away. Think on it. Make up your mind. Which kind of man are you?
Are you brave? Are you a liar? Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you stand back up when life kicks you in the balls and knees you in the face? Or do you cry out for an ambulance and the police? Do you complain about things that you don’t like or do you change them?
Who are you? And who do you want to become? Because they are never the same thing as long as you are alive on this Earth. And if you reach the place you wanted to be a year or ten years ago, you will also have learnt new things you want to learn and become more or less of. So keep walking, Keep climbing. And pick a woman that understands that while she will be loved (and make sure you do), and she will be protected and provided for, to the best of your ability at any given time, and that she will be respected (and make sure you understand what that means for you AND for her), that life is hard and you are both only human. You will screw up. So will she.
And you will both need to keep choosing each other through and past all of it. And that is the only way to be that matters, and the only way that real, lasting happiness can be achieved by both men and women, and she has to give of her femaleness and womanly ways just as much as you have to give of your male and manly ways. And combine and co-create a family and navigate the idiocy of the world, the corruption of it, the twisting of it, together, like good sailors on a small, but strong boat can navigate even the biggest storms.
That, is what men want. And, whether they admit it or not, like it or not, say it or not, it’s what women want too. Take it from me, because I am a man, and unlike women, who will tell you a bunch of things they think they want but mostly don’t actually want, I’m telling you what the good ones want. And the ones that don’t want it, don’t matter.
The Male Quest for Woman
And the Incidendal Drawing and Quartering of Rollo Tommasi.
Adam has recently posted a couple of somewhat interesting articles that consider the prospect of sex before marriage, fornication, and the PUA mindset in general.
The key message I personally see as most relevant in the first one is the partial quote that derives from the reading of Goldwin Smith (a 19th Century historian) by the author of the piece Adam links to, JM Smith, which he however presents only in part, and I think deserves a fuller version of it:
He [Goldwin Smith] was appalled by the prospect of women’s suffrage, correctly foreseeing that it would make democratic politics even more emotional, and that Anglo Saxon men would be to soft, silly and spineless to stop it. He explained this as the dolorous result of gynæmania, a “disease” of the Anglo Saxon male that was characterized by a morbidly excessive craving for the good opinion of women. The word gynæmania was first coined as a scientific name for satyriasis, or a morbidly excessive craving for carnal knowledge of women, but Smith saw that slavery to sex was becoming slavery to the female sex.
The emphasis on Anglo-Saxon is mine, and I maintain it remains the key point of the article, as it was indeed in the post by JM Smith, and indeed Golden Smith’s original work, even if Adam did not seem to focus on it particularly. So keep this point about the Anglos in mind for later, we shall return to it.
The second article can be summed up as a strong and unequivocal advice —almost an order, really— to men, to not indulge in sex before marriage; and he takes a post by Rollo Tommasi as his jumping off point. Tommasi is somewhat “revered” in PUA circles as being one of the grandfathers of the PUA movement. Personally, though I have weird hobbies, and looking at PUAs and their thirst for raping incels’ wallets was one of many such entertainments, I have never found Tommasi to be especially insightful of much of anything. And the article Adam links to is definitely of the stupidly degenerate category, although my take on things is considerably different from Adam’s in many respects.
Rollo’s post is a car-crash of bullshit and lies and simply illogical nonsense and deserves a point by point take-down even just on its own (non-existent) supposed merits. And… because… you know how I said I have weird hobbies? And typing doesn’t hurt me, I’m going to do just that right here below, between the fancy page breaks. If you don’t care (which is absolutely fine), or if you can’t hold a key point in your mind for more than 3 minutes, or are particularly pious and find vulgarity distatesful, then avert your eyes and skip the Rollo Tommasi take-down below, and scroll to the second fancy page break.
The key points by the way, so far are:
Rollo in fog-fart grey background your friendly host in standard text.
Rollo, do you think “Body Count” matters?
Absolutely. And the higher, the better. I need a girl who’s DTF (down to fuck) from the jump. For guys after 50, all that pretentious bullshit about long-term commitment should melt away to sexual expediency. It’s not about experience or some contrived want for a virgin bride. It all comes down to guys who fuck and guys who don’t. If we’re talking from the perspective of evolutionary effectiveness, women (and men) with higher body counts are effectively proven commodities in a sexual economy.
The sexually unfulfilled and deprived Rollo tells us several things right in the first paragraph:
UPDATE: I stand corrected! He’s been married since he was 28, which means I was completely correct about his being a fraud with regard to his “experience” with bedding women, it’s literally all made up theory. And since I did not “correct” any of the subsequent points after this point, you can verify immediately that I really did not know anything about this guy besides read maybe 10 lines of his stuff over the last decade and concluding he was irrelevant, and secondly, that my dissection of his nonsense post is spot on, despite this.
“Oh, oh! but you say he is sexually unfulfilled and deprived, when he clearly has (or had) sex with a lot of women, you’re just bitter!”
No, young Padawan, pay attention now:
Firstly: PUAs LIE. And Lie spectacularly about their “body count” trust me on this, I looked into the subspecies of “male” that labels themselves as PUAs in some depth. Feel free to use the Search Me button on the right there. (heh… in light of my not bothering to research Rollo at all and then it turns out he was married the whole time he pretended to be a “player” this is kind of hilarious.)
Secondly: Let’s in any case ass-u-me Rollo does indeed still have regular sex with random hotties every week. Even if that were the case, considering by his own supposed “reality” he has been doing that for 30 years or so, you have to wonder… what can he possibly still be chasing? As regular readers of this blog will know, I am no stranger to the female form myself, and went through a lot of women in a short period of time after I gave up essentially on long-term relationships. And after a few years of it, I tell you, I was essentially bored of it. And no, I am not a guy with low T or lack of energy or any difficulty in securing a regular flow of pretty, usually above average intelligence, women to my bed. I assure you, my pointing this out comes from having lived that way and not any kind of misplaced envy, lack of understanding, or inexperience at the “thrill” of a new woman under me. The fact is that only a man that has yet to fill the hole in his soul can continue to behave this way, in the erroneous belief that if he just beds enough women, somehow, at some point, he will feel fulfilled. Don’t get me wrong, there is some truth to the fact that if you become able to essentially pick up women for sex almost at will, it does give you a certain… I am not even sure what to call it, but I guess… level of general life confidence would be it. But in reality it has little to do with how many women you take to bed and more with your attitude when with a woman. There are men that have this sense of confidence innate to them and only marry and stay with one woman for their entire lives, and there are men that may go through some women to realise they have it already. It’s a little like martial arts. There are guys who never take a class but in a certain circumstance will not hesitate to fight back, and there are guys who need to go training for a while to feel strong in their sense of justice, or whatever. The reality is that a man who forever chases sex with an ever growing number of women, is simply a malformed man. He is not, I assure you a self-actualised man, to borrow a Maslowian term. He is like the perennial teenager, still trying to be “cool” at 70. Or if you prefer, he’s like the Boomers, who keep insisting 80 is the new 40, or whatever. And that is no way for a grown man to be.
Third: Remember that point about the Anglos being far more desperate in general for female approval than say, well, your average dago, spic, South American, Greek… oh look… it’s a divide between Protestant and Catholic or Orthodox religions… again. Things that make you go hmmmm, eh?
Are you starting to understand what I mean by deprived and unfulfilled yet? (It seems clear he wishes he was a “player” which he clearly is not, and never was so…)
Guys who don’t fuck spend lifetimes consoling themselves with moral high-ground narratives to explain why they don’t fuck. At least 80% of guys don’t fuck, so there’s a lot of narrative inbreeding and self-congratulatory bullshit passed around among them. This bullshit has been de rigueur for millennia, but in the social media age, it’s an obvious cope. We’re just more aware of it now.
Of course, the best narratives are the ones that make guys who don’t fuck feel good about not fucking while simultaneously making guys who do fuck feel bad about fucking. This disqualification tactic is one of the many forms of bloodless intrasexual competition tactics that 80%er men have consoled themselves with since the Middle Ages. If you can make your intrasexual rival feel guilty about fucking – because God hates fucking for any reason besides making babies – then you have a tactical advantage in the sexual economy. It works even better if you can gaslight a superior sexual rival to believe he (or she) is going to Hell if he pursues his biological imperative to his fullest potential.
Good God. Talk about gaslighting. If you take him at his word, Rollo is saying that fucking, just that, fucking, not procreating, not making children, just fucking, as many women as possible, is what makes life worthwhile. I have met men like this. Several PUAs are like this, and let me tell you, they are absolutely pathetic. They are a kind of Gollum about pussy in general. My Preciousssss they say, obsessed, salivating, masturbating furiously, whether alone or inside someone else, and that is all that their lives revolve around.
