Germany and the US Both Have Issues

The CRAZIEST Culture Shock I Have Ever Experienced
Type Ashton | 21 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClpHvaM59c

How much of this is due to raising marital age in many states during the Progressive Era?

Predecessors of Jan III Sobieski and Austrians

Intro to it:

Why Don't they Teach Gynaecology in These Schools?

The problem isn't Russians don't get sex education.

The problem is, they are not accurately informed that "the clock is ticking" ... if you want many children, don't wait till the lady is thirty.

5:31 "average age just above 17"

Would be no problem at all if average age for marriage was just above 17.

6:19 Mississippi teen pregnancies are only problematic if it's hard to get teen married in Mississippi.

8:49 I'm sad to say, in some states, as Maedel mit Meinung mentioned, a mandatory part can be watching gay porn.

15:01 Again, adolescent fertility is not a bad thing, provided adolescents are allowed to marry.*

15:32 In other words, the US is less likely to be overrun by immigrants having higher fertility rates?

Well, good for US fertility rates, then.

19:13 "trying to do the responsible thing"

According to what standard of responsability?

20:32 Well, married minors, as well as everyone else should not contracept.

The most horrible sin against the neighbour is murder, the second most horrible the sin against nature by which birth is prevented. While St. Thomas may have included very early abortions into contraception, he meant all contraception.**

21:21 If sex happens without contraception, perhaps someone needs to start deciding whether they prefer a grand-child's parents to be married or unwed.

As a Christian, I'd clearly prefer married, unless one of them was a close relative, already married, bound to lifelong celibacy or of non-Christian religion.

---

* If they aren't allowed to, that's worse than the extra-marital fertility as such.
** Including, not limited to, the one celebrated at certain very non-Catholic parades.

Societal Change Out of Christendom, Started with Heliocentrism and Freemasonry

These Mysterious Figures REWROTE History in the West. I Can Prove It.
Answers in Genesis Canada | 13 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlHEMK7Mn4Y

4:50 Case in point.

When a slave revolt in Louisiana was quenched very cruelly, with leaders tied to cannons and killed by the outgoing cannon balls, it was during La Régence. The son of a faggot (yes, homosexual men can marry and have children, and he was protected against legal consequences of his misdeeds) tried to make up for it by being ultra-macho and multiplying mistresses, and neglecting religion ... at least, that's the analyses that Warren H. Lewis, brother of a more famous author, made of his case.

In doing so, he flirted, very heavily, with freemasonry and enlightenment (misnomer, really) and that involved boosting racism.

Similar case in point, a few decades later. A real or purported descendant of Tupac Amaru, sometimes styled Tupac Amaru II, becomes the leader of a rising, "by the grace of God Inca" ... why was the rising necessary? I looked up the year, 1780. Yes, exactly, Carlos III was king of Spain, a lecher and adulterer who, when wounded by shrapnel by a male victim of cuckoldry took revenge on the Jesuits that he had confessed to.

Two royal governments totally opposed to Clovis' Baptism in Rheims and to the Reconquest of Spain.

Prior to these misrules, French had been fairly decent to Black Slaves, the Code des Noirs being meant as a protection against abuse, and Spain to the conquered peoples of the Americas.

Obviously, if you've seen Mission, you know the role of Pombal in making Portuguese colonies worse for the Guaraní. He had served as executing a whole family reacting against cuckoldry imposed by Joseph I of Portugal.

It may be noted, some feudal lords were pretty bad at respecting the chastity of peasant women, in Spain a revolt against this abuse had been successful, so the traditional norm wasn't to put up with it and then get a paycheck for it, it was that the culprit could be executed if put on trial. Similar point involved in El Alcalde de Zalamea.

The West’s Moral Collapse Isn’t Caused by What You Think
Answers in Genesis Canada | 19 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N6efJiZ9Y

Ideologically driven from its very conception.

True of Heliocentrism too.

They Planned the Destruction of Our Christian Values Hundreds of Years Ago
Answers in Genesis Canada | 26 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwKzXCaUTd4

15:10 "Victorian" England?

Ew .... 20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901 = rule of Queen Victoria. 12 December 1731 – 18 April 1802 are the lifedates of Erasmus Darwin.

No, and in Victorian England, Atheism would not remain a totally distasteful accusation. I wonder how much you know of the last prince of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha. The dynastic origin of the Windsors, but not an actual possession of their monarchy as such since at least 1870. He was taking up the role, as he was pushed to, and despite growing up at Victoria's court, fought on the other side in WW-I. He's the grandpa of my King, as I'm a Swede.

What his childhood taught him is a bit the game that a recent Windsor dropout painted in "heir and spare" or sth like that. That court, where he grew up, had no fear of God. He was the first German noble to shake hands with Hitler. He did so over Hitler promoting things like Euthanasia. So, do you think the court where he spent the first fifteen years of his life was anything like Christian?

If anything, an Atheist in Victorian England would have been thought of as too blunt. But Darwin's Bulldog Huxley went close, preferring to be labelled as Agnostic. Now, that was the time of the grandson, Huxley dying in 1895. In the times of the grandfather, Erasmus, I think it may have depended on region and city. The first organised atheists had already appeared.

In Great Britain, William Hammon and physician Mathew Turner authored a pamphlet in response to Joseph Priestley's Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever. Theirs was the first work in English to openly defend atheism, and implied that established sentiment of Christianity made speaking up in defense of atheism an act with a reasonable expectation of public punishment.

I look up the link in the wikipedian footnote and find: 1782.

So, in this era, the accusation was not distasteful, it was a criminal charge. Let's not conflate the two periods. By 1800, Atheism exists, and legally has to hide itself. By 1900, Atheism need not actually hide itself. But tries to camouflage itself as "agnostic" ... Huxley was vehemently anti-Catholic.

Erasmus was not just a member of Lunar Society, but also of freemasonry:

Darwin had been a Freemason throughout his life, in the Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Later on, Sir Francis Darwin, one of his sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald [wd] was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804.

15:33 "general laws were quite enough to roll this planet around the sun" (Erasmus)

Oh, wait, reminds me of a thing I said somewhere ... while Heliocentrism and Theism can technically both be true, you cannot reason from one to the other (at least not on the level of precision called "Heliocentrism").

You can only reason in two directions: from Geocentrism to God, or from Atheism to Heliocentrism.

Because general laws are not quite enough to roll the visible universe around us each day.

What is God working with every Sabbath (John 5:17)? How are things visible from creation to all men (except the blind, meaning physically disabled by lack of eyesight) showing God's power inexhaustible or eternal (Romans 1)?

What did Riccioli analyse St. Thomas' Prima Via as saying?

Something other than general laws has to roll the universe around us, then the Sun on a yearly tour around the Zodiac, then Jupiter or Venus on quirky hypotrochoid tours around it, because they have the Sun as a moving epicentre ... God and angels will do. General laws won't.

17:04 "of the creator God" ... St. Paul didn't say Pagans could know God as having created at a single moment (or week) in the past. And Erasmus didn't deny God had created in the past. If Erasmus believed in some kind of God, he would have called him a watchmaker ... and not a blind one, but exactly the same watchmaker as Paley's. Or Voltaire's.

Here’s What Historians Will NEVER Tell You About Charles Darwin
Answers in Genesis Canada | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MllWp0VXC9M

1:14 One could argue, the options do not require "origin" ...

Two options that don't:

• eternal steady state universe (what Epicure basically believed in)
• illusionism (if a diversity is illosory, it requires no origin prior to the mind prey to it).

Now, illusionism is an excellent explanation for a painless hole in my right hand when I hold it before one eye and a paper tube before the other eye. It's less useful to explain things that really affect us.

Most people outside Hinduism and Buddhism set it aside.

As to eternal steady state universe, that is by now ruled out bc H + H > D, D + D > He in stellar fusion. There is no reverse or indirect reverse or roundabout reversal of the process.

Jock Young

@jockyoung4491

We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not, so it is somewhat pointless to argue about. And it certainly doesn't matter to the study of astrophysics or evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jockyoung4491 We do know fusion had a start, because H is limited amount and it is still not replaced by He.

Add to this that evolution is on some pretty clear issues, like abiogenesis and origin of the human language, totally out, you need a Creator.

12:04 Unlike Erasmus Darwin, Chambers actually did write and publish in Victorian England.

12:53 "took the public by storm"

If you had read Selected Literary Essays by one C. S. Lewis, you would have known Atheism was somewhat popular as early as Byron and Shelley. CSL retained a taste for Shelley even after becoming a Christian, but this very popular Atheist was pre-Victorian:

4 August 1792 – 8 July 1822

So, under George III and IV. Like Lord Byron:

22 January 1788 – 19 April 1824

14:58 The guys who really want to lionise Darwin could have started out with a certain Marx. No, not Groucho or Harpo. Also not Adolf Bernhard. Karl.

One whose first work was pretending that Colossians 2:8 didn't (more or less) target Epicureanism, but Aristotelianism.

I think that was his dissertation in philosophy.

Karl Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, who, however declined.

Who's Pope Michael II?

Have We Not Had a Valid Pope Since 1958?
Dr Taylor Marshall | 4 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcp2vAOuQFA

Dr Taylor Marshall

in the video

Every cardinal in the Catholic Church says Prevost is Pope Leo validly. Every single bishop on earth says that Prevost is Pope Leo XIV.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

"every single bishop"

Pope Michael II is bishop, so was Michael I. Bishop Fred Clary submits to Michael II ....

Stephen Crane

@sjacrane

Seriously there’s a “Pope Michael II?”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@sjacrane There were three Conclavist projects.

Pope Michael I, 1990.
Linus II, 1992, I think.
Pius XIII, 1998.

Linus withdrew, Pius died without successor, the one left was Michael I. He died in 2022 and his successor was elected in Vienna, less than a year later, in 2023.

"It would be a category error to call the SSPX Protestant."

SSPX EXCOMMUNICATIONS: Still Not Protestant!
Ready to Harvest | 2 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BThpQ9U7gIE

"It would be a category error to call the SSPX Protestant."

Thank you. Me too.

Swedes have sometimes a hard time to grasp this. In 1993, after switching to SSPX, former fellow Novus Ordo Catholics branded me a Protestant.

That absolutely didn't mean I'd have been at home with Protestants.

Currently I'm Conclavist. After Lefebvre and Castro-Mayer, two bishops consecrated before the Council, consecrated Fellay and Galareta with two more, one ex-Seminarian of them concluded that "emergency bending of rules" is only licit if one does so the necessary extent to actually finish the emergency.

And to David Allen Bawden, that meant, means still, I suppose, get a real Pope one can in good conscience obey.

6 persons showed up for an emergency election ("emergency conclave" is a misnomer since it wasn't an actual conclave in the usual procedure), 5 against himself voted for him.

So, more or less SSPX-er about half of my life and the last 12 years a Conclavist, no, I'm not a Protestant.

7:36 Pope Michael I, his successor Michael II, have an answer.

Pope-sifting is in practise denying the universal and direct jurisdiction of the Pope.

I would say it is licit momentarily to oppose a Pope, while not yet considering him a non-Pope, if one finds him in doctrinal error. This happened against Pope John XXII, who had denied the Beatific Vision prior to the Last Judgement, ie he was proposing Soul Sleep. He was then opposed by one, didn't repeat that position, promised to study, did study and on his death bed came out against Soul Sleep and for Saints who are canonised having the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision from the moment they die (except one saint who asked to spend time in Purgatory, just for solidarity).

That's a far cry from opposing the same Pope time after time on the same issue and continuing that with the next Pope. John XXII made a mistake. One cannot say he chose error. John Paul II cannot be said to have made a mistake in CCC § 283, if he continued to uphold that "Catechism" unaltered to his death and Benedict XVI and Francis did so. If they were Popes, I'm wrong. If I'm right, they were not Popes. Resisting can't become pope-sifting.

8:04 Dito Council-Sifting.

There have been 20 ecumenical Councils.

8:17 New Catechism ... "infected with modernist errors" ... in CCC § 283, more like directly professing one, that modern science trumps the obvious sense of the text in Genesis 1 through 11. Especially as it is now on more issues than how much time passed before Adam was created.

Pose Adam in the timeline, and admit he's the first human with a soul created in God's image, you have dehumanised loads of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthals, even inhabitants of Çatal Höyyük, as well as implied most of today's peoples started as non-human and got human admixture, at best.

Admit he's the first human, but reframe the timeline, like WLC, you have made Genesis 3 impossible to know historically, you can't even mend that by saying it was prophecy, since prophecy couldn't have got Genesis 5 and 11 wrong, and you have made the waiting time for the woman and her seed unendurably long.

Pose him in the timeline, pretend he's the first ... sth other than actual first human ... and you have redefined original sin.

Pose Adam in the timeline, admit he's the first human, and admit all human skeleta dated to before him are misdated, you have contradicted § 283 and being Day Ager or Gap Theorist won't fix that.

10:55 Origen was, as far as I know, not excommunicated.

Origenism was condemned by a bishops' vote in Ecumenical council V. Origen was already dead and couldn't be excommunicated. As I recall Newman, there is some doubt whether the Pope confirmed the bishops' vote or just condemned the Three Chapters of Ibas. Nevertheless, Origenism would still be condemned by the constant acceptance in the ordinary magisterium after Ecumenical council V, that being ... Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD.

More on Apoc. 13:18

Apocalypticae Considerationes · More on Apoc. 13:18

They're Saying He's the Antichrist…
Totus Catholica | 2 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAeV6iLv5NY

0:34 "whose identity God has not given us permission to assign"

Whence, if so, the words He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred sixty-six.

