Told ya

I do not know much at all about this Andrew guy debating the woman, I saw (or rather, mostly listened to) over an hour of this podcast he did with a feminist and from first impression he seems to be very cogent, and to give credit to the woman, she is at least trying to respond to his dialectic commentary and reasoning. That is, she is, doing her best, I believe, to reply to his clear logic with actual logic.

What you see here is basically an honest woman being faced with her own solipsism.

Her retreats to rhetoric or “feelings” are generally curbed and although he sometimes has to reframe the question a few times, when she eventually grasps it she tries to answer it honestly. This in and of itself is exceedingly rare, so I have to give her absolute credit for it. In fact, after I wrote this I watched a bit more, and Andrew too gives her the same credit at around 1 hour and 27 minutes.

If feminists could actually do logic and debate honestly, this would be a typical outcome.

Which brings me to the point I wanted to make, which will drive the average woman absolutely batshit insane with apoplexy at my “misogyny”, but which in reality is fully based in the natural patriarchal instinct to wish to protect women in general from their own characteristically irrational tendencies.

I am usually too busy to listen to anything of this length, but I managed to hear about an hour and a half of it, and I will try to hear the rest as I can, but he makes a LOT of very cogent, interesting points that are very fundamental level stuff. Right from the start, he manages to make her understand that everything relates ultimately to force, and although he doesn’t quite get her to understand his point about moral relativism, it is not through lack of trying, and on her part, it becomes quite clear that she simply does not have the intellectual capacity to:

a) keep up with him and fully grasp what he is saying, and

b) either have reasoned out her positions beforehand, or be able to reason them out on the fly.

I fairness to her, she does, honestly reason quite a few of them out on the fly, so she is honestly trying to do that, but the fact she even had to resort to this means she had never really considered these basic questions to begin with, which again, does not put her in a glowing light intellectually speaking.

AND YET… she has performed overwhelmingly better than 99% of feminists I have ever seen trying to stand their ground. I may put her, roughly speaking on a similar footing with Camille Paglia, who is still a trainwreck, but as far as feminists go, she’s not as terrible as the overwhelming majority. This girl is still young, so I sincerely hope there is some time for her to undo some of the indoctrination she clearly has taken on board (as have all of us at some point in our lives).

Now to my point, which is this:

I think this debate, and even this rather polite, intelligent and well-intentioned woman, are strong evidence of the fact that women simply are not, generally speaking able or capable of even understanding the fundamental aspects of civilisation, and that, is ultimately the reason they cannot be entrusted with really any aspect of it beyond those that they are naturally built for, which is child-rearing and taking care of their home in a symbiotic, intimate, and loving relationship with their husbands.

The simple fact is that this young woman, who has not thought about such basic things as the pill affecting birth rates and abortion being anti-natalist, gets to “vote” (not really, none of us do, but we’re looking at the logic of things, not the brutal reality of the nefarious shit going on on top of the lack of logic too). She clearly has no real objective right to do so. She is ignorant and unschooled on such basic things that her vote can only be a vote for chaos, ultimately. And notice how she has zero comment or comeback to the very real point that women were not allowed to vote on a referendum of if they should be allowed a vote, because the overwhelming majority of them were against it because they then understood that to give the women a vote would reduce them to second tier “men” while totally removing their moral benefits that they had purely as a result of being a woman.

If you can follow the logic, this in and of itself also makes it abundantly clear that liberalism, and the eternal pursuit of unlimited freedom, is absolutely Satanic and can ONLY bring to desolation and destruction for all.

It also highlights that the ONLY morality that exists and that can exist is one that derives from divine concepts and laws. If there is no God at all, then all concepts of morality are null and void and all actions are morally equivalent. At best you can define them as preferences, but you have no basis whatever to claim a moral imperative.

The problem then is only, if there is a God, WHICH religion best approximates His will?

And when you get to this point, taking a very high view that encompasses as long a period of history as possible is absolutely vital. The fruits borne by any given religion should give an indication is it is overall good or bad for humanity as a whole, and thus help make it more obvious to you which religion is based in reality, and which is a pack of comfortable lies for other ends.

