Monday, October 29, 2018

"Islamophobia" Or Misogyny?

 There is a veritable gallimaufry of internal contradictions that occupy the thoughts of the left-wing. Gender is not something innate, it's something that you choose; yet we must fight for women's rights. You must be able to marry "anyone you love," yet polygamy is outlawed. Morality is relative, yet Donald Trump is objectively evil. Guns should be outlawed because people can get hurt, but abortion must be legal. The Law of Non-Contradiction in logic has no place in the liberal mindset. We often hear in the media, and in the Vatican II sect, that Islam is a "religion of peace" and to deny them open access to our boarders is "Islamophobia." Notice how the left comes up with neologisms for anyone who opposes their ideas. You don't agree that Islam is wonderful? You must be crazy; you have a "phobia" which, of course, is a neurosis---a mental disorder. Likewise, to reject the sodomite lifestyle makes you "homophobic."

 To show the sheer lunacy of the idea that "Islam is a religion of peace," ask your Modernist Vatican II sect friend if he/she believes in "equality for women"--such as female "priests" and other feminist tenets such as the  use of artificial contraception so woman can work free from "the burden" of children. In 99.9% of all cases, the reply will be that they do. Below, this post will set out to prove that those two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not only are Mohammedans anti-feminist (which is not a bad thing), they are misogynists who mistreat and demean woman as part of their false and evil religion.

Islam's Inherent Contempt for Women

 Islam gets its teachings from the perverse and wicked man, Mohammed. His teachings are contained in the Koran, believed to be revelations given to him by the god "Allah." Next to the Koran, most Mohammedans accept the teachings of the Hadith, a book which purports to be a record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of their "prophet," Mohammad. The Tabari is a collection of Koran verses and Hadith quotes, and is illustrative of how "Allah" allows women to be abused, to the point of likening them to animals and sex objects. 

"Allah permits you to shut them [women] in separate rooms and beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran." (Tabari IX:113; Emphasis mine)

One of the worst practices in Islam is female genital mutilation (known as "FMG"). Young girls have their clitoris removed (most times without anesthesia) to eliminate their sexual drive ensuring they will not be attracted to boys and become "prime property" on the "marriage market" as a virgin. 

Men are allowed to be wife beaters. The Koran 4:34, "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], beat them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." (Emphasis mine). 

Here is a brief run down of the status of women in the Koran and Hadith. Women:
  • Can be shut in separate rooms
  • Should be beaten if disobedient
  • Are to be treated like domestic animals
  • Have deficient minds
  • Make up the majority of damned souls in Hell

Islam: Condones Pedophilia and Murders Sex Crime Victims

 The pervert Mohammed was betrothed to his friend's daughter when he was forty-nine (49), and the girl Aisha was six (6). He consummated "marriage" with her three years later when the girl was nine (9) and he was fifty-two (52). Decent people will realize this is pedophilia. Mohammedans see nothing wrong with it and many Moslem countries, while having marriage ages in accord with acceptable standards, turn a blind eye to such "marriages" with middle-aged perverts and girls as young as nine. I'm wondering how long before sodomites, pro-pedophilia NAMBLA, and the ACLU use this practice to argue that statutory rape laws are unconstitutional and "ageist." (You must be "free to marry whom you love" after all, right?). 

Furthermore, if a woman is raped in an Islamic country, she is guilty of "adultery" if married, and in transgression of the "chastity laws" if single. Take the outrageous case of Iranian girl Atefeh Rajabi Sahaaleh, who was executed by hanging on August 15, 2004 at the age of 16. Atefeh was arrested after being raped by a 51-year-old man. According to Iranian law, she was convicted for "crimes against chastity." She was tortured by the police until she admitted she was raped by a fifty-one year old cab driver named Ali Darabi, who was married with children. She was found guilty of adultery (since the rapist was married!) and crimes against chastity. (See, e.g., documentary

Finally, we have "honor killings," which is when a woman of any age is under any suspicion of having brought shame to her family. At that point, the family of the girl/woman have not only a right but a duty to murder her and "restore honor" to the family. Lest anyone think this barbaric practice only occurs in "extremist" Islamic states, it has happened right here in the United States by those "peace loving" Mohammedans. 

