Social Commentary « The Kurgan Blog

Giuseppe Filotto Logo

Special Operations & Exploration

Archive for the ‘Social Commentary’ Category

On the Spanish Inquisition

Vox posted on the lies told by Sabrina Penty of the Daily Mail online from the UK concerning the Spanish Inquisition.

You can correct Sabrina’s lies and mischaracterisation of Catholicism, the Spanish people and the Spanish Inquisition specifically but letting her know at her email address posted under her name on the article in question: [email protected]

She is a “foreign” correspondent, and if I had to guess, I would guess she may be a Jewish Israeli. but that’s just a guess of course. Apparently she also reported on South Africa, and studied in the UK so she may be South African, or perhaps just living outside UK. Why do I assume she’s Jewish? We’ll get to that.

Now, let me explain the viciousness of the absolute nonsense she peddles, and why it is obviously intentional falsehoods that she peddles and not a simple “error”. The alternative is that she is so incompetent, or mentally deficient, that allowing her near writing instruments like pens or other sharp objects may constitute a crime of negligence for the safety of herself and others.

For hundreds of years, people were burned at the stake, stretched to death, or otherwise tortured for the sole reason that they were not Catholic.

The Spanish Inquisition is considered to be one of the most shameful and grotesque periods in Roman Catholic history. According to some modern estimates, around 150,000 people were prosecuted for various offences during the three-century duration of the reign of terror, of whom between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed after enduring some of the most spine chilling acts of torture imaginable.

She starts off with an absolute lie. How can we prove it? Well, but using the very thing she pretends or implies to have consulted.

Extensive archival material contains accounts of torture victims’ cries and descriptions of funeral pyres, atrocities which continue to horrify historians to this day.

Those of you who have read Reclaiming the Catholic Church, will be aware that I covered the Spanish Inquisition in some detail, by referencing the largest archive in the world of not just the Spanish, but Portuguese and Roman Inquisition too.

The data I had at the time of writing was from April 2019, but as a result of today’s post I went to look up what progress has been made since.

This is from their website:

The Early Modern Inquisition Database is an ongoing project to register trials from the Spanish, Portuguese and Roman Inquisitions. As of October 2021 it contains more than 108.000 entries with information on 100.000 trials from Portugal and Spain.

The first version of the database is planned to be released in the first half of 2022.

and:

In 2015 data on more than 31.000 trials in the Portuguese Inquisition was added from the records of the Portuguese National Archives. Cleaning and coding of this data is ongoing.

As I am not aware the first version has been released, I assume they have been delayed. The difference is about 7,000 cases have been added but we can’t know yet if to the Spanish, Portuguese or Roman Inquisition, or most likely a mixture of the three. Though possibly they are mostly from the Roman one since that was looked at last.

At any rate, from that summary you can see that the Spanish Inquisition contains approximately 69,000 cases, the Portuguese one at least 31,000 cases, which means the Roman one must contain about 8,000 cases.

So, right from the get go, she has more than doubled the archival cases we actually have from 69,000 to 150,000. She covers her tracks by saying “some modern estimates”, but that’s like someone saying “by some modern opinions, Sabrina has had sex with 1,200 men.” In other words, it’s pure bullshit.

Nevertheless, the Spanish Inquisition can be divided into roughly two periods:

From 1480 to 1560 (80 years) where documentation was less thorough, and then from 1540 to 1700, where documentation was basically complete (which also goes to show the Catholic Church took EXTREME pains to make sure everything was properly documented and done according to the rules of the time). So there is a period from about 1540 to 1560 where the documenting was basically increased and made far more thorough.

The Highest estimated of the total number of prosecutions, are as per the Tables below (reproduced from RTCC).

Let’s now look at the two most touted “Holocausts”:

The burning alive of women for the crime of being pretty, not responding sexually to the advances of some predatory churchman, etcetera, etcetera, and,
The Burning alive of poor, innocent Jews who did absolutely nothing wrong except fail to convert to Catholicism.

Pleae consider the plight of these poor thousands of souls we have all been told were first tortured to near death for fun, then burnt alive.