He also further blurts out obvious absolute lies, imputing 80% of men in the Middle Ages did this thing: which was about telling you that way to live (that he thinks is the epitome of existence) is a shallow, discivilisational, unfulfilling, unhealthy way to exist, and not live at all, and they did it to prevent other men from having sex with lots of women. This is complete nonsense, since most men in the middle ages got married, did not have lots of partners, and raised children with their wives, and in the Catholic world at least (which was the ONLY Christianity), most marriages lasted literally until death parted them.
According to him, the entire structure of the Catholic Church was set up so the celibate priests could get all the poonani. It’s ridiculous on its face, ahistorical, and frankly smacks of Gollum-like backward rationalisation that would make a crack whore trying to justify her habit blush with shame.
Generally, lesser men cannot openly challenge greater men (men who fuck) in physical prowess. So, more intelligent men who don’t fuck contrived forms of social gaslighting to improve their chances of reproducing. Smarter lesser men have always devised workarounds to solve their reproductive problems. It’s actually one of the strengths of our species. Nothing sparks innovation quite like a man solving his proximate need for sex and his ultimate need to reproduce. And nothing has been more expedient a tactic than convincing a greater man that he ought to disqualify himself from the sexual economy.
According to Rollo, the Gammas have been “successful” throughout the ages at getting Alpha men to not reproduce. Oh, no, sorry, to fuck, for the sake of fucking alone; reproduction be damned. Once again, anyone who has actually been successful with women over a period of some years, can tell you this is absolute bullshit, and it makes me suspect Rollo, like so many PUAs after him, is likely also full of shit about his supposed sexual prowess with women. It doesn’t matter what the Gammas do. Alphas and Sigmas (that are that way inclined, some Sigmas are not) will be with women sexually even if you imposed the death penalty for doing so. And they would still find ways to get away with it. Gammas have never been very successful at anything really, except being annoying, redundant, and getting women to avoid them like radioactive plague. And notice also that for Rollo the sole qualifier of what makes a man “great” is how high his body count is. Truly it is so pathetically ridiculous that it makes me laugh at both the stupidity of it, and Rollo’s own intrinsic amoeba-like existence. And while he wants very much to paint my view of this as some sort of “envy”, there really is absolutely zero of any such intent or reality in my perspective. It is genuinely the somewhat ironic mild amusement one gets from watching a complete fuckwit trying to be clever and spectacularly showing his ass to the world for the fuckwit he really is.
The problem is, guys who fuck are usually too preoccupied with the logistics of fucking to be bothered by the self-loathing moralism of guys who don’t fuck. At least, that’s how it’s been in a post-Sexual Revolution sexual economy. If it ain’t broke, fixing it isn’t even an afterthought. When you watched the now infamous AMOGing scene in The Wolf Of Wall Street where Leonardo Di Caprio swoops Margot Robbie from a trust fund yuppie, you’re really watching the intrasexual combat between a guy who fucks and a guy who doesn’t. It’s how human males lock horns over sexual access in rutting season. The only thing a guy who doesn’t fuck has in his arsenal is his cunning and nerve.
The emphasis is added by me to point out yet again another logical fallacy. The men who are successful with women do not preoccupy themselves with the logistics of fucking at all, beyond possibly getting their maid, sister, or slutty FWB, to change their semen-stained bedsheets from the night before, because they have a new girl coming over. Literally every man I have known that was… well… a “guy who fucks” like Rollo wants to put it, gave his interactions with women less consideration than he did his enjoyment of a film with a good friend, or his sport of choice, or reading a book he was into. The fact Rollo does not know this, again, makes me suspect he is not quite the lady-killer he presents himself as.
This is why body count only matters to guys who don’t fuck. Their moral crisis isn’t about their inability to find a virgin bride. Guys who don’t fuck couldn’t give two shits about whether a woman’s ability to pair bond with him is impaired by her body count. All they really want is the kind of sex women give to guys who do fuck but never need the ‘value added’ benefits he had to qualify for to get her to fuck him. You see, the gaslighting goes both ways – outwardly towards a sexual rival and inwardly to convince himself that his purpose is righteous. Moralizing over body count is as much about the guy wagging his finger at women as it is about their indiscriminate fucking. There’s actually nothing indiscriminate about it, but sour grapes and making your necessity a virtue are necessary to make Strategic Pluralism an unfalsifiable sexual strategy.
There is a hint of truth to this paragraph, but it is presented as the only absolute, which, as usual, is nonsense. Most men in general actually do care about body-count for any woman they would consider as a long term partner, and at times even for ones they would consider only for a temporary fling. The fact Rollo does not know this, is a clear indication that he is still at the teenager level of sexual immaturity.
Strategic Pluralism Theory
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value in the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring (guys who fuck).
In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities (guys who don’t fuck), is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits (true hypergamy). Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues (guys who fuck). Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
from Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis
Guys who fuck are usually typified by physique. Usually.
All that theory says is what has been known since the dawn of time. Women want the fittest and most successful male to breed with, and those types of men have unlimited options so tend to make use of them. Also, water is wet.
Much as I despise Destiny, the guy DOES fuck. Maybe not like Justin Waller, Jason Momoa, or Mike Sartain, but he certainly ruts like a feral animal compared to Ben Shapiro. Guys who fuck don’t sit around comparing dick sizes or bask in the glow of the imaginings of the third-party validation they get from filling a void in their souls/egos by fucking. These are tropes that guys who don’t fuck tell themselves to explain why guys who do fuck are fucking the women they’ll eventually fuck because those women ran out of options. The concept of fucking for some ephemeral form of validation is part of that gaslighting I mentioned above.
Here we see a rather convoluted bit of chaff-firing, self-delusion and gaslighting in order to justify and rationalise both to himself and the world, his ultimately meaningless way of existing.
He says guys who have his (supposed) lifestyle do not worry about their image which can be “true” to the extent that some men do not care how their womanising makes them look to other men (or in some cases to women too) or society in general, but they tend to be the exceptions, most Alpha types do care about the way they are perceived, and in any case, they all care at least about what women, or at least any given woman in particular, at a point in time, thinks of them, if only to get them in bed. It is also generally true that men who are successful with women do not tend to over-analyse themselves (unless they are PUAs) but the fact remains there is a deeply unfulfilled part of them, whether they realise it or not consciously, that has quite a lot to do with needing to feel loved, and paradoxically, their womanising tends to almost ensure they are ostracised from that very sensation they crave (consciously or not).
But ultimately he ends with yet another nihilist absolute. According to him, such men (as he presents himself to supposedly be) fuck for… just the orgasm I guess. They don’t do it for any self-validation, they don’t do it for love, they don’t do it for procreation, they don’t do it for long term companionship… right Rollo, nice of you to finally admit (if passively aggressively like a whiny bitch) that all people like you do, is really masturbate themselves to death, and it really makes little difference if you do it alone or with a human you empathise with about the same as you do with your no-doubt well-used fleshlight.
It’s intended to get your genetic superior to disqualify himself by contemplating his filling the void of existence with meaningless sex. Meaning plays another big role in the game of guys who don’t fuck. “Meaning” is a container word. It’s a term you can subjectively fill with anything you like. Even fucking if you’re clever about it. Meaning is intentionally ambiguous, and that’s what makes it so effective in being unfalsifiable. As a rule, gaslighting depends on unfalsifiable concepts, but meaning is one of the capstones. Any time you listen to some child on the Fresh & Fit podcast prattle on about how she’s living her truth, you’re listening to a variation of the meaningfulness horseshit.
And here Rollo doubles down on the idea that his life has no meaning. None whatsoever. All there is, is the fuck, for the sake of the fuck, the ultimately masturbationary orgasm for the sake of the orgasm itself, not any other reason. Not self-validation, not self-improvement, not marriage, not reproduction, nope, nope, nope, just the ever omnipresent “fuck”.
Do you see why I compared him, and people like him, to Gollum?
Guys who don’t fuck, like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, are actually the ones who need validation. Because soul-void fulfillment means confronting the reality that they’ll never enjoy the uninhibited feral lust their wives reserved for the men in their past who fucked. Men who never had to prove their value-added bona fides to fuck the women who would become their wives. Men who don’t fuck live lives of ceaselessly qualifying for a desire they know their wives were capable of with other men but can’t seem to provoke themselves. This is why validation is a thing for guys who don’t fuck – and women who need a Jungian term to explain why guys who do fuck won’t fuck them.
And now he takes the doubled down absolute idiocy to truly stupefying levels. According to him, the men who “fuck” are the be-all and end-all of life, the utter epitome of manly manness. Yes, there is some truth to the self-soothing half-truths and lies men and women tell themselves for not being as successful in the sexual marketplace, but what Rollo tries desperately to shove under the carpet with his tracer-firing barrage at what he considers “inferior” men is the question: What, exactly, are the men who “fuck” better for, or at, in life? And the ONLY thing Rollo keeps coming up with is the purpose of “the fuck” itself. Which is, of course, either ridiculous or nihilistic and pathetic to a suicidal degree. And we know more than one PUA has gone the suicide route too. (And as it happens, Rollo himself turns out to be one of the guys who “does not fuck”, in his own terminology, which according to him, makes him the same as Ben Shapiro. Well… I got nothing, the man is entirely a fraud whichever way you look at it.)
Guys who don’t fuck are the dutiful, loyal, supportive, and nameless husband who Rosehad children and grandchildren with, yet pined for Jack (a guy who fucks) and dropped a priceless diamond to the bottom of the sea in the final moments of her life at the end of Titanic. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the moral crises and ethical concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Validation and body count are just two heads of a conjoined twin. They haven’t gotten the memo that their 20th-century moralism-as-strategy is meaningless in a 21st-century sexual marketplace.
Ah yes. Using Titanic as the masterpiece of philosophy that it clearly was, and making the vapid, stupid, callous, utterly self-absorbed narcissist Rose, the “heroine” of the piece, because she throws away a fortune she could have given to her progeny, in quintessential, wicked, super-boomer format, is indeed, a bold strategy, Rollo! Not a good one, valid or sensible one, but certainly “bold”. As in the same kind of “bold” that would stick his dick in a bar-cutting industrial machinery to “prove his manliness”.
Body count only matters to nameless husbands who don’t fuck. It doesn’t matter to anywoman because they would rather fuck a lot of Jacks on a sinking ship than be bothered by the purity (paternity) concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Guys who fuck don’t care about body count because they know women hate guys who don’t fuck, and those guys care about body count.
Again, it is quite obvious that Rollo protesteth too much here, as he has throughout the entire vapid, ageing PUA post.
Rollo is the male equivalent of a post-wall woman who has ridden the cock-carousel so long she is now left on the shelf. And Rollo is the post-wall “bad-boy” (assuming he ever really actually was one at all) who is left with spent cigarettes, a ruggerised fleshlight, wrinkles, and increasingly creeping despair, at the beginning of the end of a life wasted on ephemera.
FINAL UPDATE: As I said right from the start, PUAs lie, and as it happens Rollo lied about pretty much everything concerning his supposed “ability” concerning women, and he advises men to do the exact opposite of what he himself has done, which is to stay married to one woman for 26 years. If he had been the ladykiller he presented himself as, the above vivisection would be absolutely correct, and as it happens, remains so, regarding the fictional would-be Rollo. And since he is an absolute fraud that advises others to go down a path he knows nothing about and leads to nothing good long term, one can hardly imagine anything he has to say is relevant or worthwhile. Even by his own (retarded) “measuring stick” Rollo himself is the exact guy who “does not fuck” that he so denigrates in his post. And yet he also advises against being married. So… what exactly is Rollo, what does he actually have to say that is relevant, or true, or valid?
Right, now after that vivisection, let us return to the original points, which are that:
And seeing what that says about men who chase after women for sex and so on in general terms and in spiritual terms.
First of all, I think the point about Anglos being afflicted by gynæmania is a real thing. The English speaking world of the Anglos is indeed, culturally, regardless of whether British (though these are the epicentre of it) Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, or even the more Anglecised parts of America, tends to be irrelevant, as a people, they tend to be grossly united by the Protestant Zeitgeist and a kind of fear/intimidation/shyness of women in general.
Certainly none of the Catholic countries suffer from this to anywhere near the extent the English people do. And it has been this way for centuries. The writings of Italian travellers to England recounts the same view of things that we Southern European tend to have even today of the English men and the English women.