If you look at all the main world religions, with this broad perspective, it become obvious at a glance that Catholicism is far superior to all other examples. You might disagree, but you can only do so if you are historically ignorant and going on your “feelings”, and are less capable than the woman in that podcast to simply take a look and be honest about things. I’ll give you a primer in comparatives:

Catholicism

• Ended slavery
• Ended women being chattel
• Made marriage permanent until death
• Made the primary purpose of marriage the production and raising of children
• Has the golden rule of treating others as you would like to be treated
• Has the dogma of loving your neighbour and being peaceful and honest to all until or unless they act badly towards you first
• Even then, it has the dogma of the possibility of redemption and forgiveness (not obviating punishment for transgressions though)
• It essentially created the real scientific method
• It dogmatically refers to its dogma and rules as requiring to be in line with reason and logic at all turns and has only a very few accepted mysteries (the trinity for example being one of them)
• It fosters honesty and admission of faults (confession) on a regular basis, which instills an overall betterment for everyone at large
• It is a dogmatic principle of Catholicism that defence of yourself or innocents is your duty, and this can include pre-emptive action (the concepts of Self-defence and Just War are part of Catholic dogma)
• It has absolute respect for justice and hence a dogmatic acceptance and need for the death penalty for certain crimes
• Children are viewed as a blessing and all life held as sacred (which is absolutely NOT a contradiction with the point immediately above. Because the minute you treat life as chattel, then you get treated as same)
• It fostered the greatest evolution of art, beauty, honesty, and promotion of all the virtues of justice, love, charity, courage, fortitude and beauty, and justly condemned the sins of pride, avarice, greed, sloth, lust, gluttony, and envy
• It promotes the veneration of saints, which in turn promotes an understanding and appreciation as well as a remembrance of historical reality and events, both in the good and bad aspects
• It promotes the respectful treatment of women while understanding that they are not equal to men, nor is this reason to mistreat them

It probably only requires looking at that list to realise no other religion compares to it, and it’s far from complete. As for the negatives that can be attributed to men who professed to be members of it, similar negatives can be seen and counted in all religions by men who profess to belong to that specific religion.

There also a lot of demonstrable lies that have been stated about Catholicism by its enemies that anyone who actually bothers to try and verify will become aware of. In fact, even convinced NON-Catholics who are honest admit this, notably, historian Rodney Stark in his book Bearing False Witness, or perhaps his book named Reformation Myths, though I have not read that one, so am not certain. But Stark has always been an honest historian, even admitting his own faults if his research had not been done properly in later works, which is far more than can be said about most historians.

A sad truth about Catholicism however is that it was absolutely infiltrated fro the last 250 years or so, culminating in its almost total destruction and inversion, which from 1958 onwards has seen only false Popes on the throne of Peter and false Novus Ordo clergy pretending to be Catholics that have fooled the vast majority of would-be Catholics. The only actual Catholic Clergy left (both Bishops and Priests) are Sedevacantist ones, and the only Catholics actually following the religion in any way accurately are sedevacantists, which are a small fraction of nominal Novus ordo “Catholics”, although their numbers are growing very fast as people begin to realise the truth of this situation.

Islam and Judaism

I lump them together for a very simple reasons, aside from the many, many, many, questionable dogmas of it, I think two will suffice to point out why these cannot be any good:

1. Both these religions say it’s ok to deceive, cheat or even kill people who are not members of it, and it is perfectly fine to pretend to be their friend, but in fact be lying to them until you are powerful enough to impose your will on them.
2. Both religions accept child rape as normal and nothing to be punished or even considered a crime.

Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism

Although quite different in details, these all share some essential features and common origins. The principle of reincarnation being key and Buddhism essentially being an offshoot of the more generic Hinduism, and Shintoism clearly also having Buddhist/Taoist influences.

Hinduism is clearly the worst of the lot as it imposes the concept of caste systems, which one can hardly move out of as a person born in India. The panopticon of so many gods and goddesses which resemble quite a bit all the human failings that we also saw in the Ancient Greek and Roman pantheons make this religion little more than the idolisation of anything from cows, to rats, to false idols and quite possibly demons. It has some roots in historical realities that took place long ago, but the process of “Chinese telephone” that played out over the ages has reduced it to a fantastic nonsensical bunch of disjointed fables.