Atlanta, Georgia--January 2009. Twenty-five year old Sandeela Kanwal was strangled to death by her father for wanting to obtain a divorce from a marriage arranged by her father. According to the CNN news report, "'Honor killings' -- the slaying by family members of a woman or girl thought to be bringing them shame -- are usually kept quiet, making it difficult to determine how frequently they occur. The United Nations Population Fund estimated in September 2000 that as many as 5,000 women and girls fall victim to such killings each year." (See 

Turkey---September 2008. A 16 year old girl was buried alive after her family agreed that she had brought shame upon them. Her crime? Talking to boys in public. "Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an "honor" killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys. The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-meter hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman. Police made the discovery in December after a tip-off from an informant, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on its website. The girl had previously been reported missing. The informant told the police she had been killed following a family 'council' meeting...More than 200 such killings take place each year, said the piece, 'accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.' According to Eurostat, Turkey's yearly murder rate averaged 6.1 per 100,000 population between 2005 and 2007 (the ­latest figures), meaning that the 200 are actually set against an annual total of about 4,400." (See

Pakistan---2016. "Parveen Rafiq closed her hands around the neck of her youngest daughter, Zeenat, and squeezed and squeezed until the girl was almost dead. Then, in the tiny apartment where the family lived, she doused the 18-year-old with kerosene and set her on fire. Neighbors saw the smoke and rushed to the home. Someone inside, apparently one of Rafiq's daughters-in-law, was screaming, 'Help her! Help!'

But the door was bolted from within. Moments later, they heard Rafiq scream from her rooftop: 'I have killed my daughter. I have saved my honor. She will never shame me again.'  Her macabre death on June 8 in the eastern city of Lahore was the latest in a series of increasingly gruesome 'honor killings' in Pakistan, a country with one of the highest rates of such killings in the world. In one case, a mother slit the throat of her pregnant daughter who had married a man she loved. In yet another, a jilted suitor doused a teenage girl with kerosene and set her on fire. In the city of Abbottabad, a teenage girl was tortured, injected with poison and then strapped to the seat of a vehicle, doused with gasoline and set on fire. Her crime was helping a friend elope." (See 


 Ask your Vatican II sect friend after being presented with these facts, "Do you still think Islam is a religion of peace?" Does any of the above sound "peaceful"? The fact remains that Islam is barbaric to the core. The Catholic Church is derided by the Modernist occupiers of the formerly Catholic buildings as "oppressive to women" for not ordaining women as "priests," yet they will never condemn the real oppression of the Mohammedans. If I condemn this evil religion for what it teaches and does against women, am I "Islamophobic"? If I refuse to condemn Islam, am I a misogynist? A real Modernist conundrum. 

On a final note, the disturbing picture at the beginning of this post is of then eighteen-year-old Bibi Aisha in 2010. She was married at fourteen and was routinely beaten by her husband. At 18 she fled the abuse but was caught by police, jailed for five months, and returned to her family. Her father returned her to her husband's family. To take revenge on her escape, her father-in-law, husband, and three other family members took Aisha into the mountains, cut off her nose and her ears, and left her to die. She was rescued by some workers. Her picture made the cover of Time magazine. Doctors from the United States volunteered to give her plastic surgery. She has since had reconstructive surgery and is twenty-five years old, residing in Maryland. A victim of that "peaceful religion." 

Let us pray the full and unedited version of the prayer for the "Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ" composed by Pope Pius XI, and keep the words redacted by "St" Roncalli (John XXIII) in 1959, namely-- "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism; refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God."


  1. Please do not call this demonic garbage of sect, that rage of filthy desert animals, of religion. Islam is the worst mockery of Christianity the Devil has created.

    1. Junior,
      True. I simply use it as shorthand when writing about it. Islam is from Hell.

      God Bless,


  2. The Kabbalah is indeed evil, and I would consider such a post with the proviso that not ALL Jews consider non-Jews as inferior.


  3. I noticed you did not provide a proviso that not ALL Muslims match the things you wrote in your post. Why don't Muslims deserve the same proviso you would afford the Jews?

  4. Do you think a greater percentage of men or of women are saved?

    1. I honestly don’t know. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no theologians have written on this matter. As pure speculation on my part, I think a greater percentage of women are saved. Women raised the children and were attending children and religious matters much more then men throughout much of history.

      Richard Cardinal Cushing (a closet Modernist) was once criticized in the 1950s for stating that if the world is in bad shape, women are to blame. When someone in the press indignantly asked how he could make such a statement, Cushing replied, “Who’s responsible for raising the lousy men who cause the problems in the first place?”

      While I don’t subscribe to his idea, he does make a point that there is no more important vocation on Earth than being a good mother.

      God Bless,


    2. I agree, at least up until the modern era. Men are far more susceptible to sins against purity than women (sins against purity cause the damnation of the most number of people, according to Our Lady of Fatima), and up until the modern era, women were largely kept in the home and out of the world, so they were not subject to as much temptation from the world.

      I would say that in the modern era, women are certainly rivaling men in terms of sinning, thanks to feminism. Probably 99 percent of fertile women, at least in the industrialized countries, are contracepting at least part of the time; most support abortion in at least some cases; many are very promiscuous; most do not dress appropriately, and a majority dress downright immodestly; most do not obey their husbands, which is a sin; many neglect their children in favor of their career, even when their economic situation does not require them to work. Women also initiate most divorces, which often leads to adultery on the part of the divorcees.

      Feminism was a great victory for Satan and is probably going to cause the damnation of a huge number of women.

  5. It's an remarkable post in support of all the internet visitors;
    they will get benefit from it I am sure.

  6. Anon @5:30 - In defense of women, I must ask you who were the heretics and apostates from Luther to the Vatican II sect antipopes who destroyed the Church?? MEN!! Who are the homosexual Priests molesting children. MEN!! Most men love contraception as they can fornicate and be promiscuous without any responsibilities. As far as women working, with the rate of inflation, sometimes it takes 2 incomes to keep from drowning in debt. Yes, there are some women who dress indecent, but what about the ones who dress modest? Never hear a word or credit given to the women who do dress modestly. Things are never just one sided unless you are wearing blinders!!

    1. Very true Joann. As I said, I believe the majority of the damned are men.

  7. How anyone who reads the heretical document from Vatican II “Lumen Gentium” that says that we and the Muslims worship the same God and cannot see that Vatican II was a false council by that statement alone is very deceived.

    1. Good point Joann. Also read “Nostra Aetate.” Catholics do NOT worship the false god “Allah,” nor do Mohammedans worship the True Triune God. Some people are willfully blind.

      God Bless,


  8. The Bibi Aisha story is a fake. Do you do research on your posts before you publish?

    1. I do plenty of research. The same cannot be said of you. If a story that was front page on Time magazine was fake, that would have been in the news for weeks and permanently damaged Time’s credibility.

      The only sources for the story being fake is from some conspiracy sites that claim 9-11 and the moon landing were also faked.

      Good luck finding Elvis at your local supermarket.


    2. Researchers have proven the Moon landings to be fake based on video evidence. Two separate, independent proofs are below.

      First, Dr. Oleg Oleynik has proven, using the stereoscopic parallax method, that the Apollo 15 mission was filmed in a studio. The distance to objects can be estimated by the movement or lack thereof by a change in the camera position. The background mountains in the Apollo 15 video move far too much based on the change in the cameraman’s position to be the tens of kilometers that NASA claims. The “mountains” are rather two or three hundred meters away. See Dr. Oleynik’s report:

      Second, Jay Weidner, in his Kubrick's Odyssey, has proven that the Apollo video was shot using the same front screen projection technology used in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film which came out a little over a year before Apollo 11. In the Apollo footage, a viewer can see artifacts in the “lunar” sky consistent with video shot using the front screen projection technique. The Moon landing videos were likely directed and produced by Stanley Kubrick.

      See Corbett Report Episode 233 15:04 mark:

      The Real Deal #16 57:20 mark:

    3. The manifest weight of the credible evidence is clearly in favor of the moon landing.


      Of course when we ask a “truther” why there would be a faked landing, it goes into conspiracy theories just like 9-11. It reminds me of the old Art Bell show. Virtually everything in the news is fake and only a chosen few know what “really happened.”

      So when you say something is “proven,” it would be morally certain, yet the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, as well as experts in every field accept the moon landing.

      And, yes, I’m sorry to tell you—Elvis is really dead,


    4. Did you even read the Oleynik paper? Forensics cannot be faked, and Dr. Oleynik provides forensic proof that the video was fake.

      I found the Space Centre website totally unconvincing. The author outright lied about the flag flapping in the wind and about all the Moon rocks being proven genuine. I have seen the flag video, and it is clearly waving in the wind. The Rijksmuseum in the Netherlands tested one of their “Moon rocks,” provided by the United States, and it turned out to be petrified wood.

      The author also relies on photographic evidence from NASA and other space agencies as proof. This is akin to taking the denials of an accused criminal as proof of his innocence. If they faked the Moon landing footage, then they could also fake subsequent footage.

      The Moon landing was likely faked to provide distraction from the Vietnam War and to provide a pretext to spend billions of dollars on the development of secret technology. Probably a lot of the money was simply looted.

      You are employing an ad populum logical fallacy in claiming that something is proven only if a majority of people accept it. I bet you that a majority of scientists do not believe in God and that most are not Catholic. The numbers and percentages of people who believe something means absolutely nothing.

      The manifest weight of the credible evidence is overwhelmingly against the Moon landing.
      If you want some more hard evidence by real scientists proving that the landing was fake, using NASA’s own data, see below.

      Was the Apollo Computer flawed? by Xavier Pascal

      This paper proves that the computer, presented by NASA as having been used on the Moon mission, did not possess the computing power and in fact was not even functional. Read/write currents used the same cable; corrosion was present on the circuitry; the programs were riddled with logical errors; and the circuitboard was not protected from vibrations. The memory was totally inadequate, even if the computer did work.

      Investigation into the Saturn V velocity and its ability to place the stated payload into lunar orbit


      Improved estimates of the Saturn V velocity and its ability to place the stated payload into lunar orbit
      Both by Stanislav G. Pokrovsky, Ph.D

      These papers prove that the velocity of the Saturn V rocket was too low to get the stated payload to the Moon, did not have enough payload capacity to carry the Moon vehicles, and they were launched against the rotation of the Earth, costing them valuable velocity. Mathematical proof is provided.

      Evaluation of Saturn V F-1 Engine Characteristics by Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD

      This paper by Dr. Gennady Ivchenkov shows that the Saturn V rocket engines were dangerous, defective, and too weak to lift the stated payload. The United States now uses Russian rocket technology, LOL.

      Aerospace engineer Dennis Cimino discusses these papers in his interviews with Jim Fetzer. Do yourself a favor and listen.

    5. Time magazine publishing a fake news story wouldn’t be in the news for weeks because all the major media are owned by the Talmudists. The purpose of the major media is to propagandize the public in support the Talmudists’ war on Christ and His Church. The Talmudists are not going to expose their own propaganda as fake.

    6. Oh, boy (goy?). My responses are below:

      1. "Did you even read the Oleynik paper? Forensics cannot be faked, and Dr. Oleynik provides forensic proof that the video was fake."

      If Dr. Oleynik has incontrovertible proof, he's not believed because..why? I know! The Jews make sure everyone disbelieves him! (The fluoride in the water is not really there to help our teeth. It's a mind-controlling drug).

      2. "I found the Space Centre website totally unconvincing. The author outright lied about the flag flapping in the wind and about all the Moon rocks being proven genuine."

      How about these for starters:

      3. "The author also relies on photographic evidence from NASA and other space agencies as proof. This is akin to taking the denials of an accused criminal as proof of his innocence. If they faked the Moon landing footage, then they could also fake subsequent footage."

      What proof does the accused use to deny his guilt? Are you contending that if a defendant has(e.g. photographic evidence which he took that would exculpate him), it should be ignored? You presume guilt when there must be a presumption of innocence. Likewise, there is a logical assumption that things are the way they seem unless/until there is a large body of evidence to give moral certainty that such is NOT the case. There simply isn't such proof here.

      4. " The Moon landing was likely faked to provide distraction from the Vietnam War and to provide a pretext to spend billions of dollars on the development of secret technology. Probably a lot of the money was simply looted."

      "Was likely faked..." and your proof is what? A hunch about a purely hypothetical possibility? It's comments like this that make legitimate criticisms (and real conspiracies) look loony. I can't stand Hillary Clinton. She and her husband are pure evil garbage. The very sight of her makes my skin crawl. However, when "truthers" started claiming she was running a child pornography ring out of a pizza parlor ("pizzagate")it just made legitimate criticism and critics seem wacky.

      5. "You are employing an ad populum logical fallacy in claiming that something is proven only if a majority of people accept it."

      I am not using the "bandwagon fallacy" in logic. I never claimed something is true only if a majority of people believe in it. What I am asserting is that when A CLEAR MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPECTED EXPERTS IN A GIVEN FIELD hold to an opinion based on credible evidence, such opinion must be given deference. This is how theology operates with the approved theologians and canonists guided by the Magisterium. I know some chiropractors that claim getting adjustments can cure every ailment in the book, but the clear majority of medical experts and research consistently shows that outside of neck and back injuries, chiropractic care has little is any efficacy. Hence, I reject the claims of those (few) chiropractors (and a good friend of mine is a chiropractor, and would NEVER make such claims!).

      When a scientist rejects God he SPEAKS OUTSIDE HIS REALM OF EXPERTISE. You are then dealing with SCIENTISM and NOT SCIENCE--big difference.

      Finally, "Time magazine publishing a fake news story wouldn’t be in the news for weeks because all the major media are owned by the Talmudists."

      You mean they're not owned by the reptilian aliens that secretly invaded Earth in 1953???


    7. The articles at the other two links you present mostly regurgitate the childish, non-scientific, non-math-backed arguments from the article linked in your first comment. Are those authors scientists or simply paid propagandists? “Bad Astronomy,” really?!

      If NASA is accused of faking footage, than I would not rely on more NASA footage to prove the veracity of the original footage, just as I would not rely on documents provided by a serial forger to prove he did not forge.

      I already provided evidence of fake Moon rocks. Did you know that von Braun led an expedition to Antarctica to retrieve Moon rocks that fell to Earth? This would have been unnecessary if Apollo had retrieved real Moon rocks.

      Bart Sibrel’s “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” clearly shows footage of the flag waving in the wind, at 29:36:

      Speaking of Bart Sibrel, watch his “Astronauts Gone Wild.” Buzz Aldrin basically admits the Moon landing was a hoax when shown the footage of the Apollo 11 crew faking being in open space.

      You asked for evidence, and I presented it in the articles linked in my comments. Those articles are written by real scientists with real scientific degrees using real science backed by hard math to prove that crucial aspects of the Moon landing were false. Did you read the articles? Did you even bother to click the links? At least read the abstracts. Or are you afraid of realizing that you have held an erroneous position for decades? I can give you more links if you need more evidence.

    8. Here are a few more pieces of evidence.

      • Buzz Aldrin and at least several of the other astronauts high-ranking masons.
      • No airlock in LEM. Air would have escaped when they opened door.
      • No dust was tracked into the lander. Moon dust is speculated to be highly carcinogenic.
      • Pictures from the Moon all in focus and centered even though astronauts could not aim camera or see image being taken.
      • NASA “lost” all 700 cartons of the original footage from the Moon landing, as well as the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
      • No blast crater under the LEM.
      • Astronauts make contradictory statements about whether the LEM made noise, some say it was deafening and some say there was no noise in the vacuum of space.
      • Skin of craft was thickness of tin foil. It provided no protection from micrometeoroids, and the craft would have blown apart if pressurized.
      • No protection from micro meteors on Moon. They do not burn up because there is no atmosphere on the Moon, and being struck by one would be fatal.
      • Solar radiation in space would have destroyed film.
      • Battery technology didn’t exist to run the air conditioning for so long, and air conditioning doesn’t work in vacuum. The temperature in the sunward side of the Moon is over 250 degrees Fahrenheit.
      • Astronauts’ spacesuits not pressurized.
      • Shielding on spacecraft and spacesuits not adequate to protect from radiation in Van Allen Radiation Belts and open space. There were intense solar flares during some of the missions.
      • Speeding up footage of astronauts on “Moon” shows them moving as if in Earth gravity.
      • Combustion from ascent stage of lander would have ignited remaining fuel in descent stage.
      • Astronauts could not control lander on Earth during practice runs.
      • Only one lander sent to Moon. On real mission, they would have sent multiple landers in case one broke down.

      I would bet that most scientists, even most astronomers and astrophysicists, have not studied the Moon landing in depth or read any critical articles. I bet not one in one thousand has read Dr. Oleynik’s paper. Most scientists, like most other people, simply believe what the media and the education system tells them. The adversary controls the education system and the media, so they would not get the real story from the mainstream. I cannot but be grateful for the internet, because it allows the truth to get out and breaks the adversary’s monopoly on information.

    9. You have a litany of alleged "facts" without citations. Here's a fact for you; as Dr. Barry Vacker points out, "Approximately 400,000 scientists, engineers, and technicians worked on the Apollo project for over a decade. They came from many countries and all over the US. It is patently absurd to think they all were all somehow tricked or part of a NASA hoax." That's plain common sense. I knew Dr. John Schmidt, one of the scientists who worked for NASA. He had a Phd in astrophysics from Harvard. He would LAUGH at the very idea of a moon hoax when we had discussions 25 years ago. "Yes, I'm a member of the conspiracy--all the thousands of us," was his reply filled with laughter and a huge smile.

      Again, "The United States made six visits to the moon. Let’s consider for a moment that they were all staged. If the first “hoax” were successful, the United States would have defeated the Soviets in the race to the moon. Why risk faking five more visits and thus increase the chances of slipping up and getting caught by 500%? NASA would have had to fake the famed Apollo 13 mission, which was aborted on the way to the moon because of an on-board explosion; it was freaking scientific genius that enabled the Apollo 13 astronauts to orbit the moon and return safely to Earth. If NASA faked the moon landings, one time would have been enough. "

      Finally, "In 1969, the video and television technologies weren’t advanced enough to stage and fake the moon landing in any plausible way. NASA didn’t have anything like CGI or Photoshop back then. The TV cameras were primitive compared to the cameras of 2017, with HD and 360-degree perspectives. Though the fake moon-landing claims have been debunked on the internet, here are some of the most obvious reasons the Apollo moon landings could not have been faked."

      To be clear, Dr. Vacker is an atheist and makes no bones about it. Nevertheless, this doesn't invalidate his arguments, anymore than being a Traditionalist makes my arguments against abortion invalid.

      Real scientists? Here's a peer reviewed article re:moon rocks; James Papike; Grahm Ryder & Charles Shearer (1998). "Lunar Samples". Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry. 36: 5.1–5.234

      Most scientists get their information from TV? Please. As a former science teacher with a Masters Degree in science education, you are far off the mark. All you do is give ammo to atheists, unlike apologists like Dr William Lane Craig who uses science to prove God and his respect has made believers out of non-believers.


    10. Please also note, you have a commenter who believes Bergoglio—a notorious and public heretic—-is a real pope, but the moon landing is fake!!


  9. Talking about conspiracy theories......

    I have just found a word-press (rosario-fatima.wordpress) that says that Our Most Holy Virgin Mary is God. I know that She is the most perfect creature of all times, but She is not God. She is His Mother and that´s all. That is what the Church teaches

    This site also states that Yahweh is the devil (SIC) and that He wants to exterminate people and do a revolution. Just like luciferianism, which says the devil is sweet, but know, blaspheming Our Lady.

    And were does this site mentions True Catholic Teaching? None. Its all based on weird conspiracy theories and occult interpretations on the Sacred Scriptures.

    I think Our Lady is ofended by this ones who deceive people or at least try to deceive it.

    For Greater Glory Of God;
    Long Life Christ The King and Our Lady Of Guadalupe.

    1. Poni,
      I am aware of that blasphemous site, and your analysis is spot on! Pope St Pius X warned us that there would be a “false and lying devotion” to the Most Blessed Virgin in order to deceive many.

      The good Traditionalists, like you, who understand the Faith and try to learn more and grow in love of the Church, will not be deceived!

      God Bless,


  10. Introibo---I want to thank you for bringing this up---not all Jews have some backhand conspiracy to thwart all Catholics. Look at the last 60 years; "Catholics" have done that quite well all on their own! As someone who is Traditionalist Catholic, and black, and a little bit wealthy, I always get a little leery when I hear traditionalist Catholics start going on about Jews---because I KNOW WHO'S NEXT on that list (read between then lines!!). Besides that, it's just plain wrong. I have known in particular one New York Jewish man who was fascinated when I told him about the Traditional Mass; he even expressed an interest in attending. He thought my description of it must mean that it's beautiful to behold (which it is!) I also know of another Jewish man (not personally) who gave an Irish Catholic lady, in Boston, $100 when she told him she was going to Mass---and he told her to give that to the Church. So, go figure.

  11. My friend,
    What you say is true. Many Traditionalists think nothing of making ridiculous statements which would lead one to believe every Jew is part of some wild-eyed conspiracy.

    Sadly, many also make disparaging remarks about people of different races. As Fr DePauw used to say, “God only recognizes one race—-the human race!” It is sinful to hate or denigrate others based on nothing more than skin color, nationality, etc. I’m glad to see that you have found the One True Church and will not allow ignorant people to push you away from that Truth necessary to salvation!

    God Bless,


  12. God bless you, as well. And for the record, I'm no newbie to Traditionalist Catholicity. I've been in it for a long time now. I never let the racism of some---not all and not even most---but still some Trads do anything to me. Economics can insulate you from that to some extent, and I'm fortunate in that regard. More importantly, I know one one -- not even a true Pope (not that he would, but for the sake of argument) could make me one less iota a Catholic. No one in the entire world or who has ever lived could accomplish that. The only person who could do that would be me, by heresy. And, with the grace of the Blessed Trinity, the Triune God, may that never be the case. You, Introibo have a truly universal --- catholic (small and capital C) on things. You are my brother in the faith.

  13. Am I the only person waiting for you to do a post on the "authenticity" of the Diary of Anne Fake?" IntroJewbo?

  14. Why do you think that so many Traditionalists seem to believe conspiracy theories?

    1. In my opinion, it stems from a combination of not understanding theology well enough, and the perilous times in which we live.

      Let me begin by saying that there are (and always have been) conspiracies. The Communists plotted to infiltrate the seminaries (quite successfully), and Freemasons have plotted against the Church since 1717. Pope Leo XIII wrote his famous Encyclical "Humanum Genus" on their subversive conspiracy to destroy the Church. There is the crime of "conspiracy to commit a crime" in criminal law.

      The problem comes in when people see EVERYTHING as part of some conspiracy. That's where the lack of a Magisterium and not understanding theology comes in. Many are ignorant of the tenets of Modernism. Anything that goes wrong in the world must be the result of Jews, Freemasons, and secret societies. ALL JEWS are evil (not the false religion, but the people themselves) and they're all against Catholics without exception.

      Since they believe that nothing is just the work of evil in the world, but of the machinations of various boogeymen, NOTHING is as it seems to be. 9-11 was perpetrated by the conspirators, not Moslems. The murders at Columbine and Newton were elaborate hoaxes, etc.

      This kind of thinking attracts the unstable among the Millenials and Generation Z. Two young men who wanted to be Traditionalist priests, and contacted me via Twitter, abandoned the Faith in a matter of months for extremist views. One became a Neo-Nazi, the other became a rabid Socialist and follower of Bernie Sanders.

      Yes, there are conspiracies and evil forces at work. BUT NOT EVERYWHERE. We must always remember the Latin aphorism/maxim "In medio stat veritas"--"In the middle lies the truth."

      God Bless,


    2. How can you not believe in conspiracies when there is so much evidence in support of them?

      The whole subversion and takeover of the Church was a massive, centuries-long conspiracy by the Talmudists and their appendages like Freemasonry. This has culminated in the destruction of the entire hierarchy of the Church and the placement of a series of antichrists (small a) unto the Papal Throne. You admit to this conspiracy. And just this year, the fake Sister Lucy, the product of a conspiracy to present her as the real Sister Lucy, has been exposed. You admit to this conspiracy as well.

      The Talmudists’ stated goal (by their own admission and affirmed in their own religious writings) is the worldwide domination and subjugation of all peoples under their Moshiach, so why do you think they aren’t trying surreptitiously to take over and control everything else as they have done with the visible Church? Do you honestly believe that they would take over the Church but leave temporal matters and the temporal authority alone?!!! Look how much power the Talmudists exercise in the media, business, finance, politics, science, culture, education, military, law enforcement, intelligence, and religion. Practically every prominent person, if not every prominent person, is either openly “Jewish,” “crypto-Jewish,” or closely associated with and/or controlled Talmudists. The object of all of this conspiracy and control is to prepare for the coming of Antichrist (capital A). When Antichrist comes, he will find the infrastructure prepared for him, the whole power of the world at his beck and call, without which he could not exercise that control that he will wield, and all this as the result of conspiracy. At this point, the conspirators’ control is so advanced and pervasive that Antichrist’s coming cannot be too far down the road. I am under 40, and I think it likely I will see his coming in my lifetime.

      By the way, Cardinal Manning wrote in 1861 that conspiracy had already wrecked Christian society: “The secret societies have long ago undermined and honeycombed the Christian society of Europe, and are at this moment struggling onward toward, Rome, the centre of all Christian order in the world.”

    3. I never said I don't believe in conspiracies, and anyone who reads what I wrote above would know that. "Truthers" are blind to any "truth" that does not conform to their preconceived notions and worldview.

      Let me put it another way. I believe in miracles (as all Traditionalists MUST). That doesn't mean that if my neighbor comes over to me tomorrow and says, "Jesus Christ appeared in my living room last night, changed my glass of water into wine, and then gave me messages from Heaven," that I must (or should) believe him. Before I would make a shrine in his living room, I must ask myself
      **How well do I know him?
      **How truthful is he to the best of my knowledge and belief?
      **Does he have a history of mental illness, or has he taken medication which could induce hallucinations?
      **Is it possible he was having a vivid dream?
      **Is it possible the water became wine only after he had plenty of wine first?
      **What did Christ allegedly tell him? Is it contrary to Faith and Morals? Is he a Traditionalist? Why would Christ appear to him in particular?

      Understand that a claim of the miraculous requires tremendous proof. Even the Miracle of the Sun, and the apparitions of Fatima were not rubber-stamped as true--even with 100,000 witnesses! Yet, the apparitions and miracle did not receive papal approval as "worthy of belief" until 1940--a 23 year careful investigation!

      When people don't use the term correctly, and say "life is a miracle" or a baby being born is a "miracle," they are also obfuscating the truth of miracles.

      Likewise with conspiracies. Yes, there are conspiracies. NOT EVERYTHING IS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. About three years ago, I had a conversation with a Lyndon LaRouche supporter. I've followed LaRouche and his amusing political campaigns for quite some time. He has some ideas that actually have merit, such as the re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act. Unfortunately, the core idea that drives his movement is that that the Queen of England is behind a worldwide conspiracy to obliterate two-thirds of the world's population via thermonuclear war so England can re-colonize the remaining one-third of the population (I couldn't have made that up if I tried).

      The lady bought into this manifest absurdity hook, line, and sinker. The "proof" was either non-existent or some facts totally twisted out of context. I offered to show her the video tape I had of LaRouche in 1992 (recorded him on WCBS-TV on VHS) wherein he claimed George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were conspiring to send him to prison because he was "the only one who can save Earth for thermonuclear war" which would definitely happen "before the year 2000" unless he was elected president. She refused. I told her he went to jail for mail fraud, and she claimed it was a set up by Bush and Clinton. What about the tape? His TV appearance was altered by the British conspirators. How? don't bother her with details. He was wrong. No, he wasn't.

      There was nothing I could have said, and no amount of evidence I could present, which would sway her to abandon LaRouche and his nutty conspiracy idea.

      Like the Gnostics of old, those who see a conspiracy behind every door see themselves as privileged elite with secret knowledge of what is "really happening" unlike the deluded masses of people.

      Just as a miracle requires thorough investigation and enormous evidence, so too, does the accusation of a conspiracy. We have a logical right to assume things are the way they appear unless a defeater (strong proof to the contrary) is offered.

      To do otherwise is to have people dismiss Traditionalists as crackpots when we are already denigrated enough.

      I'll be praying for you my young friend!


    4. Whenever I see a car parked at a Traditionalist chapel with bumper stickers that read “9/11 Was An Inside Job” or “The Moon Landing Was a Fake”, I cringe. No wonder the majority of people think we are a bunch of looneys!

    5. It is not the bumper stickers that make people think you are a bunch of looneys, it is that you are a fundamentalist religious sect called Sedevacantists.

      Everyone in the whole world knows exactly who the pope is except YOU. And you call other people such as Truther Gnostic?

      911 and the moon landing hoax are already well-known and accepted. For example,a 2016 poll showed that 50% of the American population doubted the official story of 911. That is unprecedented. I'm sure it is higher today, and rightfully so since the evidence of controlled demolitions is scientifically indisputable. Personally, I could care less what Time magazine reports.

      No, 911 and the moon hoax (filmed on a set) are not your problem (except that you actually believe what it prints). As I said, the fact that you are a Catholic splinter sect that pretends it is still 1948 is the reason why you are laughed at by the majority of people.

    6. Sedevacantism is not a sect but a theological position taught by the Church Herself. So the analogy to “truthers” is inapposite. If a man believed in God yet wanted to be called an atheist, would you recognize him as such?

      Jorge Bergoglio denies the truths of the Catholic Faith yet calls himself “pope.” According to the unanimous consent of the theologians, should a pope ever profess heresy he would lose the pontificate, and should he be a heretic prior to his election, he cannot attain the office of pope. Thus saith Pope Paul IV in Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio.

      Yet you believe that a man can declare “There is no Catholic God” and be pope, but the Moon landing is fake because of some alleged polls. Yeah. Ok. Sure.

      I can amply prove the Vatican II sect teaches contradictory doctrine and morals from what was always taught. Hence, either the Church was wrong before Vatican II or it is wrong after Vatican II. However, the Church Of Christ is indefectible. Therefore, one must either reject the Church outright, reject the Church pre-Vatican II or reject post-Vatican II.

      Query: Was the moon landing filmed on the same set as the one that faked the Mars landing with OJ Simpson? (Extra credit to my readers who get the pop culture movie reference!).

      Good luck finding Elvis!


    7. Query: Is the Catholic Church the one with the pope and dioceses recognized by the whole world or the one that elected Sinead O'Connor by laymen? (extra credit to any of your readers who get it right.)

      Good luck finding the Church! I'll probably find Elvis first and he'll be more convincing than your popes. Hey, maybe you can elect Elvis!

    8. @anonymous6:44
      You did exactly what I was hoping a "truther" conspiracy buffon would do:

      1. Refuse to deal with the facts and theology regarding the Church's own teaching regarding sedevacantism

      2. An inability to relate to these facts and engage in arguments, so ignore them

      3. Inability to be original, even in attempted sarcasm

      There has been no attempt to refute the FACT that the Church--through Her approved theologians and canonists, as well as papal teaching--holds that manifest heretics lose office and are prevented from obtaining the papal office.

      There was no attempt to disprove Vatican II and Bergoglio teach doctrines DIRECTLY OPPOSED to those always held by Holy Mother Church. Both cannot be correct.

      Now to your query:

      Answer --The Church is the one with the PAPACY and not necessarily a live pope to fill the office. During the Great Western Schism, lasting almost 40 years, no one knew who (if anyone) was pope. Did the Church cease to exist? Obviously not.

      You don't understand Church teaching on the papacy:

      According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

      Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      So the Church is the One that has the True Faith. Sinead O'Connor is bipolar, and it's interesting you would bring her up.

      It is you who needs to find the Church and not a group of apostates.

      As far as Elvis is concerned, I know he's dead, but truthers probably "see him" at the supermarket.Traditionalists don't have any "popes." Those are conclavists who operate outside Catholic teaching. You don't even understand the difference.

      Elect Elvis? If he were alive he'd be more Catholic than the demonic "There is no Catholic God" Bergoglio!!

      Thank you for doing a far better job of exposing the mentality--or should I say "the lack thereof"--of conspiratorial truthers.

      Your world is one divorced from facts, and reality distorted beyond recognition. It's a world where a man who opposes the Catholic Faith openly can be "pope" contrary to Church teaching, yet the moon landing is a hoax based on some opinion poll.

      Thank you for educating my readers!


    9. The movie was “Capricorn One,” mentioned in Sibrel’s documentary. I am sure it was Hollywood’s way of waving the fakeness of the Moon landing in our noses and demonstrating how stupid and gullible the American public is that they could see a movie about a faked Mars landing and not put two and two together to deduce that the Moon landing was faked in a similar manner. Do I get extra credit?

      By the way, it looks like the Moon landing was actually filmed in a landfill. You can see junked cars made up to look like rocks and golf balls from where they used it as a driving range. Courtesy of our friend Jim Fetzer:

    10. You get credit for knowing the movie. See my response above. Is Jim Fetzer a scientist? Wasn' it filmed by Stanley Kubric? LOL


  15. Speaking of false religions,I recently watched
    "Apocalypto" and remembered a question I had about this movie.
    (Only seen it 3 times since 03/04)
    Why did the Aztecs hold their arms straight forward,slightly elevated,with their palms flat?
    I've looked on the Net and can't find an answer.
    Years ago,I watched a music video portraying the Druids and saw the same pose.
    Looked up Warren H.Carroll's book on the Aztecs but only found reviews and sales.

    Thank you.

    1. Andrew,
      I’m not familiar with Aztec rituals, or that particular gesture. If one of my readers knows, please comment.

      It’s possible that it’s simply an artistic license employed by Mel Gibson in making the movie, and it has no real significance.

      God Bless,


    2. I've seen this certain pose in videos or documentaries involving pre-Catholic pagan regions tribes etc...
      I will let you know either way if/when someone informs me.

  16. Great Article as usual. Keep em coming.

    1. Thank you David! Comments like yours keep me writing.

      God Bless,