I believe in part it is due to the nefarious influence of Protestantism, as it is an invariably mechanising of humanity and the minute you do that, the first errors will be with your understanding/handling/appreciation of women, because human females are in a way the very embodiment of the chaos of humanity at its best and its worst, and any reduction at binarium pensierum (binary thinking) will invariably produce vast errors in your model of reality with respect to women. And as such they will become only more mystifying, unpredictable and dangerous for you. The other part is due to the fact that as a rule, the Anglos tend to be a logical and shy people, neither of which quality lends itself particularly well to being easy-going in relation to women, who as a rule are not logical and only pretend to be shy in the company of men, if at all.
For such men, the eventual “ability” to bed a lot of women does in fact begin to become a form of validation for them. It remains essentially a false one, but one they believe in and buy into as much as the people they try to convince around them.
These are the men that despite having slept with a hundred or even a few hundred women or more, remain nevertheless prey to their own desire for women and susceptible to how they are perceived by the women they are attracted to. They invariably appear as what the Zoomers call “cringe” to men who have the self-assuredness internally that these Anglo types seek perennially, and hardly ever find. I have known men that only had two women as sexual partners, the first was their wife and the second also their wife, after the first one died, and yet these men would have zero problem genuinely attracting almost any woman they set their eyes on, and they would do so free of the anxiety and self-doubt that plagues the supposed ladies men with hundreds of notches on their belts.
For me, discovering I was able to get women to have sex with me successfully, was not self-actualising in any way. It was more like discovering I had a natural aptitude for fencing, or skiing. A kind of pleasant surprise about something I never really gave much thought to one way or the other. And a good part of why I was successful has very much to do with the fact that that is pretty much how I treated it, not because I wanted to pose as such a person, but because I am such a person. And I cannot with certainty say what makes a man that way or not. I think at least some of it is genetic, but life experiences probably formed in childhood also has something to do with it.
And if I had to give it my best guess, I would say it is probably mostly due to whether your relationship with your parents, and primarily your father, was honest and direct and loving or not. The English sense of “logical detachment” I think is ultimately damaging to children, which is why the entire Anglosphere is a fucking mess of feral youfs with no sense, no honour, no dignity, or discipline to speak of, and increasingly illiterate at that.
The more instinctual and visceral love of an Italian father, who may well kick your ass, literally, for some small or even wrong reason, but who would unquestioningly jump into a harvesting combine to save you, is a far healthier way to be raised than the cold logic of the Anglo-Saxons. And instills in you a profound sense of self-assuredness that I think nothing else does. And that sense comes through to women like a lighthouse in the dark, whether they are aware of it or not consciously (mostly not).
I hope this explains the reason why some men, regardless of how many women they have slept with, ultimately remain on some level… uncertain. Doubtful. Unfinished. And women can in fact sense that.
Now, let us get to the concept of fornication in general and so on, which in fairness, was the topic that Adam was trying to cover, and to which, my extremely long preamble above is merely introduction to give you my context.
On Fornication
First of all, let me state unambiguously that yes, in an ideal world, the way that the Catholic Church says we should behave, both as men and women is indeed, the best and ideal way. No question. I unreseveredly agree.
That said, being as I am Catholic, and being as I lived like a heathen for at least 43 years of my time on Earth, and given that I made no attempt to resist temptations of the flesh in that time, I think I can say with some authority that:
So, if unmitigated fornication is the equivalent of a blind and deaf man walking towards a cliff-face, how can I possibly begin to even make him aware of this truth? The temptations of the flesh after all are not a fairy tale. They are very much real, and they certainly never felt bad or sinful to me when I indulged deeply in them, nor, do I expect they feel that way to the average 20-something or even 30-something year old male that is “finally getting some!”
And while Adam and people like him, including Catholic Priests and Bishops are absolutely correct that it is a damaging thing, it’s not as if I had not heard that sort of preaching when I was indulging deeply in fornication and then some.
And my reaction to it all was usually, something like, Eh, poor bastard isn’t getting any and he either doesn’t know what he’s missing, or maybe would like, much as the feminists, everyone to be as miserable as him.
And I expect any young man that has got this far (if any have) in this long post, is probably thinking the same thing, and they also do not have a counter-example as a reference frame. Not one they have lived certainly, because that counter example you only get once you are married, and fully committed to one woman, and she is to you too.
It sort of feels like a lie. Oh, don’t you have any fun now, boy, you just wait and just take the ONE sweet, and only that one, for the rest of your life, and trust us, it’s better this way. With all the bullshit you have ingested by age 20, and your at least seeing some of it (if you are not completely retarded) one can hardly be blamed for thinking this too is a massive lie.