Shintoism and Buddhism tend to be at least generally pacifist and their belief in reincarnation and veneration of ancestors is not at terrible odds with Christianity, but it is a far less complete guide to life and has far less morality in it than Catholicism. The overall attempt at achieving a total absence of desire is also the pursuit of permanent death, though some Buddhists will deny this, ultimately, that is what Nirvana means. And that kind of mindset is not exactly conducive to a particular virtue of caring for others, your extended family (besides elders holding a position of authority) or any other specific virtues, though overall Shintoist and Buddhists tend to be far more reliable than Hindus, who are not compelled to be honest at all.

Zen Buddhism and Taoism

Is a more separate aspect, of buddhism, and could be considered more a philosophy than a religion, being somewhat similar to stoicism, although ultimately more positive than stoicism. It concentrates on doing the best you can at any given moment, in any given situation. The general concept is also relatively pacifistic in nature, but able to respond with violence when or if threatened.

Protestantism

This is a degradation and secularisation of Christianity (Catholicism) and is wholly responsible for only almost entirely negative results, to wit:

• The adoption of contraceptive
• The permission of divorce
• Which directly leads to sex before marriage
• Which directly leads to sex mainly for fun instead of daily for procreation
• Which directly leads to seeing children as a burden
• Which directly leads to abortion
• The extended and continuing “progressive” agenda of liberalism
• Which leads to the adoption of a veneer of “Christianity” that has “personal interpretation” as the only rule
• Which leads to the over 40,000 “denominations” of watered down, irrational and nonsensical versions of faux-christianity
• Has been directly responsible for placing emotions above reason, a total inversion of actual Christian (Catholic) dogma, which is no surprise given that its original creator Luther stated that “Reason is the whore of the devil” and in fact, generally speaking, Protestants are indoctrinated in their false religion to the extent thatchy are literally incapable of changing their mind based on objective facts that contradict their emotional comfort zones, similarly to Muslims in this regard, appeals to logic fall on deaf ears.
• The acceptance, eventual request for “equality” and “recognition” and ultimately forced “celebration” of deviant sexual behaviour and mental illness, like homosexuality and transgenderism respectively.
• The shielding and “protecting” of Israel and the jewish masters that run the USA as being their “greatest ally” whilst denying the reality of the Talmudic Jewish religion, which have been brilliantly and concisely described by Rob Unz, himself a Jew, here: The Jewish Plot to Enslave Humanity.

Eastern “Orthodoxy”

Among all the religions described, Eastern “Orthodox” are the closest to Catholicism, diverging mostly on a few rarefied theological principles of little practical consequence and the main one being the rejection of the Pope as supreme leader of Christianity, which is a ridiculous reason since Popes existed for all the 1021 years previous to their schism, and were accepted by all as the supreme leaders. Something that was in any case affirmed and even reaffirmed multiple times, including a few hundred years after the schism. But overall their fruits are not as grand or positive as Catholicism, primarily also because they are essentially an insular religion that has strong national identities. Greek “Orthodox” are not in much of any kind of “communion” with Russian “Orthodox”, which in turn are not in much communion with Romanian “Orthodox” or Lithuanian “Orthodox”, and so on. So:

• Their influence and spreading of the gospel has been weak, and their defence of Christianity abysmal when confronting the Muslims,
• with whom they ganged up to try and kill the very Catholics that came to their aid some 41 years AFTER the schism. Betraying and murdering the Catholics three crusades in a row and then bitching and crying to this day when the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople (and did so in a relatively mild way, by the way).
• They also failed to secure their own lands that had been taken over by the Muslims and when after 200 years the Catholics who protected those lands with contributions from Europe could no longer afford to do so refused to take ownership of all the fortified structured the Catholics had built for them and let those lands descent into Islam.
• And today they are “in communion” with the fake “Catholics” who are actually Freemasons and Satanists (but I repeat myself), led by Arch-heretic and probably never-was-Catholic fake Pope Bergoglio, making them not just schismatics but also heretics too.

Despite all this, the Orthos are the closest to modelling reality AFTER the remaining Catholics.

Paganism

This is just a LARP (Live Action Role Playing Game) With occasional Cos-play aspects (People who get dressed up as fictional comic book characters at fantasy conventions). No one actually “believes” in Odin, or Freya, or Apollo, or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl, or Cit-Bolon-Tum, they just pretend to. No one would give up their life rather than denounce one of these fake “Gods”, while hundreds of thousands if not millions have become martyrs for Christ over the last two millennia.

Returning to the baseline point

If you are wondering how we went from a podcast on feminism to the differences between religions, then I’d say it’s safe to assume that you have not been able to follow the logical thread and I advise you to go back and review it, but the overriding point is that since religion (as a model of objective reality) is the only way that morality can be defined in a way that is valid (assuming there is a God) then looking at the religions of the world is paramount in order to understand which one is best and:

1. Best models reality, and
2. Produces the best result for humanity at large

And if you think that Catholicism too is invalid, as are all the other religions (and Catholicism expressly states this, all other religions are false) then you have to note that the ABSENCE of any religion, including even ones like Islam has invariably resulted in massive degradation and mass murder. The Atheists of communism are responsible for over 100 million murders in just the last century alone. In short, the BEST thing that has ever happened to humanity at large, and by a HUGE margin, id Catholicism, and absolutely every aspect of human history demonstartes it in aces all the way.

So… in that context, women have a role that is pretty clearly understood, and is frankly better than any other system, including the current one that has ever existed on this Earth.

In Catholicism women are:

• Protected (including from their own irrationality and wild emotions)
• Cherished
• Accommodated inasmuch as a man is generally able to, so as to make their life as easy and comfortable as possible
• Shielded from the general ugliness of the world as much as a man is generally able to do so
• Treated with respect

Commensurate with these benefits also come various duties, which generally speaking are:

• Accepting the fact that generally speaking (and if they have been wise in their choice of husband) their husband, though an imperfect human being will do whatever he does PRIMARILY to benefit his family, his children and his wife and himself, in THAT order.
• Accepting the fact that being generally more practical and given their instinct to place their family before themselves, absent a quite large gap in IQ where the woman is considerably smarter and wiser, a man will tend to mostly make good decisions for their shared future and while this will not always be the case, a good husband will also listen to a wife’s concerns if she has valid ones.
• Accept that generally speaking, she should overall be more in charge of the day to day running of the household and the raising of children, particularly in their early years.
• Be a positive, nurturing, supportive and respectful mate to her husband.

It does not mean a woman cannot work if she has that inclination, but surely, as a general rule, no role, no job, is more important than being a mother, and given this consideration, all other concepts of work or career become subjugate to it.

In essence, Catholicism recognises what has been demonstrated in the podcast I refer to at the start, that essentially, women are less capable of making important decisions and follow through with corresponding action for the benefit of civilisation as a whole than men are and this difference is notable, important and enough to determine if a civilisation thrives or dies.

Just as you would not want children to run industry, government or the military, neither should women. And just as you wouldn’t want children to be able to vote (because they would be fooled by literally every nonsensical scam and lie that politicians would tell them) neither should women, and essentially for the same reasons. They are not really equipped to have thought the issues through and be able to consider the ramifications, nor are they as capable at implementing any of the necessary systems that civilisation requires, from enforcing law and order to constructing nuclear power plants, and no, the rare exceptions of women who might be capable to, do not exist in any meaningful numbers and do not, as a whole, have any meaningful impact on the greater society at large. Which is not to say they do not exist and should not be celebrated when they do produce some meaningful contribution. St. Joan of Arc being one of many examples one could mention. But every one Joan of Arc, we have a hundred or a thousand St. Pauls or St Adrianus, or even just non-saint Jean-Parisot Le Vallette, or Nikola Tesla.

You might not LIKE the conclusions I describe here, but I think it is really quite impossible to dispute them. And as such, it makes far more sense to accept them and work sensibly towards working together to create a far more Catholic world than we have now.