Now let’s look at the actual numbers that we have definite and definitive figures for, a hundred year period from 1540 to 1640:

Continued from RTCC:

Nor was it quite the holocaust of the middle ages some Jewish academics present it as, given that the total number of Jews executed under the inquisition for the period was 16. Keep in mind that Marranos where people who were pretending to be Christians in order to continue trading and in most cases make actual war alliances with Muslims, in order to fight the Christian Spaniards who were actively reclaiming their land from the Saracens.

She continues:

While the Jewish population in Spain was viciously targeted during the Spanish Inquisition, the religious fervour of the Catholic Monarchs also led to the persecution of Muslims and protestants.

In 1507, when Francisco Cardinal Jimenez de Cisneros was named gran inquisitor, he promoted the suppression of the Muslim population of Spain with the same zeal that Torquemada had directed at Jews.

Perhaps hoping everyone forgets that Protestants didn’t even exist until 1521 and that it was a German Monk that was probably a Crypto-Jew trying to yet again destroy the Catholic Church.

But luckily, I foresaw the usual lies of Protestant, Jews and Muslims against Catholics, and in RTCC I ended the section on the Spanish Inquisition thusly:

On average then, a high overall estimate is that less than 3% of all trials led to an actual execution, meaning the death toll over a period of some 220 years was approximately of 13 people a year.

Contrast this with the period between 1530 and 1610, during which the English averaged 750 executions per year, many for petty crimes, for a total of some 60,000 deaths in an 80-year period. And that doesn’t take into account the many thousands of executions of Catholics prior to this period, by decree of King Henry VIII (including 2 of his wives).

Now, back to Sabrina, why to I assume she is Jewish? Well, because Jews have been the sworn enemies of Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) from the very start, and have been absolutely instrumental in infiltrating the Church with Communists (Communism is an entirely Jewish creation, as anyone who has studied Karl Marx or the Russian “revolution” [i.e. Jewish takeover and the killing of the Tsar] knows), homosexuals, freemasons, Carbonari, Illuminati, and so on.

The ploy of the Pharisees that did not convert to Christianity but continued to worship Satan (again, this is not hyperbole, it is admitted by the biggest Rabbis of Israel that their God is Satan, the ruler of this world, not God the Father, and they also believe Jesus is in hell in a lake of boiling excrement, please do NOT take my word for it. Look it up. Do some research of your own), and in doing so mastered the art of subterfuge, lies and duplicity, which is still the motto of Mossad to this day. By playing the victim at every turn, they leverage the sympathy and ethic from other human beings that they lack towards the entire rest of humanity, because of their dogmatic religious beliefs.

So, given that her article has not one source, is filled with massive exaggerations, lies and distortions and pages of detailed horrors the Catholics supposedly did with glee and greed in their heart, I suspect Sabrina is simply trying to push the narrative of her people. But I could, of course, be wrong. Perhaps she is just one of the goyim that are paid to run the narrative on behalf of her masters.

In any case, the lies told about the Catholic Church, Catholicism in general and so on, are and have, mostly been pushed by Jewish agitators behind the scenes. In RTCC, I also explain how, unbelievable as it sounds, the main architect behind the Vatican II abominable usurpation of the Vatican by Satanists in 1958 was actually orchestrated in its very inception, by a Jew, one Jules Isaac. You can read an archived article about it here.

But again, the narrative will just be that while the jews are all allowed to spit at Christians, revile, lie and persecute us, as they did in Gaza by bombing Christian Churches (as well as hospitals and schools), we Catholics, are just vicious anti-semites if we dare say any of the factual things that Jews do as a generalised group. And while exceptions always exist in all directions, generalisations are still statistical facts.

And never mind their actual dogmatic religious beliefs, like say, what they think it’s ok to do to little children. According to their holy Talmud, mind you, not just me saying so.

So that is where my suspicions about Sabrina come from. In case you wondered.

Anyway, she really is a crappy reporter if she couldn’t even get the basics right, which, of course, is par for the course for “journalists”.

By G | 20 August 2024 | Posted in Believe, Catholicism, Christianity, Clown World, Heretics, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within, The Jews

On Art

Vox posted this on his blog:

You cannot judge the artist by the art. The art always betrays the artist. Both of these statements are true.

Which doesn’t necessarily mean he believes or agrees with it. It may have just been a discussion prompt as he asked for comments on SG.

My reply was:

No. Both statements cannot be true. It’s a basic error of logic to think so.
If the art always betrays (or shall we say informs on) the artist then it provides information on him to some degree and therefore that information can absolutely be judged and therefore, by extension, so can the artist. The fact it’s not an exact science does not make it invalid.

I also added that over the years I have noticed that I tend to have a rather instinctive sense about artists, based on my reaction to their art.

It definitely refined over time, so while as a teenager I read most of Arthur C. Clarke’s SF books and a lot of Asimov’s I was left increasingly disappointed by Clarke’s work, finding it obscurely unsatisfying and unrelatable at a human level, and Asimov’s too dry to really be applicable to humanity.

Turns out Clarke was a pedophile and Asimov raised one. Which i only discovered on the last decade or two.

I never bought a book by John Scalzi or Neil Gaiman either because I read a paragraph or two of their books and had a visceral reaction of creepy nerdy vibe. I knew nothing about either man and their work was being pushed as being good at the time. I bought and never could get past the first few pages of the Mists of Avalon by Zimmer Bradley, even though I knew nothing of the abuse her and her pedophile husband had inflicted on their own daughter at the time.

I have never eead a single page of anything George R.R. Martin has written, and I never will.

There are paintings, architecture and styles of writing that give me an instant sense of disgust on some level and that I want nothing to do with.

I cannot claim any deeply conscious aspect of this. In fact I put it down to the same unconscious sense I may get from first meeting a person, when that sense is similarly negative.

With living humans in the flesh, I know it generally is an effect of thin slicing, which I think was about the only real aspect that Malcom Gladwell defined in his book Blink. His other work is really not very impressive and perhaps Blink too could have been reduced to an article length concept. The point is that I have travelled a lot, observed a lot of different people from different cultures and studied obsessively things like various philosophies, hypnosis, what little is known of the human brain and mind, done martial arts for decades and worked in life or death close protection for a number of years.

All things that will tend to expose you to many different human behaviours, and it is inevitable you develop a certain ability to spot deceptive or otherwise negative behaviour or intent.

But when it comes to art, absent the artist in the flesh, I think any ability I may have for discernment is likely tied to a sense of beauty that is, at least on some level, connected to the divine.

Beauty is one of the classical virtues, and also the most subtle, and in a way, the one closest to love. It was by noticing sunsets and flowers, on hikes, in the city, generally in life, that I first understood at an experiential level, that creation was indeed created, and not accidental, as well as that it was created both with a vast intelligence, and a loving one.

I had done the math years earlier, when still a teenager, so I knew the atheist theory was nonsensical, nevertheless, I remained essentially Zen-Agnostic for many years since, because all i could tell was that it was intelligently and apparently mostly benevolently created, but little beyond that. You can verify this if you read my The Face on Mars, where I stated that I was aware of an intelligence behind creation, even as I discussed things from an almost entirely secular scientific perspective.

In short; the art ALWAYS exposes the artist, and as such, the observer, whether consciously or not, and wether correctly or erroneously, always judges the artist.

Which is as it should be.

By G | 16 August 2024 | Posted in Social Commentary

Secular Dating Advice

The videos of Orion Teraban are generally good advice and this one is too, concerning what he refers to as the present day dating market.

However, it is not correct to say that things were really any different ten or even twenty years ago.

I have been essentially out of the dating market since early 2017 now, but I was certainly in it from about 2004 or 2005 until then, with a hiatus of some 5 years or so between 2008-9 and early 2013 which is how long my second marriage lasted. Before that, online dating wasn’t really a thing for me because I had been in a long relationship since before the internet until that ended and I met my first wife shortly thereafter, which sort of imploded about the 2004/2005 point.

There are some observations I found interesting in comparing my own experience with what Orion states in the above-linked video, and as these may be useful to younger men that are still in the process, I thought it would be useful to share them.

The first point is that the advice concerning the having high hopes but low expectations is absolutely correct and is probably pivotal if you’re not going to he a bitter and resentful weirdo. Personally, maybe because of my slightly autistic but high IQ perspective, this was never really an issue after a certain point. At first my main frustration was really more about my perception that women’s brains appeared not to function properly. Logic appeared to be a mystery to them and when you layered that on top of the basic 30 point IQ communication gap that I tend to have with most people, it honestly felt as if I was trying to have a meaningful relationship with monkeys.

If you are a woman reading, I realise how all this sounds misogynistic, etc. etc. But your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, because this is not about you, but rather my lived experience. So, you can either continue reading and possibly learn something about male and female interactions that may be useful to you, or you can get offended and stop reading or rage against it, either way, my life and perspective will not change one iota. So, comport yourself accordingly, and consider this your lesson number one in basic logic.

Now, returning to us, men, the experience felt disturbing to me because on the one hand I had the vague idea (instilled by boomer lies) that men and women were supposed to have equivalent brains, and on the other, my lived experience was that I was generally dealing with creatures that were possibly more akin to a pet you can have sex with than a real, thinking, human being.

It seemed to me that the female brain was hardly at all interested in any of the abstract things that interested me on almost any level, and were instead apparently fixated almost entirely on the human interaction level, to the point that gossip, drama, and needless emotional negativity consumed their lives. The only positive aspect of this was the sexual component, in which they could become as interested as I was, even if they started out relatively tame. Once I demonstrated to them certain aspects of their own physical and/or mental sexuality they had either not explored or encountered before, they generally speaking became, sexually at least, quite entertaining. And they quite often also mistook sexual compatibility with being deeply in love. A facet I tried very hard to prevent them from confusing, certainly when I was not interested in them in that way.

I did not want to have a pet-like relationship where the main component of the relation was essentially only great sex. It got to the point where I started to worry that I would end up seeing women in general as just that, creatures to have sex with but not even bother trying to engage in any other meaningful discourse. I knew this was not reality either, though it also quickly became obvious that the boomer lie of equality between male and female brains was just that: an outrageous lie.

As a result I also took up reading about the differences between male and female brains and although the literature on it is scant (because God forbid anyone tells the truth, doing so gets you cancelled if not incarcerated these days) one of the more useful books on it is Mapping the Mind by Rita Carter. Though I note with some cynicism that the linked book is an “updated and revised” edition, so I am not sure if it still says the things it used to or if the “updating” has resulted in a sanitising of any politically “unacceptable” facts.

At any rate, the reality is that the male and female brains have noticeable structural differences. And once you know this, a basic grasp of logic will immediately tell you two things:

One: they will perform differently

Two: they will have developed (or been created) differently for a reason that is valid in reality, regardless of what political narratives by homoglobos, boomers, satanists, feminists, or anyone else, will tell you to the contrary.

In large part, that is how I developed my Caveman Theory, (see books I wrote) and using it as a model certainly proved very useful in my life.

What changed for me was that I began to study the women I dated more as a scientist might, and noted a number of behaviours that while irrational in the specifics of my circumstances with them, had an original logical and biological imperative behind it. Once I catalogued these behaviours and recognised their origins as per my model of reality, it was then just a matter of on the one hand accepting reality as it is, which was the easy part for me, and on the other, reconciling what my tolerance for humanity could be raised to without me losing my mind.

I discovered that I could genuinely enjoy the company of women, regardless of what I would have labelled as their chicken-headed behaviour a few years earlier, as long as it was somewhat limited, or at least when they had a certain level of self-awareness. Women that were aware of their irrational behaviour were quite entertaining and even endearing at times, which made up at least for a bit of the times they behaved essentially insanely from a male perspective.

The change was that I had gone from processing women as:

beings incapable of reason that had only sex and a generic companionship level to offer for the relative trouble having them around entailed

To:

Partial aliens that had biological motivations stuck in reasons that originated from millennia in the past if not millions of years ago.

Suddenly they were interesting beings again, and I could appreciate them not just generally but also at the individual level.

Yet, I was also aware that becoming overly invested in one of them that did not cross the threshold of minimum ability to reason and be self-aware that I required, was a stupid thing to do and entirely my fault.

This realisation was of course gradual and only improved over time. Nor did it necessarily make me aware of various pitfalls that can be encountered, such as getting involved with narcissists that have oscar-like acting abilities, and ignoring various red flags because you’re into exploring all the facets of this partially alien species.

The outcome, from a purely secular standpoint is indeed a rather brutal one. You will bounce from one woman to the next, leaving behind the ones who you can’t tolerate beyond a certain level or who vice-versa can’t tolerate you.

It is true that in this purely secular mode, it becomes easy enough to bed various women and it is true that in that milieu, you find plenty of women who also are just interested in the sex and not much else. Certainly I had plenty of encounters where the main factor was just to satisfy our respective curiosity of each other’s bodies. Those situations usually lasted no more than a few days, and sometimes only mere hours.

But then you realise too that even though you are now able to fulfil pretty much any purely sexual desire you may have, there is still something missing.

Considering women as a kind of partially alien species still does not permit that level of intimacy that gives you a sense of deep fulfilment. Yet, at the same time, and paradoxically, as so many deep truths are, if all you focus on is your desire for that deep connection, you are almost certain to never get it, or experience it, other than perhaps only as your own delusion; which is all the more devastating when the illusion inevitably collapses, and the faux-relationship ends.

It was then that I realised that the only thing left in terms of relationship challenge and goals was the very thing that boomers have advised my generation against all our lives: creating a family and having children.

My first attempt at this succeeded only insofar as my daughter was created, but failed by every other metric after which I had a revelatory experience and began to study the reality I had encountered concerning the reality of a Loving God I had never really believed in before.

In reading parts of the New Testament I realised that the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman that led to the creation of functional families, was not only absolutely correct and made perfect sense, but it was also so far removed from my own experience and even way of seeing things that it might as well be in another Galaxy.

I resolved to simply drift through life with whatever female companionship I could tolerate. I had no specific need for a permanent relationship, personal loyalty beyond a few (but relatively absolute) aspects, or even much in the way of connection beyond any woman I had anything to do with not irritating me past a certain level.

I did not try to mask any of these realities and I still wasn’t short of female companionship, but I was mostly indifferent to it beyond some biological and emotional basic needs for sex, some human connection, and a certain level of peace.

Gradually however, as I deepened my understanding of God, and concluded the Christian God was the real one, and more specifically the Catholic God, and even more specifically that only the sedevacantists were still actual Catholics, a natural, organic, and quite honestly mysterious change came over me, and in some way, mysterious and unknowable in human words, yet, life, God, myself, and the Universe, all seemed to conspire to get another, extremely unlikely one, to come closer to me over time and then, all of a sudden, in one day, move in with me.

The first few years were certainly difficult, and there are plenty of practical issues left even today, but for the most part, the emotional and intellectual ones we have worked out. And in some ways though we have been married 7 years already, it all feels as if it happened a few weeks ago. And in other ways it feels as if we have been together for 40 years.

The difference between my marriage now, the only one I did as a baptised Catholic in a Church with all the correct Catholic procedures for it by a real Catholic priest and also a Bishop, and the relationships I had before, is not something that is in any way easy to put into words.

What I can say without ANY hesitation at all is that it beats all the other experiences put together in terms of fulfilment and peace it brings to my life.

The connection is real and deep and although generally speaking my wife is not especially interested in astronomy, martial arts, or even, the theological details of Catholicism, I certainly can converse with her about pretty much any topic and she is more than capable of keeping up with any of them, being as there is no IQ communication gap, and this is undoubtedly absolutely fundamental for me. And although women on that IQ range definitely have a bunch of quirks, some of them truly trying for an impatient man like myself, (for example, she simply has no conception of time, and can take hours to get ready then sometimes do it in minutes, but it’s a process so random that no computer will ever be able to model it), I can handle them, because the positives she brings —in far more important aspects of life— clearly outweigh any minor irritants.

But none of this can transmit the sensation of connection I have with her that goes beyond anything I can explain in secular terms. We just barely even have the words in any language to even address it, and I don’t intend to try.

My best advice to you is to first discover the truth about God, the rest will take care of itself.

My book Caveman Theory is geared towards secular people, but the thread in it is based on pure logic and if you can do logic well, the natural place you end up at, by the way, is the same one that Catholics have taken for centuries:

Proper marriage and making children.

May you find your right path.

By G | 13 August 2024 | Posted in Believe, Caveman Theory, Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary

UK Met Police Chief incites violence

As you may be aware, the UK has recently decided to threaten its own citizens to the extent that their account was banned by X for breaking their terms of service with regard to inciting violence and hatred.

Yes it’s real.

And you can see why, when you listen to this absolute puppet of globohomo:

And you look at how his police force and the crown prosecution services have been operating in UK. One example follows amongst many:

He’s not the only one, by the way. A lady got 29 months for pushing a trash bin towards the police cordon. She even fell over.

Compared to this:

If this kind of injustice is not DESIGNED to incite hatred and violence, I don’t know what is.

In fact, they are now saying you will be arrested and prosecuted merely for having eyes in your head.

Which really just proves this:

And it looks like Elon is at least making the situation more known about:

Including in meme format:

Now, I certainly don’t trust Elon, a guy who dresses as Satan’s Champion for Halloween is a little suspect, as have been some of the relationships he’s been in, and according to CDAN he may be a meth-head too. He certainly has played the role of a ticket-taker anyway, but it’s also true that his son was transgendered by the mind-virus of woke into pretending he’s female and that does seem to have potentially woken Elon to the reality of Clown World. At any rate, it’s possible. Maybe.

If, and it’s a big if, Elon really did turn to the side of reality and truth, it could be a real thorn in the side of the Satanists at the top, but never forget that their tried and tested and most successful strategy is to play both sides of the coin, and the edge too. So Elon may just be the gatekeeper used to net all the disgruntled majority into a sense of impotence-dominated “there will be a saviour” mentality.

No one is coming to save you, except you.

Become the saviour of your own life, your own family, your own people that you want to see.

Mark Rowley, the Met Police Chief, by his own standards (well, the ones he has been told to state and promote, anyway, personally I doubt the weedy creature has an actual spine, never mind a real personal opinion) should immediately arrest himself for inciting racial hatred as a result of his police officers following a code of conduct that inevitably can only lead to racial division and hatred by unjustly arresting and prosecuting people with a white skin in disproportionate numbers and severity for minor infractions when compared to ridiculously light sentences for crimes committed by people with a darker skin.

No one still in possession of basic reasoning faculties and the grasp of logic can deny that this strategy is intentionally designed to cause the very conditions they are pretending to be against.

By G | 13 August 2024 | Posted in Clown World, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within

On Success with Women, evaluating types of men and IQ

Vox made an interesting post on Chris Langan.

It’s definitely worth a read.

I find it interesting primarily for reasons of philosophical intellectual differences I note between people of high IQ.

It’s the one place where the uniqueness of a human mind can become really quite interesting; if you’re into noticing such things anyway, which I am. A little explanation of what I assume is Vox’s general perspective, as well as how mine differs follows, all of which is merely a preamble to explaining what I think are the differences in how Vox and myself rate Chris Langan; allegedly the smartest man on Earth.

Vox’s SSH is the result of his observations of men within various social settings. Whether he was influenced by the PUA nomenclature or even their theory or not is unknown to me and somewhat irrelevant. The process of evaluating other men en masse is a relatively natural one, at least for men who are essentially unconcerned with other humans for the most part, aside how to mostly be left alone by the vast majority of them. I.e. what Vox has labelled the Sigma.

His version is far more detailed and specific about the sexual aspect. My own version of the SSH is something I came up with long before Vox’s version or knowing anything about him or PUAs. I talked about it before, along with a version of the female SSH I came up with much later.

The point I find interesting is that Vox’s version of the SSH is indeed more detailed and more clear in defining large swathes of the male population, but I think his generic motivation for noticing is probably quite different from my own.

I can’t speak to his motives but I would assume they are rather rarefied and somewhat detached from any specific issue. It’s more the approach if a butterfly collector I would assume.

My own version was far more akin to the intent of a hunter, identifying potentially dangerous animals, generic ones that may be useful or irrelevant and other hunters, which likewise could be dangerous, useful or irrelevant.

As a result, my version of the SSH only had three types of men:

Alphas: The natural leaders in a group. Generally my perspective is taken mostly from a very primitive and physical aspect. My Alphas differ somewhat from Vox’s in that I was primarily concerned with the physical alphas. Some captains of industry that are Alphas in every other respect, become practically irrelevant when the SHTF in a physical confrontation. This was probably a combination of growing up mostly in rather primitive societies, doing martial arts pretty much from the time I could walk, and working in close protection in South Africa for some years. The Alphas in this world can literally lead gangs, have other men do violence on their behalf and so on.

Betas: pretty much everyone that wasn’t an alpha. A very few may be technically proficient in physical confrontations, but this generally limits itself to the individual level, and I became relatively proficient at not worrying too much about any confrontation one on one quite early in my life. I was, of course, aware of there being a large variety of sub-categories in this one, but my approach was to deal with each type as they came up. Some were useful, (bravos) some annoying, (gammas) some irrelevant (omegas) and most a mix of the above (deltas) that could be useful, annoying or irrelevant depending on the specific situation, but overall, as a class they were not dangerous in general terms.