And because I am Catholic, and because I have also the example of my own life, and the awesomeness of a real priest that Baptised, Confirmed and presided over my Marriage, and had the benefit of his wisdom and kindness, I also understand that fallen as we are, erroneous as we are, mistaken as we are, we are not necessarily evil or shunning God. We are just wrong. Badly, desperately, tragically, sadly, wrong, but mostly just wrong, not intentionally evil. And we are sad, weak, feel unloved and uncared for by anyone and we try, like drowning rats, to scrabble some sense of worth and love and kindness, wherever there is any illusion we might find some. And so we make mistakes.
And most of you reading this who are unmarried will be in the midst of those mistakes, and I am not here to chastise you, or rain thunder and fire and brimstone and judgement from God on your weighted and desperate heads. Far from it.
I was one of you. I walked your path deeper and longer in the swamp of godless life than most. So, young man, if you will, after this very long set of words, take a seat near my camp-fire and let me tell you a story and may it help you navigate your own swamp, and may it be shallow and brief.
So you are fornicating. So you may even like a girl you are with and be boyfriend and girlfriend, and you may even be thinking how it would be nice if it will last. Or maybe you’re so infatuated with the sensations of sex that a new girl every week or every day or two, or whatever, is intoxicating and draining all your thoughts and actions, wallet and testicles. Whatever the case may be, listen to this and think it over:
What do you want for your life? What do you want to think about your life when you are 99 years old and on your rocking chair and you can see the grim reaper finally walking towards you? And you’re fine with it and smile at him even, recognising that this supposedly terrible and fearful boogeyman is nothing more than a tired and misunderstood boatman, taking you across the veil (or the river Styx if you prefer).
Do you think you will be pleased reminiscing over your 287 sexual conquests, aided by your printed out spreadsheet in large letter format, because your eyes are no longer what they used to be? Playing out the sex tapes on the projector of your study to remember better what you did or felt or what they did? Or who they even were? Do you think that will warm your heart as you face the final journey?
Or your sporting achievements?
Or your financial ones, absent children and grandchildren to leave it to?
Tell me, young man, what do you think will make you able to face the final boatman with serenity and peace?
I’ll tell you what it is for me now and what I hope it will be for me at 105, but I say only 105 because I started late, otherwise 99 would be perfectly acceptable to me too. And yes, I know I’d be lucky to get there.
It is the idea of my children grown up and married and with children of their own, and doing well, and if God grants me the energy and the fortune to do so, the idea of leaving them as much as I possibly can, to make their lives and those of their children good ones.
It is the idea of watching my grandchildren and possibly even my great-grandchildren (hence 105!) running around nearby, screaming and making noise and playing joyfully and laughing full belly-laughs and thinking my sons and daughters and their wives and husbands are good women and men who will be with them to the end of their days and help them raise the next lot of joyous Crusaders for God, Truth and Justice, as my family line has done since the literal original First Crusade.
Now you may have a different religion from me (because you’re still young and stupid, heh, heh, heh) but I don’t think it changes the equation. I don’t think it changes it at all.
And here is what else I think. I think if what I just told you is NOT what inspires you, is abhorrent to you in some way, then I hope very much it’s only because, as I said, you’re young, and really fucking stupid, and you have bought in to a lot of Boomer-era lies, And I sincerely hope you grow out of your mental retardation.
And if not, if that is who you really are, then fuck you. I hope you die young and rid the world of another noxious creature that only spoils the Earth and everything on it. And I’m not talking about climate change, you fuckwit.
Now, if you get the impression that I am a kind of bastard for an old man, I would say, fuck you at the “old man” I can probably still kick your ass at 54 if you are in your twenties, depending on some factors, but that aside, yeah, I am not the most pleasant human being. I don’t like humans much because mostly they are weak, and because they are weak they lie. And they lie a lot. They lie to themselves first and then to everyone else around them. And the lies cause the harm. They cause ALL the harm. Which is as the god of this world wants it. Because this Earth is under the dominion of Satan. And no, young man, I don’t give a shit if you think “The Devil” is a superstition. He is more real than the heart-attack all the poor imbeciles that took the genetic serum are probably facing in the not too distant future.
