Skip to content

Anti-vax is anti-science: post-Enlightenment amnesia

Summary: “I do not wish to reduce the sceptical element in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and creeds. Try doubting something else.” C. S. Lewis

I have not had nor do I, for the present, intend to get vaccinated for covid (I had covid last year, #naturalimmunity). My unvaxed state has cost me both money and lost opportunities for work and leisure because I am not free to travel. Consequently I am in a militantly anti-vax frame of mind. This has led me to engage with social media by responding exclusively to posts in praise of the rationality of the vaxed, versus the paranoid irrationality of the unvaxed. I often use some version of the Lewis quotation, advising scepticism regarding global issues. What invariably follows is a tsunami of vituperation from 1990s atheists-inspired midwits, who can’t wait to unload their Dawkins script (it’s obvious that the demand for pro-religious comments exceeds the supply by an order of magnitude).

Although I only claim the right to be sceptical about science, this is treated as synonymous with religious conviction. It is clear that they have learned a little script which they regurgitate at the sound of the religious bell, i.e. religion is the manipulation of weak minds because it is unprovable, but science is rational and unbiased. They might even throw in a bit about falsifiability, meaning scientific mistakes will be identified by peer review. So, the vaxed have “science” on their side, and as we know the covid science is settled. The same way that the science is settled for other projects pushed onto us by the “New World Order” or as they style themselves currently, the Great Resetters, e.g. AGW, mass immigration, trans rights and white privilege…to name a few instruments of their tyranny. All of these phenomemena have data and algorithms that prove the claims of their efficacy. And the imprimatur of the powers-that-be.

But what happens to the science if the scientists have been bought and paid for? Why should I swallow whole the claims of government-paid scientists, when everyone agrees that politicians are venal liars, paid by corporations and banks to make laws that allow them to obtain wealth beyond the dreams of avarice?

Therefore, because government insiders in every country have flouted the laws they impose on us, it is not just a character flaw in the apparachiks, it is falsification of the hypothesis and proof-positive that science is just another “religion”. And I refuse to believe just coz they say so. I am also fond of quoting Pitt the Younger…

White Privilege: itemising the knapsack

The term “white privilege” was promulgated by American academic Peggy McIntosh in her 1987 essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. Her screed was not research but ethnic warfare, being a slanderous attack on Europeans in America, and subsequently everywhere. The knapsack was invisible because there were no data to support her argument, but she knew her thesis was correct. This is similar to “systemic racism”, which applies to organisations against which there are no provable instances of racism, but again since the thesis is proven, the missing data are embedded in the “DNA of the organisation”.

It has taken over three decades, but thanks to research by The National Museum of African American History & Culture (NMAAHC) we now know exactly what are the components of white privilege. The museum has provided a list called, “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States”. The list itemises behaviours and characteristics of white Americans and could be said to constitute white Americans’ privilege.  Coincidentally, many aspects are shared by other European populations – and generally those non-Europeans living in successful countries, i.e. many of them apply to Asians and Africans who live a “white” life.

Furthermore, the list coincides with the targets of the revolutionaries who have sought to inflict as much chaos on ordinary people as they could these last 70 years. Of course, the Church’s hirelings have not defended their flock because they are venal placemen. There are criticisms of the list from a Catholic Social Teaching perspective, tied to America’s proddy roots. But almost every item meets or is close to the natural law standard. Unsurprisingly those whose preferred lifestyle runs contrary to the list do not thrive – regardless of ethnicity – and they project their guilt onto the law-abiding majority.

“White privilege” is warfare by subversion and I reject it in toto.

Women aren’t leaders

Summary: In the natural state women took care of children and men hunted in groups. Hunting is risky and requires cooperation between hunters. Toddlers cannot be reasoned with, but need to be protected from harm, therefore women demand immediate obedience. So women, when looking down the hierarchy are very disagreeable, i.e. “bossy”, but looking up the hierarchy they are highly agreeable (because they are physically vulnerable). This is why women are notoriously bad bosses. The dictatorial behaviour of sundry female states’ attorneys and governors during the scamdemic is typical of ladybosses.

The reason the Church has lasted longer than any other institution is that women are excluded from the C-suite. Of course, the Church has venerated many women since her inception, in particular Our Blessed Mother. But women have never held the key decision-making roles and that is why women cannot become priestesses, because if women were ordained they would eventually become bishops, cardinals and popes. There have been notable women leaders in history, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule (Boadicea, St. Joan of Arc, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher).

There is no doubt that altar girls, women lectors and liturgists are part of the softening-up process to habituate the Church hierarchy to the presence of the ladies. Then, salami slice by salami slice, women will be deaconised, then ordained and that will be that. The Church’s enemies (John 15:18) are pushing hard for wimmin priests because they know nothing will destroy an organisation as surely as a ladyboss. The current Church hierarchy is not keen on lady bishops, but bishops are not motivated by adherence to Christ’s example and tradition. No, their concern is that the presence of women amongst an almost all-homosexual male hierarchy would lead to their outing for crimes against the few remaining altar boys.

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of facebook since 2008, said, “I want every little girl who is told she is bossy, to think instead that she has leadership skills.” (my emphasis) This statement is the apotheosis of why women aren’t natural leaders.

bossy (adj) given to ordering people about; overly authoritative; domineering; micromanaging. leadership (noun) the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal; macromanaging.

It is obvious that being bossy is in no way synonymous with leadership, even in inchoate form. The fact that wahmin think their bossy disposition is indeed unacknowledged leadership shows how unsuited they are for leadership. Being bossy is fine for achieving short-term, low value added results (atavistically, pulling a toddler away from a snake), but you cannot boss those with talent into finding creative solutions. The talented will walk away and become your competition, or if coerced into staying they will not produce anything new, merely work to undermine you.

Once wimmin bring their bossy disposition to the Church, real men will leave immediately. Those who remain will be beta male simps who were habituated to a shrewish mother who dominated their father. It is only the force of the state that that prevents men from reacting in a masculine fashion to these “strong wahmin”.

Another couple of interesting quotations from Sandberg: “Women don’t take enough risks. Men are just ‘foot on the gas pedal.’ We’re not going to close the achievement gap until we close the ambition gap.” This is another false equivalency. Ambition and initiative are not synonyms. In fact women’s “ambition” for resources is naturally unbounded – as divorce settlements show – but they lack the initiative to create value (because they are highly risk-averse). Women always follow where men lead. For example, the Men’s and Ladies’ prizes for tennis are the same, because equality. Men would agree to pool the two prize funds and play in a single tournament, but women would not because no women would be ranked in the top 500.

Sandberg also said, “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.” (my emphasis). This strategy worked for a generation (Sandberg is 50) and was programmed into men by many Paedowood films, but young men are wise to it now. A man who marries a slut once she can’t secure even the short-term attentions of an alpha male is called a “beta provider”. No man is going to pick up the crumbs from 2-200 other men’s tables. As Gen X and Gen Y tramps found out, and Zoomer bikes are going to find out, there will be no escape pod in their 30s with the invisible beta. The internet is full of deprogramming videos for this white knightery, and men can live without a wife, by being celibate or frequenting sex workers. However, even feminists get baby rabies sooner or later, but Chad will be chasing their 20 y-o niece and they’ll be invisible. Without “Plan Beta” many women are going to enter middle age childless.

Usury versus indulgences

One of the most specious arguments for the so-called “reformation” was the Church’s practice of selling indulgences. Prods swapped the small, voluntary purchase of indulgences for the massive compulsory payment of usury. Sadly, now the rest of us have to live in usury world too.

The story goes that the pope (Julius II) gulled the credulous faithful of billions to build his palace next-the-Tiber. So Fr. Luther was rightly indignant in condemning this filching of the Poor’s pocket. Wherever the reformation took hold, i.e. it was supported by the local princelings, they legalised usury, where before it had been condemned as immoral. “But,” the Prods will say, “Luther condemned usury. Gotcha!” Au contraire, this proves Luther was used as a tool by the landed gentry to privatise Church (then common) land and to institute usury. Calvin was a usury enthusiast because the Church was against it (the retard).

Here are the wages of the sin of usury, paid by us all today because Sixteenth Century barons in Germany and Whigs in England could only see as far as the next quarter date when they would be paid interest. Myopic assholes!

Savings in name only…

Compound interest is unnatural

The chart shows that an economy growing at a natural rate of 5% cannot keep pace with a compound interest rate of 5%.
Why don’t the world’s socialist parties complain about usury? Because they are owned by the usurers.

The chart shows that an economy growing at a natural rate of 5% cannot keep pace with a compound interest rate of 5%. Why don’t the world’s socialist parties complain about usury? Because they are owned by the usurers.

With usury you pay twice, or more

The data are in nominal terms. When interest rates are low, cash is scarce and the capital repayments absorb a lot of wages. When interest rates are high, the interest payments absorb all wages, i.e. bankruptcies.

So, to claim that proddyism was a great victory for the working man over popish greed is to profess egregious economic ignorance.

Faithless swishops

What percentage of priests are gay? 40%-60%?

What percentage of bishops are gay? 80-90%?

What percentage of cardinals are gay? 90-95%?

What percentage of popes* are gay? 100!

* I doubt Bergoglio is the pope, but I’m certain masonic hatred of the Church runs through him like a stick of rock. Benedict may be the pope, but he’s a koran-kisser like the other Conciliar “popes”; not a strengthener of the bretheren.

How many of these men believe in a transcendent God? 0%

How many of these men believe in the resurrection of Christ? 0%

How many of these men’s vocations are to the comfort of living in an episcopal residence? 100%

Here are the alternative creeds these creatures try to foist on us, using the Church’s moral authority – which they have despoiled over 50 years with their man-boy love activities:

Usury

Pan-sexuality

Mass migration

Life-destroying lockdowns

COVID vaccine

Altar girls

Women lectors/deacons/priests/bishops/popes

The myth of black victimisation, all the time, everywhere, that explains everything (see Colin Flaherty)

All of the above are instruments to destroy the faith of Catholics and to raze the Catholic Church.

Do not go to Mass if the priest is in any way swishy. Find another parish.

Not Our Brothers in Abraham

The Turkish President has affronted Christianity by repurposing Hagia Sophia as a mosque. Therefore, I expect the bishops to formulate a new and realistic relationship with Islam. The Catholic Church is Christ’s church on earth. Neither Islam nor Judaism are fraternal branches of God’s covenant with Abraham.

Since the bishops will do nothing about this “turkish slap” (the last three “popes“ kissed the koran), Catholics have to act. Therefore, never holiday in Turkey. Greece offers more – unless you want to see the sites where the Turks sold millions of young European women as sex slaves and castrated youths.

Abraham Lincoln said that the test of a man’s character is not under adversity, for most men can bear it. No, he said if you want to know a man’s true character you should give him power and see how he acts.

Beta Males Say, “End Child Benefit! Today!”

In summary, you didn’t have sex with me, so the kid ain’t mine. I’m not paying for your bad choices! Go make the alpha daddy pay or find a charity.

I must have learned about Darwinism and child benefit at about the same time, (when I was 13-14), because my immediate thought on hearing about the latter was, “That’s evolutionary madness”. Of course, now I know Darwinism to be evolutionary madness too. But as a young Catholic I dutifully imbibed the natural selection creed and wondered at what point God ensouled Adam?

