The Best Book I Ever Read

An interesting post by Adam again was this one, for which he apparently received some pushback.

Having read it, I would say he only made the window-dressing error of the title he chose, and this singular phrase:

You treat your daughters as property that must be protected 

It is the natural poisoning of the mind that occurs in the predominantly Protestant zeitgeist of English-speaking countries, to reduce things to a simplified (and usually binary) mode of thinking. And such thinking is almost always a mistake. Few things in life are so black and white and when you apply an oversimplification to a complex situation, you are invariably in error to some degree or other.

Sometimes needs must: If I have only 2 weeks to train a battalion for war, some trainees will likely die in training, but the others will have a better chance to live through the war. But in matters of social engineering, it is worth taking careful observation of reality rather than play fast and loose with broad definitions that are going to fall short of the mark.

Adam’s piece is otherwise completely right, but those two unfortunate uses of the word “property” when applied to women in general, are an error.

In fairness to Adam, I think he quickly realised this and he wrote a follow-up that expanded on his thoughts.

I it he tries to better explain what he means by stating that “women are property” or should be treated as property, but the sneaky thread of sulphurous protestantism remains even in his expanded explanation. And this is important to note, because this is precisely how evil works. It infiltrates as tendril of mildly erroneous wordings or concepts and inevitably expands into a cancer on life in general.

Even in his expanded explanation, whether because of persistence in his error or perhaps some hint of pride in not wanting to admit it, Adam continues in his insistence of stating women as property. This is absolutely not a Catholic belief, but rather a purely Protestant one, and, tellingly, a Pagan one too.

Before I go on to correct the error and hence better represent Catholicism as it is, instead of how Protestants insist on trying to present it as (falsely, obviously) let me be clear that I am not taking shots at Adam. He is a friend, and a good man, (yes, even though he is Australian, proving we Catholics truly understand forgiveness!) and the point here is not to bash his good intent, or even his error, rather, I would say, the intent on my part is of iron sharpening iron. Adam is a good exponent of Catholicism in general and the more accurate he can become, the better the influence he will have on others who may be ignorant, fooled by the lies or confused in general.

Now back to the topic at hand.

In Catholic thought, women are not, and never have been, “property”, other than in (somewhat) one specific, and by the way equal, way: in marriage, they do not have authority over their body, their husbands do, and equally, the husband has no authority over his body, the wife does (1 Corinthians 7:4). And it is very much the case that this passage in the Bible refers pretty much only to the sexual congress that occurs between husband and wife. In other words, marriage constitutes a perpetual sexual access to your body by your spouse. Even then, this is not a mechanistic “sex doll” clause, as the immediately following passage in the same section makes clear (1 Corinthians 7:5).

Even then, the wife (or husband’s) body is not treated as “property” but rather as the spouse having authority over it. That is rights. Not ownership as such, but authority to use it sexually; a subtle but important difference.

In fact, Catholicism was precisely the very religion that freed women (and children) from being thought of as actual property.

Now, all that said, let me also be clear that Catholicism is also not the other side of the Protestant coin: the pedastilisation of women, where they can do no wrong, are spiritual saint purely by virtue of being female etcetera, etcetera. No. As always, Catholicism simply describes reality as it is, and recognises that women are the more fragile sex when it comes to dealing with the world. As such, they are to be protected from it and from their own, mostly unwise responses to it. Just as it is a parent’s duty to protect a child from his own unwise responses to a fallen and dangerous world.

The complainers that this “negates the agency of women” are retards bleating in the wind of their own ineptitude. The simple reality is that yes, generally speaking, children have less agency than adult women, and adult women generally have less agency than adult men. This is simply reality. Just like the sky is mostly blue in daytime, or black at night-time. Neither state is rigidly absolute, but only a complete moron would argue against these facts as being the obvious reflection of reality that it is.