Scouts: my own class. These could be unpredictable and dangerous if you got on their wrong side, for whatever reason, and if dangerous could be a far more formidable enemy than an alpha even if generally they would not have anything like the social resources of an Alpha. They also tend to be chamaleontic and able to infiltrate other cultures or societies more successfully than any other type.

The Chris Langan’s evaluation

Vox’s is in keeping with his way of seeing the world. He gives Langan his due stating it is clear that the man is smarter than he is, yet notes rhat Langan’s lack of success with women is also a fundamental aspect of his mostly Delta status. And I think this is entirely correct. Langan’s biggest chip on his shoulder is that no one is smart enough to evaluate his grand theory of everything, (CTMU) and paradoxically, that no one is giving him the accolades he deserves. Which is fully in keeping with a Delta’s concern for being respected for their work as well as having someone tell them what to do.

As for having the thought that most people are too dumb to follow my ideas, that’s nothing new to me either. I published my concepts on The Face on Mars, Systema, the Catholic Church and Catholicism, and relationships between men and women, and then, once done, I can’t even be bothered to self-promote enough to make even a modest living from it. Which is the difference between Langan and myself, regardless of IQ.

More importantly, from my perspective, I don’t rate Langan at all on any scale that I care about.

Whether he is more or less intelligent than I am is irrelevant from my perspective. What I look at is his effectiveness. And in this respect I believe he is essentially a non-entity. I don’t mean fame-wise or even society-wise. I mean on a personal level. And while I am not in Langan’s head, I think it’s fair to say that it is fairly obvious he is far from pleased with his achievements in life, by his own metrics, whatever those are.

And he certainly is less successful than I am by my own metrics.

* He does not seem to have fathered any children (at least not that I could find any evidence of it)

* He seems to have been unable to let go of the resentment built up over his hard childhood (something I managed though I think his situation was far harder than anything I had to endure)

* I believe he is not wealthy enough to have at least a comfortable life, I may be wrong on this, but given it’s just him and his wife it seems to me he is still chasing fame and fortune in his 70s.

He also had a very hard childhood, so I am not denigrating the man, I am merely stating what are objective facts as I see them.

I also read his CTMU and frankly, it is nothing revolutionary. First of all he uses a lot of unnecessarily convoluted self-defined language in a dense format. This is both unnecessary and a sign of some degree of showmanship.

While creating neologisms for efficiency can be useful, packing a half-dozen of then in every sentence or two is not the way to be efficient. Nor the way to be understood by people you deem to be a lot dumber than you are. My IQ was measured at 152 and 157, but none of my books are anything that is too complicated for a person of normal intelligence to follow.

Could I make the books shorter? Sure. Probably by 80%, but then the number of people that could appreciate them would be minimal. In fact, one of my better achievements is Believe! Which at only 98 pages has nevertheless resulted in over 100 people getting baptised into Sedevacantist Catholicism (aka actual Catholicism).

Vox also rated Jordan Peterson as smart (which he is technically, with an IQ in the 120-130 range) so he is entirely correct, but I have largely ignored the guy because he is clearly an only partly sane occultist, pathological liar and grifting conman.

Vox’s more highbrow perspective is certainly more in keeping with what society gauges as being success, intelligence, and achievement, but none of those social metrics are anything that I ever thought of as being particularly important in general, and certainly not for me specifically.

I find it interesting that given the difference in childhoods, Vox, Langan and myself also seem to have rather different ways of measuring success and effectiveness, even if broadly speaking we see the same things (covid scam, 9/11 inside job, chemtrails, etc).

It is sobering to see that emotional events that we go through in childhood may be significant for the rest of our lives, regardless of IQ. This is not news to me, as I have been intimately aware of this aspect of humanity for a long time and confirmed it many, many times thanks to the hypnosis work I do. But it is good to remind ourselves of the weaknesses we all carry around, even, or especially, the ones most hidden to ourselves.

By G | 11 August 2024 | Posted in Brain-Mind Functionality, Catholicism, Caveman Theory, Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, Human Performance, Hypnosis, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, Systema