The survival of the fittest makes one very straightforward claim i.e. those with genetic characteristics best adapted to their environment have the greatest breeding success. I may not like the capitalistic ecosystem  in which we must live, but those who compel us to live it should honour it in full, and not give us the worst of both worlds.

Women have the eggs, so they choose which man will fertilise them. Their choice of man is supposed to be according to the tenets of natural selection, i.e. will the man be a good provider for her offspring? So he needs access to an abundance of resources. This means he has to be dominant – tall, muscular, able to be aggressive and/or win fights, be physically attractive. So far so easy.

But if the dominant male impregnates her and does not share sufficient resources, because he’s always in demand, then her bad choice Darwinistically falls on her offspring. Or at least it should. But instead of weighing up the attractiveness of the alpha with the probability that he’ll stick around (nearly zero), she can plough on heedless of the consequences of her bad choices. She has the best of both worlds; her sexual partners are all alphas, but she can use state coercion to extract resources from the beta males who are invisible to her. This is egregiously unjust.

In a world operating according to Catholic social teaching*, child benefit is completely immoral because it is an invitation to concupiscence and sloth. In a world that subscribes to Darwinism, it is a programme of dysgenics and societal degeneration. Sadly, in the flour mill of our capitalistic democracy, the easy-to-tax wage workers are pulverised between the nether stone of usury and the upper stone of expropriatory taxation to fund the free shit army and its sexual couplings.

*I mean the true, pre-Vatican II social teachings, not the gay “poz” nonsense spewed out since

Atheists Are Stealing The Church’s Electricity

Atheists looking for a view or two, often say that we need to forget about religion, “because it’s the cause of all the wars and violence in the world”. We need to unburden ourselves of this bronze age hangover and become Enlightened. Once we accept there is no afterlife, we can then focus on being pleasant to one another in this life.

But, if life is just molecules colliding randomly, then being kind is pointless. “Oh, no!”, they may reply, “cooperation is what has allowed human societies to flourish, so we don’t need God to behave. It’s in all our (genes’) interests!” What’s the end result of successful cooperation? The genes of the family/tribe/nation/humanity become more frequent in the global genome. So what!? In a speck of time, bookended by nothingness, what significance does the increased frequency of human genes mean? Nooooooooooothiiiiiiiiiiiing.

Whether human genes dominate the global gene pool, or dinosaur genes dominate, or COVID-19 genes are the most frequent, it means a big teleological duck egg. All genes are made of the same molecules, a guanine molecule is as good in a wasp as a dolphin. As long as guanine increases frequency, the guanine is “happy”. Ditto cytosine, adenine, thymine or uracil. Does anyone feel more strongly about one base in particular?

Where then is the moral argument about behaving in a “humanist” way? The Golden Rule – do unto others? Meaningless to an atheist with the courage of his convictions. Why wouldn’t someone abuse people as he wished, or tribes abuse other tribes? There is no moral imperative in molecules bumping about. There is no reason to be concerned that inflicting pain on someone, or some thing, breaks the Golden Rule, because there is no point to anyone’s or anything’s existence. You may, by reason of molecules bumping about have the perception of extreme mental and physical anguish (for example when islam’s or marx’s true believers come to town), but those sensory signals have no “real” significance. Once a cell/body/tribe/nation/humanity dies, the molecules continue bumping about randomly, just in a different arrangement.

Therefore, atheists should take their belief to its logical conclusion, i.e. life is meaningless and the Golden Rule is the real bronze age hangover. This philosophy has managed to inculcate itself into the early months and final years of life, through “reproductive rights” and “dying with dignity”. Those promoting these murders are more honest than the happy clappy atheists who sell us a meaningful life and then the void. It’s void all the way down.

Being good stewards of the earth is another futile exercise ex God’s judgement. Life on earth means the atoms and molecules are arranged in one particular way, i.e. through DNA. But if we make the planet inhospitable to all life, the atoms will rearrange themselves in a different, blobbier way. The nitrogen atoms won’t be arranged in ring shapes with carbon, but they will likely be bonded to other molecules, or just float about as a diatomic gas. One arrangement is as good as another. And if the atoms themselves disintegrate into energy and the energy dissipates, so that the universe becomes very cold and completely dark, so what?

