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.
On Raising Girls
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.
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.
No related posts.
By G | 17 January 2024 | Posted in Believe, Catholicism, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary