The only way to win

Miles Mathis may not be Christian, but he understands the central importance of holding to the truth:

They tell me I can't win.  What hope is there when my allies are a bunch of people wearing face masks who will believe anything?  But they are missing the point, as usual.  I HAVE ALREADY WON, because I have successfully separated myself from the rulers of the Earth.  I have separated myself from their perverted history, their perverted ideas, their perverted art, their perverted science, and their perverted sexuality.   I have been offered their corruption and refused it.

Remember, we recently saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson admitting this was all a test, and we saw me answering him that this was indeed a test, but a different one entirely than he thought, on a different level entirely.  Many or most people don't understand why they are here.  Why were they born on this mysterious Earth?  What is the point of it all?  Well, it is indeed a test.  The ancient texts in all religions tell you this, and they are not wrong.  You were installed for a short lifetime on a corrupt planet to test your response.  Will you go along with this corruption, and if so how far?  We are all being tested in the same basic way, even Natives who would seem to have no real connection to these rulers of the Earth.  Natives still have to decide whether to go along with the corruption of “the white man”, and if so how far.  In this sense, the Phoenicians actually have the toughest test of all, since they are installed here closest to the center.  They aren't tested from afar, they are tested by their own brothers and sisters and parents.  Just imagine how terrible that must be, and how difficult it must be for them to escape.

The further away from that nest you were born, the more grateful you should be—though you probably earned that distance in a previous life.

You don't win here on Earth by getting rich or powerful. You don't win by controlling those around you.  You don't win by winning wars or shootouts or debates.  That is precisely how you LOSE.  You win by separating yourself as far as possible from these corrupt governors and governments.  You win by refusing to let them corrupt you.

To paraphrase a well-known Boomerism, he who dies with the greater part of his soul uncorrupted wins.

This cult is NOT new

Not being a Christian, the Z-Man doesn't recognize the nature or the source of what he otherwise quite correctly perceives as a new cult of inclusion and social justice:

This cult we are seeing evolve in the empire is much more like the Cult of Reason, in that it has no gods and elevates abstract concepts like inclusion, diversity, cooperation and openness. When activist chant demands for justice, for example, they are not talking about legal justice or even moral justice. Justice is one of the many words to signify this collection of concepts at the center of the cult.... To the insider, a cult is a world where the internal rules and beliefs of the cult perfectly explain the world. To the outsider, the rules and beliefs of the cult seem amusing, bizarre or possibly dangerous. That’s what is happening in the empire. Most of us are outside this ruling class cult, so their chants, declarations and actions strike as strange and crazy. The destruction of the cities makes no sense. For the cult, these riots are purifying rituals. To outsiders, they are wanton destruction.

This may also explain the bizarre behavior over the Covid virus. It was obvious a long time ago that something other than science and a concern for public health was driving public officials to stoke the panic. The elaborate game of make believe has now been made plain. People are barred from Christian services, but BLM protests and homosexual parades are now permitted. The destruction of civil society from the top down was the elite’s version of the urban street riots.

What we may be seeing is this weird religion of inclusion and cooperation quickly morph into a suicide cult that seeks to level existing society. First the elites try to destroy society with the lock downs and elimination of personal freedom. Now the rank and file are doing their part by devastating the cities. The new faith will not rest until every trace of the old has been erased. That includes the people. Those who represent the old, with their white habits and white ideas must be destroyed.

Like those medieval peasants who woke up one day to learn their king was part of a strange new cult brought in by a couple of bald guys in dresses, normal people in the empire are seeing the mass conversion of their rulers. Just as Christianity could only tolerate the old ways for so long, this new faith is increasing intolerant of the old normal ways of American society. It now exists to expunge every trace of civil life. This cult has declared total war on the rest of us.

This cult is not new. It is a very old religion which has taken different names and forms over the centuries. It is the temple of social justice, it is the church of antiracism, it is the syncretic heresy of churchianity, holocaustianity, and judeochristianity. It is the cult of Babel, it is the religion of the Pharisees, of the Gnostics, and of the Prometheans. Jesus Christ called it the synagogue of Satan. And it all harkens back to the old promise of the snake in the Garden of Eden.

That is the very ancient lie that men will be as gods if they will only submit to the god of this world and worship him in the place of their Creator.

The nature of the conflict

The Saker always has interesting and informative analyses, but the one thing he simply can't seem to grasp is the nature of the struggle between Team Trump and the Deep State. I find this strange, since he clearly grasps the idea that there is no singular and unitary ruling elite in the West, but rather, a class of predatory rivals constantly jockeying for position:

A quick study of history shows that when exploiting elites are doing great, they all faithfully support each other, but when things start to go south, they immediately turn on each other. The best recent example of this phenomenon is the schism in the US ruling elites who, since the election of Trump, have immediately turned on each other and are now viciously fighting like “spiders in a can” (to use a Russian expression). In fact, this is so true that it can even be used as a very reliable diagnostic tool: when your enemies are all united, then they are probably confident in their victory, but as soon as they turn on each other, you *know* that things are looking very bad for your opponents. Likewise, we now see how southern Europeans are getting really angry with their northern “EU allies” (Macron seems to be falling in line behind Trump even if he uses a more careful and diplomatic language). Finally, the way the US CIA has one foreign policy, the Pentagon another and Foggy Bottom one of its own (even if limited to sanctions and finger-pointing) tells you pretty much all you need to know to see how deep the systemic crisis of the Empire has become.

My suspicion is that since the Saker is not a religious man, he does not understand the nature of the vicious fighting is quite literally a battle between good and evil, between those who worship the Christian God the Father and those who serve the god of this world.

It's a war between those who would protect children and those who prey upon them. Which is why we can be confident that the Saker's narrow focus on traditional foreign policy tends to lead him astray; President Trump is the only reason that the USA is not already at war with Russia, China, and Iran.

Another word for God

Martin van Creveld considers the problem of consciousness from the scientific perspective:

Starting at least as far back as Laplace—much earlier, if one cares to go back all the way to Epicurus—scientists have been arguing that consciousness grew out of the matter that preceded it. Not so, says Dr. Lanza: no natural process known to us could have performed that feat. Instead, he says, it was consciousness which gave rise to the world—so much so that, without the former, the latter could not even have existed.

To understand what he meant, take the popular riddle concerning a tree that has fallen in a forest with no one there to witness the fact. did it make a sound? Of course it did, say ninety-nine percent of those asked. Not so, say Dr. Lanza and a few others. The splintering of the trunk and its crash on the ground certainly gave rise to vibrations in the surrounding air. However, in the absence of anyone to receive those vibrations in his or her ears, transmit them by way of the acoustic nerves, and process them with the help of the brain, they would not have amounted to what we know as sound.

What applies to hearing applies equally well to our remaining senses. What the specialized neurons in the back of our brains register is not the world’s existing, objective, sound, light, and impact. On the contrary, light, impact, and sound are created by those neurons. To adduce another example, a single rainbow that can be seen by everyone who looks in the right direction at the right time does not exist. What does exist are trillions of raindrops. Each one carrying a potential rainbow; and all “waiting” to be discovered by animal sense organs and brains to be brought to bear on them. Instead of the internal and external world being separate and independent of one another, as Descartes would have it, they are merely two sides of the same coin. That, incidentally, is also the best available explanation for the riddle of quantum mechanics where, as far as we can make out, the speed and position of elementary particles seem to be determined by the fact that they are or are not observed.

This premise serves Dr. Lanza as the foundation on which to build everything else in the book, leading up to the conclusion that “the universe burst into existence from life [which is the seat of consciousness], not the other way around.” What I personally found most interesting in it is the following. We present-day humans are immensely proud of our scientific prowess. And rightly so, given that it has enabled us to study, and often gain some understanding of, anything from the bizarre submicroscopic world of elementary particles that exists right under our noses to gigantic galaxies more than thirty billion light years away. Dr. Lanza’s contribution is to point out that, without taking account of consciousness and the life with which it is inextricably tied, we shall never be able to understand reality as a whole.

One of the great conundrums that confound atheists is that while the average atheist intelligence is modestly higher than the average religious intelligence, the most intelligent individuals are considerably more religious than the norm. This is, of course, because we are less likely to cling stubbornly to our preconceived assumptions than midwits are.