So, while it is absolutely correct that as a father of four daughters it is my duty to educate, protect and love them, it is not true that I ever have, or ever will, treat them as property. And ultimately, while it absolutely is my duty to instruct and teach them and do my absolute best to see they are prepared to deal with the hellscape of the world we find ourselves in, at some point, I will be dead, and they will need to rely on themselves to navigate the world well if they have not yet found a worthy husband.

While I am alive, I will certainly help them evaluate any prospective suitors, but while that is a fundamental part of being a father and parent, ultimately, as is also clear in Catholic dogma, marriage has to be a freely chosen sacrament by all parties involved. In short, a better analogy is that while you can teach someone to drive, you can never be actually controlling their every move by some remote system of control. They may crash. They may die or run someone over. All I can do is teach them all I know as best I can. After that, it’s up to them, the choices they make, hopefully the good husbands they pick, and finally, the Grace of God.

In Catholic belief, all things are ultimately subject to God’s Will. Which is not to say we sit on our arses like Hindus or Muslims because in any case, the wheel of reincarnation will evolve us or Allah will do whatever he wants anyway so why bother. No. Catholic belief is that you absolutely must get off your arse and work tirelessly and to the bone to be the best you can be, and even then that is only to TRY to secure a place in Purgatory, which is by no means guaranteed, so that you might, eventually get to Heaven, instead of Hell, where the path to it is “wide and well-travelled”.

In short, if and when you do work your arse right off, then, God, invariably does bestow His Grace upon you.

One of the filthiest of the many lies Protestants created about their fake Churchianity, is that no one is “saved by works”. A twisted half-truth designed to leads untold millions to Hell.

While it is true that a lot of busywork without any faith achieves not Heaven, it is equally true that a faith that does nothing practical is also just as fake, sterile, and useless. Teaching people that all you need to do to be saved is “accept to at Jesus Christ is King” is literally telling people to have the same “Christian” standards that Demons have.

Demons too know very well that Christ is King.

And that is really the only “prescribed” rule of Protestantism, not can it be any other way once you teach people that they are all entitled to interpret the Bible (and everything else) as they choose. Which is literally a Satanic law (the only Law is that there is no Law, so you can do whatever you want is entirely Satanic, and Protestantism can be absolutely defined as “interpreth as thou will”, just another version of the Satanic law “do as thou will”).

The squeals of Protestants to the contrary —sounding so much like the noises made by demon-infested pigs as they run towards the sea— the reality is that no two Protestants can even agree on what the definition of a Christian can or should be. Which is why they have reduced it to meaningless nonsense like “accepting Jesus in your heart”, “being a Jesus follower”, “knowing and accepting Christ is King” or “having a personal relationship with Jesus”.

All complete generalities with less consistency than a thin fart in a high tornado. Ask them to define with precision what the rules for being a Christian are, and they become babbling gibbering mouthers, more prone to speaking in tongues than make a coherent argument, much less a united one.

The situation is, of course, entirely different if you ask any two Catholics how to define what a Christian is, they will tell you the Credo for a start; and all that is implied in it can be found in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, plus the Papal encyclicals and documents referred to therein, as well as those produced between 1917 and up to 9th October 1958, when the last valid Pope died. That is it and can often be quickly received in summary format by the guidance of a good priest or Bishop, of which there are only a few left, but they do exist, and will continue to do so, as they have through all the dark times the Church has navigated through.

Returning to the errors of Protestant infused thinking with regard to women, their level of agency, and the duty of men to protect them from the world and their own emotionally driven unwise choices, once again, the Catholic perspective is based in reality and as such infinitely superior to all other attempts at “controlling” or even merely understanding women.

Women are less capable in the practical navigation of the fallen world we inhabit, and as such need to be protected, cherished and helped through it by men who correctly see the world as it is, and inevitably, the best of such men can only be properly Catholic (i.e. Sedevacantist) because Catholicism is the best method we have ever had of seeing reality as it is, with logic, reason, and Divine Grace all working in perfect unity.