Lockdown shows the injustice of usury

Well-meaning economists try to explain when usury becomes unjust they often start by describing the difference between “intrinsic titles” and “extrinsic titles” or, loans for productive capital versus loans for speculation. Thus, the average reader’s cognitive load is quickly exceeded and they tune out.

It is my contention that the easiest way to explain any economic principle is to tie it to house prices because everybody, in Britain at least, is acutely aware of the value of the equity in their home. For example, if mass immigration continues, it is going to have a deleterious effect on house prices. Ask anyone who owned a house where a mosque opened up in the vicinity. Would you buy a house near a mosque? Only if you are a muslim. Result? Much reduced pool of prospects and a dramatic drop in offers.

The lockdown has put very many workers’ wages in the deep freeze. That is income they will never get back – there won’t be a rebound back to trend, we’ll have a new, flatter trend. But the bank still wants its interest. Of course they aren’t monsters and they’ve given a payment holiday, but the interest is still racking up. Landlords who have rented out residential and commercial property have to repay their interest, so they have to collect from businesses that have no income, by law. The government could also make it a law that the interest rate from lockdown imposition to lifting is also at 0%. But politicians do what banks tell them, not vice versa.

If there were no usury and only equity, then equity holders would suffer the same as the proprietors and workers in business. The deep freeze effect would be much less severe. But as we emerge from lockdown and banks start to demand cashflows from businesses that have had none for eleven weeks and counting, very many will find it fruitless to continue to work to pay the usurer and leave nothing for themselves.

Corruptio Optimi Pessima

Every time I read below the line comments on articles about bergoglio’s plans to islamise Europe, I am tempted to write that bergoglio and most of the visible Church are the creatures the reflex anti-Catholics have agitated for for centuries.

Bergoglio is self-evidently a mason – from his right-hand hidden photos, via all religions are equal, to his claim that all his spewings forth are magisterial – although the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita said they didn’t want a masonic pope, perhaps they changed their minds. They have their guy in the Chair of Peter.

The Church tried to tell the world that those who came to “free” them were not their friends. As St. Augustine said, “A man has as many masters as he has vices.” We see how true that is now that we have all been encouraged to give ourselves over to vice. What is a vice? It is an action whose consequences are so far removed in time and space from the initial pleasure that frail humans cannot make a rational assessment of the costs and benefits. For example, if you didn’t have to wait 20-30 years to get cancer from cigarettes and instead got it after a day of smoking, nobody would smoke. Similarly with all the other vices the Church told us to avoid and tried to order society to make them accessible to none but the determined. So it is with sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll etc. Play now, pay later an amount to be determined.

Well, Holy Mother Church has been traduced and calumniated for 500 years and, piano piano, we are where we are. The Church’s human element is rotten with every conceivable form of vice and sin – sex, money, drugs, faithlessness, effeminacy. The tales from the Vatican today are every presbyterian’s delight, proving that the Church is the Whore of Babylon.

And yet, these same gloaters are surprised that such an organisation is a bane to humanity, especially any form of civilisation, ie. Europe and European-settled countries. How could it be anything else? As Shakespeare wrote in the closing lines of sonnet 94, “For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds; Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.” The Church, once so beautiful, has been attacked so frequently and so relentlessly that there’s not much left. The world has its wish. The Church is no longer the sign of contradiction and like a protestant sect, has given herself over to the world.

Bergoglio’s insistence that Europe islamise is due punishment for all those of us who count ourselves as sons of the Church, but who did nothing to defend Her. And for those reflex anti-Catholics who didn’t know what they would unleash when they prayed to Satan to take over Christ’s Church.

St. Benedict patron saint of Europe pray for us.