Oh, and this is just a side note, but listen up: The Earth is NOT Flat!
And if you think it is you are a stupid bastard and I really don’t care what happens to you and with a level of stupidity that high it is definitely a better thing if you do not pass on those retarded genes at all.
Back to my story, now.
So, if you agree with me so far, then you also must realise that you get that kind of old-age satisfaction only if you make children and raise them well. And this means finding and marrying a woman that will also want to be with you until one or both of you die and raise children together. No matter what difficulties you will both face. No matter if you are so fucking stupid one day to fuck your secretary, or hire a prostitute, or become a heavy drinker, or make a bad business decision and lose your shirt. And conversely, no matter if she is so fucking stupid to spread her legs for the sexy postman, or her co-worker, or the neighbour, or she becomes a heavy drinker, or more worried about what the neighbours think of you and her than looking after her husband and children, or she splashes out on stupid shit and drives you to the brink of bankruptcy.
So is it easy to find such a woman? No.
Is it easy to stay married to such a woman, delightful as she might be? No.
Will you come across things in life that will hurt you in ways you never imagined, and that would seem to make leaving her a better option? Yes.
More than once? In all likelihood, yes.
And will she come across such things? Yes, without shadow of a doubt, and probably even more often than you.
And if you are thinking right now, Well Old Man, this is a really rosy picture you’re painting for me, what the fuck do you want me to do, and is the light at then of the tunnel also an oncoming train?
I say this to you:
Firstly fuck you twice for the Old Man again, you wet behind the ears know-nothing. Secondly, it’s not rosy. It’s just how it is, so you know what you’re facing. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. What I want you to do is immaterial. It’s what you want to do, or not do, that matters. Realise whether you pick something, or pick nothing, you’re still picking something. So choose, and choose consciously, because at least then you got no one to blame but yourself.
Oh, and yeah, in the end, the light at the end of the tunnel is always an oncoming train. Sometimes it’s got a boatman riding up front. Smile and run at it, because fuck the train. Live like a man and die like one too if need be.
So now you might be thinking, Ok Old Man, so how do I find such a woman?
And I say to you, firstly, fuck you three times for the Old man. Secondly, unless you have uncommon good luck, unless God for some reason decides to send you an Angel in disguise as a human woman, most likely, you cannot find such a woman walking the Earth today.
Young man stares blankly at me.
You have to build her.
Young man says: What?
You have to build her, boy. You find one that is as close as you can find to a finished product, and I sincerely advise you to find one that is in your category of looks. If you are a 7 don’t try and stay with a 9. You’ll be so worried about keeping her that you will fuck up a myriad things and she will end up fucking your “best friend”, the neighbour, your boss, her boss, and if you did marry her, she will take the kids and your house too when she inevitably divorces you.
Take your time in your courtship. Learn who she is and pay attention to what she does and how she acts in various situations and feel free to almost totally ignore whatever she says she is like. You can really only go badly wrong if you believe her when she describes all her good qualities. Pay her words no mind. Observe her actions instead.
If you feel you have enough to work with (at least 51% good is a minimum) then begin to go about leading by example. Do NOT request of her efforts or sacrifices you are not willing to exceed. And yes, some things are not comparable on a like for like basis, because she is a woman and you are a man, you can no more give birth or breastfeed your child than she can write the alphabet in the snow when urinating, and don’t think the one is equivalent in value to the other, but realise that as a general rule, women can provide three things to a man:
And a man generally provides three things for a woman:
So do your part and gently show her the way, so she feels better about herself, as women invariably do when they begin to act in accordance with their God-given, biological imperatives, that have been subverted by lies for the last hundred plus years or so.
That’s about it, boy.
And if you are still wondering where this puts you in the fornication scale, well, to not put too fine a point on it, according to the Church, until you marry and commit, your fornication is going to send you to Hell. So I would hurry up and get to finding that woman as quick, yet also as careful, as you can. And try not to get hit by a bus until you get married to her and repent and foreswear your heathen and fornicating ways, you miserable sinner.
And if you have any brains at all, about now, young man, you might be having a little smile at the apparently hypocritical, arrogant, bastard, old man in front of you.
And fuck you four times for the Old Man.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 4 February 2024 | Posted in Agnostic Christianity, Brain-Mind Functionality, Catholicism, Christianity, Increasing Happiness, Relationships, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, Stupid PUAs