A very old religion

St. Iraneus addressed the beliefs of at least some of today's glowies in Against Heresies. Notice that, as with the Enlightenment elites, the ancient Cainites held "knowledge" to be supreme and were arrogant about their self-declared superiority to the humble truths of Christianity.

Doctrines of the Cainites.

Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

I have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera. Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth. They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution. Whatever may be the nature of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, O you angel, I use your work; O you power, I accomplish your operation! And they maintain that this is perfect knowledge, without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name.

It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drawn away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. But let them rather, learning to good effect from us the wicked tenets of these men, look with contempt upon their doctrines, while at the same time they pity those who, still cleaving to these miserable and baseless fables, have reached such a pitch of arrogance as to reckon themselves superior to all others on account of such knowledge, or, as it should rather be called, ignorance.

Far worse than you think

As I have repeatedly observed, no matter how outlandish their theories may be, the conspiracy theorists are reliably far too conservative, as the historical reality is almost always more horrifying than the average individual is capable of imagining or even admitting:

VICTIMS of a warped social experiment in Germany where authorities deliberately placed troubled kids with paedophile foster parents are set to win compensation. Between 1969 to 2003, these homeless boys aged between six and 14 were handed over to paedos  — because it was thought the vulnerable kids might benefit from their attention.

The twisted logic behind behind the "Kentler experiment"— named after the leading sexologist Helmut Kentler who spearheaded it — was that paedophilia could have "positive consequences". Astonishingly, in the late 1960s Kentler managed to persuade West Berlin's ruling Senate that homeless boys would leap at the opportunity to be fostered by paedophile dads. It was successfully argued they would be "head over heels in love" with their new father figures.

About this time Kentler was publicly lobbying for decriminalisation sex between adults and children in West Germany. The academic argued youngsters "almost always more seriously damaged" by their abusers being prosecuted than by the abuse itself.

Don't be surprised when similar projects in the USA and the UK are revealed. Adding P to the ever-growing sexual rights acronym has always been the end game of the human rights movement. The wicked will never, ever stop attempting to expand their so-called "rights" until they are able to legally a) have sex with, and, b) openly murder, children without fear of consequence or reprisal.

Once you understand that "the slippery slope" in this case is not a logical fallacy, but rather the straightforward observation of the step-by-step implementation of an oft-repeated process that has been attempted and resisted, implemented and eventually stamped-out, time and time again over the course of human history, you will understand why it should be stopped at the beginning of the process.

Fake news about the fake pope

This would be almost Biblical if it were true:

The Vatican has confirmed in a statement that Pope Francis and two of his aides have tested positive for the novel Coronavirus. The three new cases add up to the over 400 cases confirmed in Italy under a week. Pope Francis missed a planned Mass with clergy in Rome yesterday after showing Coronavirus-like symptoms.

However, I haven't seen any mention of this in the Italian media or from the Vatican press office site, so I'm highly dubious.

The corruption of the Church

Dostoevsky understood that when the Church becomes the State, it ceases to be the Church, as he described in The Brothers Karamazov:

In many cases there are no churches there at all, for though ecclesiastics and splendid church buildings remain, the churches themselves have long ago striven to pass from Church into State and to disappear in it completely. So it seems at least in Lutheran countries. As for Rome, it was proclaimed a State instead of a Church a thousand years ago.

The State Churches of Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden bear testimony to this perspective. Temporal power has always been the great temptation of the Christian, as it was of Jesus Christ himself.

The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.  “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” 

Of course, Dostoevsky very well understood that others accepted the offer that Jesus Christ rejected.

All that I can say is known to Thee already. And is it for me to conceal from Thee our mystery? Perhaps it is Thy will to hear it from my lips. Listen, then. We are not working with Thee, but with him--that is our mystery. It's long--eight centuries--since we have been on his side and not on Thine. Just eight centuries ago, we took from him what Thou didst reject with scorn, that last gift he offered Thee, showing Thee all the kingdoms of the earth. We took from him Rome and the sword of Cæsar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth, though hitherto we have not been able to complete our work. But whose fault is that? Oh, the work is only beginning, but it has begun. It has long to await completion and the earth has yet much to suffer, but we shall triumph and shall be Cæsars, and then we shall plan the universal happiness of man.

Beware those who preach the unity of Man and the healing of the world. Those who do have taken the Grand Ticket.

Mailvox: a suggested devotional

Our suggested devotional for Lent is by John Piper. What an absolute trainwreck. He starts by making sure that everyone knows that Jesus death was through Divine determination before creation and who killed him is irrelevant as he chose to die. But then turns around and scolds Christians for the Holocaust and the Crusades.

If it's all decreed without human choice being involved then all of it, including the aforementioned, was just as decreed as every other atom. 

What a joke. 

It's always easy to detect the inversionists. They cannot tell the truth because, knowingly or not, they serve the Father of Lies. Piper's words directly belie the words of Jesus Christ himself. That tells you everything you need to know about the man and his teachings.

Whose authority would that be?

The Kurgan addresses John Salza's The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law in detail:

As a result of Vox Day mentioning my earlier blog post challenge to nominal Catholics concerning the fact that we have only had antipopes since 1958, one of the commenters there brought up some supposed studied theologians who claim to have fully refuted the position they call Sedevacantism (but I call SedePrivationism for precision, since words matter). My post on the antipopes and the legal reasoning why is here and it is rooted in the fact that we, as obedient catholics, must believe the fake Popes are fake, and have been at the very least since 1963, for certain, because that is what the Code of Canon Law of 1917 necessarily states, which being put together by the Magisterium of the Church, we, as Catholics could never and should never had ignored when Vatican 2 raised its evil and apostate head from the darkness. Nor can we ignore it now. Remember that the only current and valid code of canon law is the one of 1917, since the one of 1983 was put together by the same impostors, non-clerics and non-catholics that usurped the Chair of Peter in the first place, and it was also specifically designed to try and invalidate the truth of the code of 1917 and obfuscate its clarity and precision.

Not having read or known anything about the two individuals mentioned by the commenter at VP calling himself MisesMat, who later emailed me and assured me both these gentlemen would be happy to debate me, in writing, I did a quick search for one the names that he mentioned and found Salza’s document online, which I reproduce below with my commentary. His words are in black and mine in red.

Not being Roman Catholic, I only scanned both documents in passing. So, I won't pass any judgement on either man's case, except to say that I am extremely dubious of anyone who, in light of the observable misrule of the present Fake Pope, could possibly reach the following conclusion.

Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current Pope.

Extremely dubious is, of course, a significant understatement.

A challenge to Catholics

The Kurgan lays out a logical case for Sede Privationism for nominal Roman Catholics:

In order to make this very simple and to show that there is literally not a single valid refutation to the position of Sede Privationism, I have constructed the below logical argument.

Please note there are several resources at the end of the post to find legitimate Mass Centers and clerics

Axiom: The Catholic Church is the true and Valid Church instituted by Jesus Christ on Earth. This is the assumed starting axiomatic point. That is, regardless of if you personally agree or not with it, for the purposes of this argument it is assumed to be true and correct as our starting point.

Question 1. Is the Pio-Benedictine code of canon law of 1917 the legitimate code of Catholic Canon Law that was legitimately and correctly put together by the Church?

If Yes, go on to question 2.

If No, demonstrate this with specificity and exhaustive proof.

Question 2. The Vatican II documents are 16 documents produced between 1963 and 1965. Do you agree that in every case these documents contain heresy that is not in keeping with the doctrine of the Catholic Church from the start to at least 1958?
Reference:The Heresies of Vatican II

If Yes, go on to question 3.

If No, you’re probably a vile heretic yourself, but go, on, try and refute even just the linked reference document IN DETAIL and specifics. Honestly, you can’t because facts are facts and objective truth exists.

Those are just the first two questions. There are four in all. Read the whole thing there, if it is a matter of concern to you. Being a non-denominational Christian, I'm not particularly interested one way or the other; it seems readily apparent to me that the current so-called "Pope Francis" is about as genuinely a legitimate Christian bishop as I am the President of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Mailvox: the success dealers

A former candidate for Congress explains how it works:

Back in [REDACTED], I had been moved to righteous anger to run for political office, Congress, in my [REDACTED] district which was being weakly held by a non-progressive Democrat.  There were a number of Republican contenders, but the local party had picked one of their donors, an unfortunate blockhead with inherited money.  I took exception to this and pulled a Trump-to-Jeb! on the dude at every public engagement, which only earned the ire of the local party for my uppitiness and Ron Pauline views on government.

At a fundraiser dinner, I had a small coterie and the other candidates had theirs, larger and smaller, and I was surprised when a delegation of state Republicans - well known and connected - came over and asked me to join them at their table.  I obliged.  They showered me with compliments - how they liked my style, how I was clearly the one with the brains and ability to win etc - and then asked what path I was taking, where did I want to go: executive branch, senate, state politics, or if Congress was my goal.  I told them Congress was where I felt I could be most useful, and they pulled out a diagram that had my name on [a state organization] for a number of years, then county supervisor, then Congress.  They told me that this was not only the path they envisioned, but the path they could guarantee. Their words. All I had to do was drop out and endorse the blockhead. But he'll lose, I argued, and explained exactly why.  They nodded in agreement and said, we know. That's how we know you'll win here in [REDACTED].

They were offering me a seat in Congress if I played their game, changed my views, endorsed their loser, and then they would rig the system to ensure victory. Not MY victory, but THEIR victory with me as their puppet. I told them no, thank you, I was my own man and I'd rise and fall on that merit. They said the doors were always open and then went to the next table where a woman was also running for the same seat. They showed her a different diagram.  Two years later she was the Republican nominee for US Senate.

God was looking out for me.  But the point is that you are absolutely right - there are people who will buy your soul and they roam about like wolves preying on the ambitious, vain, or naive.

I've personally seen this sort of thing play out in music, media, politics, and publishing. I've heard about it from those who were offered the ticket in Hollywood, both in television and in movies. David Chapelle has spoken openly about the latter... hence Africa. And the modus operandi is always more or less the same. One little knee, one little submission, is all they initially ask of you to give you whatever you want and more.

They are success dealers, and the first hit is almost free....

Keep this in mind if you're tempted to accuse people of being jealous of those who are wealthier, more famous, or more successful. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I'm not jealous of anyone who has taken the ticket. I know the price they are paying and it isn't one that I was willing to pay.

Judeochristianity at its finest

Lest you be deceived about the true nature of the Intellectual Dark Web:

Some of history’s darkest chapters involved brutal coercion of people because they didn’t accept that “Jesus is the son of God”. Assuming Christians have outgrown that inclination, they’d be wise to quit broadcasting this exclusionary claim. Seems obvious. What am I missing?
- Bret Weinstein

What he's missing is that it is true.

And precisely what "darkest chapters" would those be? Just more shameless Judeochristian lies about history. It won't be long before we'll be informed that scrappy Judeochristians from the Bronx not only created Western civilization, but also invented gunpowder, discovered America, and defeated Hitler.

When the personal should be political

The Christian church is now almost entirely bereft of leadership:

Calling it “pronoun hospitality,” Southern Baptist Convention President J.D. Greear revealed on an “Ask Me Anything” episode of his podcast that he prefers to call transgender people by their preferred pronouns.

Greear said that while there is room for disagreement and Christians should disagree charitably, he sees it as a hospitable courtesy to refer to transgender people by their chosen pronouns, despite knowing that their sex does not match their descriptors.

Actually, I have no problem with this at all on the personal level. It is simply polite to address people as they prefer to be addressed, especially when they are crazy. But to take this position as a leader is simply wrong and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the leader's duty to put himself and his personal preferences last, after the interests of the organization and his members.

Christianity has been betrayed by the Cult of Nice. And while niceties are an important aspect of civilization and correct etiquette is generally preferable to its absence, manners do not trump math, science, history, or DNA when it comes to speaking the truth about reality. The personal is not the political, which is why sometimes the latter should trump the former.

"Freedom" is evil

That's the inescapable conclusion to which I have come after seeing yet another commercial equating "choosing to be free" with "choosing Hell".

Think about how every Disney movie since Walt Disney died preaches either a) rebellion, b) following your heart, or c) freedom. This promised "freedom" is akin to Jordan Peterson's "individualism", as both are designed to render you alone, helpless, and vulnerable to the spiritual vampires who wish to feed on you.

Only the truth can set you truly free. Anything else that promises or celebrates freedom as an end is just another form of slavery seeking to entrap you.

Rediscovering truth

John Cleese reflects on the history of Monty Python and other things in an interview with Daily Beast:

“As for the rise of social media in our lives, I think it’s a disaster,” he says as we wrap up. “All we have as human beings is our interpersonal skills. And I think that almost everything that social media has done has been making that worse. And trying to persuade young people that building up their egos is what they should be spending their time on is farcical. There’s a very fine book called Technopoly written by Neil Postman, in which he points out that, with every technological advance, there’s always gains and there’s losses. But that the people who come up with the technology have to be smart enough to realize that other people can use those advances against them for malign purposes. When I wrote my books with Robin Skinner, I came to the view that there was no system that humans couldn’t… destroy. It all depends on whether you’re talking about decent people or not. The system doesn’t matter so much as the fact that it relies on people behaving decently. There is a tendency in America toward predatory capitalism. And there’s nothing more destructive to society than the idea that the only thing that matters is money. Because that’s basically sociopathic. So I think that the greatest problem in the world at the moment is greed.”

I seem to recall a man once said that the love of all money is the root of all evil. And he said that nearly 2,000 years ago, so it's probably not just a problem of the current moment.

It's fascinating to observe how philosophers, scientists, and even comedians who reject Christianity keep coming back to its teachings despite themselves.

Christianity isn't etiquette

Matt muses over what I would call "churchianity" rather than "Middle Class Christianity", but the point is essentially the same:

A lot of what is called Christian morality today is not necessarily Christian, but more accurately described as Middle Class Christianity. It is the Christianity influenced by the Victorian era politeness and the rather quiet in door working spaces of many Christians, who tend heavily towards the middle class.

Here are examples of the difference:

Middle Class Christianity: Don't be harsh and use mean words to those who come to you, especially if they are in need.

Christianity: Jesus said to the Syrophoenician woman: You don't give the children’s food to the dogs (Matt 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30).

Middle Class Christianity: It is wrong to even insult those who reject the message of Jesus.

Christianity: Jesus said to the disciples to shake the dust of their feet when leaving an unbelieving town or even home (Matt 10:14). A visible and very offensive gesture in his day. Use your imagination to think of similar offensive gestures

Middle Class Christianity: Quiet kindness and addressing your audience in calm smooth tones is the way to address people. Don’t use ad-hominins, stereotypes, or harsh language.

Christianity: Jesus in the gospel of Matthew: Woe to you Pharisees, you brood of vipers, you snakes, you white-washed tombs, you rotten corpses twice dead, you sons of hell (Matt 23).

Your average Churchian is the modern equivalent of a Pharisee, wrongly thinking himself superior to Jesus Christ and shaking his head in judgement of what he sees as the Son of Man's inferior comportment.

Vatican III?

The Vatican is discussing the possibility of married priests... and other things:

This Sunday kicks off a three-week meeting of bishops at the Vatican to discuss, among other things, ordaining some married men as priests to help alleviate a shortage of Catholic clergy in the nine countries of the Amazon region.

Pope Francis convened the meeting, called a synod, to discuss environmental and religious issues in the Amazon and give special attention to the needs of indigenous communities there. The region includes parts of Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam and French Guiana. The Vatican has invited 184 bishops and priests from those countries and from around the world to participate in the synod and vote on measures. Thirty-five women, mostly religious sisters and nuns, have been invited but will not have voting rights.

There will be 17 representatives of the Amazon's indigenous populations, including 9 women, will attend as well.

But before it even begins, the synod has become the center of controversy for both conservatives and liberals.

The Pope told bishops from the region to "be bold" in their proposals for the meeting and Bishop Erwin Krautler, the church's Secretary for the Commission on the Pan-Amazon Region, says he hopes the meeting will address not only ordaining married men, but women too.

"We don't just speak about men because it's exclusionary," Krautler told CNN. "We also want to include women."

The possibility that centuries of Catholic tradition of a celibate priesthood might be overturned has caused conservative outrage.

Since I'm not a Catholic, I don't believe my opinion matters here. But, for those who happen to be interested, I don't think the abandonment of the traditional celibacy requirement for priests would be a bad thing. Married priests, even with the concomitant risk of nepotism, are vastly to be preferred to gay priests, which has been the reality since at least Vatican II.

Furthermore, the Biblical requirements for a deacon not only don't preclude marriage, they actually require it, and the fruits of priestly celibacy have not been generally positive.

Considerably more troubling is the possibility that this Amazonian synod will be used to push the ordainment of women, which would mark the beginning of the end of the Roman Catholic Church.

The network of helpers

It's interesting to see how the media keeps inching closer and closer to admitting that Pizzagate is real in all but name:

Former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter revealed during an interview with NBC News’ Dateline that convicted sex offender and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was always one step ahead of investigators. He suggested that the disgraced financier had a mole within the force that helped him evade Palm Beach police who began investigating his alleged sex trafficking in 2005.

The Miami Herald reports that Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking ring was also supported by a network of helpers from professions, such as hairdressers, immigration lawyers, dentists, and psychiatrists. Epstein also reportedly had connections to doctors that screened his victims for sexually transmitted diseases and prescribed them birth control.

I've known "the network of helpers" was real since the moment I saw the "Pizzagate is debunked" meme appear simultaneously in nearly every mainstream media organ despite there being no factual information in any of the purported debunkings. Now, I know literally nothing about the sexual and dietary habits of the globalist elite - I keep my distance from them and I've never even seen Eyes Wide Shut - but as a GamerGater, I know a coordinated media campaign when I see one.

And nothing, not even the "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" meme, has ever been as aggressively coordinated and propagated as the "Pizzagate is debunked" meme. Once you understand that the Bible is legit and Satan rules the world, it's not that hard to recognize who is actively on his side.

This pretty much summarizes it

I was asked my thoughts on the Baptist church, in which I was raised, on the Darkstream the other night, and this Babylon Bee article pretty much summarizes the full extent of my opinion on it:

Sources at Biloxi Seventh Baptist Church confirmed Tuesday that the entire church body is still pretending never to drink alcoholic beverages. Based on the church's strong convictions, every member of the church is staunchly committed to pretend to abstain from alcohol while in the presence of other Baptists.

"It's important to avoid the appearance of evil," said church member Fred Myers. "That's why I committed a long time ago to never let on that I love downing a few craft beers during a ball game on the weekends." Myers always orders a Diet Coke when with his Baptist friends and family, though he's been known to order a beer on tap as long as he's in another state where no one can recognize him.

Other members of the church share the same commitment. Take Ethel Carver, 82. She credits her long life to her zealous dedication to the Lord, eating lots of fruits, vegetables, and casseroles, and pretending not to down two shots of whiskey before bed every night.

"Ever since I was a little girl, my parents raised me right, the Baptist way," she said. "We don't smoke, we don't chew, we don't drink alcohol unless no other Baptists are around. Just like the Bible says."

Baptists and Southern Baptists chose the Churchian path back in 1880. Perhaps that didn't matter as much then, when society was predominantly Christian. But it definitely matters now. Prohibition is a man-made dogma and has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. But growing up amongst rampant Baptist hypocrisy did provide me with an effective anti-BS radar as well as an instinctive contempt for Bible-lawyering, as the ridiculous contortions involved in asserting that all the references to "wine" in the Bible actually refer to "non-alcoholic grape juice" made the divide between Christianity and Churchianity hard to miss, even for children.

Southern Baptists had worked at least three decades to secure legal prohibition. They saw the 18th Amendment as a culmination of their labor. They also had come to view prohibition advocacy as a defining mark of Baptist identity.... Since 1934, the SBC has adopted at least 35 statements opposing alcohol, the latest in 2006.

Now they see opposing racism, nationalism, identity politics, and patriotism as defining marks of Baptist identity. And they'll oppose those things even less successfully than they opposed alcohol, which is why the Baptist identity will fade away over time in the same way that the Abecedarian and Episcopalian identities have.