Now, identifying someone's name as involving that gematria is not final proof, but it is a warning signal.

Safe House

@virtualzhbl

@hglundahl -- The official title of the Pope in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei in English translate to Vicar of the Son of God. In Roman numerals, the Latin phrase Vicarius Filii Dei adds up to 666.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@virtualzhbl The official titleS you conflate are "Vicarius Christi" which doesn't so add up, and "Servus Servorum Dei" which doesn't so add up.

Plus Roman numerals is NOT the correct gematria for Apoc. 13:18.

Now a Church Father said, and that was before Constantine in case you are into the Hislop slop, it can't be Latin letters, because they don't have a numeric value for each letter (that has changed in ASCII) and it can't be Hebrew, it's too unknown, so it must be Greek (which is now as unknown as Hebrew was then).

If you want an institution, take doctors, since they swear by Apollon, who in that capacity could have been a man, and the five cases of Apollon in Greek add up to 2666. (I said Greek, not modern Greek, OK).

Safe House

@hglundahl "The letters inscribed in the Pope's miter are these 'VICARIUS FILII DEI'. which is the Latin for 'VICAR OF THE SON OF GOD.' Catholics hold that the church, which is a visible society, must have a visible head...., as head of the church, was given the title, 'VICAR OF CHRIST'." Our Sunday Visitor, (Catholic Weekly) "Bureau of information," Huntington, Ind., April 18, 1915.

It looks like your Apollon theory doesn't work out. 2666 doesn't equate to 666.

I believe the Catholic church knows better then you. Stop trying to figure out things you don't understand with your Apollon theory nonsense.

@hglundahl By the way, Hislop was right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@virtualzhbl Hislop was wrong, because he tried to play at Assyriologist before all cuneiform characters were known and when nearly no texts were decoded and translated.

Did you know the Hebrew convention of omitting the thousand coming before hundreds, decades and units? Like when Hebrew year 5777 was commonly referred to as 777? Applies to the five cases of Apollon.

That the Church needs to have a visible head is correct.

I don't think that article in the Sunday visitor spoke of the Pope's tiara (not mitre). But if it did, it was ill informed and so are you, relying on urban legends.

@virtualzhbl Oh, I missed this total discourtesy:

"Stop trying to figure .."

Not understanding is more on your side.

He was

thereupon blocked.

0:34 future He certainly was future back in the time of St. John.

5:05 If all you want is not to be deceived by a counterfeit, and I mean all, then all you need to do is look at anything purported to be a saviour, compare to Jesus, say "no, it isn't" ....

However, if also you want to not be unfair to a — dare I say fellow? — Christian, you might want two more things.

1) Verify he really claimed to be a saviour, and not just a Christian whistleblower (like Chesterton) or man of providence (like Franco).
2) Verify his name adds up to 666.

Now, there are a specific set of circumstances that do line up the "future" reign of the Antichrist. I put "future" in quotation marks, because it certainly was future back in St. John's or St. Irenaeus' day, it need not be future by much when I write it or at all when someone reads it.

1) Ban from participation in the market for not taking the mark;
2) Decapitation for refusal to take the mark.

It's probable these are successive. The thing is, vaccinations and masks are images of the medical corps, which does at least nominally worship one Apollo in the Hippocratic oath. Now, the Classic Attic five cases of Apollo do add up to 2666. Also, vaccines against Covid were made by viruses or virus extracted bacterially cultivated proteins, where the cultivation or initial cultivation of viruses for each strand and each new version of the vaccine takes place in human fetal cells from an abortion. This is both the case for Moderna and for Sputnik V.

So, we may already have witnessed stage 1, ban from participation in the market for not taking the mark. I have been refused in one bakery to buy even a coffee for not wearing a mask while entering.

5:05 bis a code you can break to unmask a world leader.

There takes more than this gematria for a world leader to be Antichrist, the final one, but not less. If you had no other suspicions, that gematria might tip you off. But arguably, if you even looked it up, apart from being very curious, you might have had other reasons about the man.

St. Hippolytus certainly says that not everyone who has that in his name is the Antichrist, since that gematria is fairly common. The man who delivered St. John from Patmos, M. NEPOYAC, in Genitive had M. NEPOYA, which adds up to 666. However, in ASCII, the gematria is not all that common. With nine upper case letters of the English alphabet, the chances are (all combinations adding up to 666 per all of nine upper case) c. 1/140 or 1/150.

Putin has three versions of this gematria. Charles III and any male successor of his has two versions.

WLADIMIRA (Genitive / Accusative of Wladimir). VLADIMIRB (Vladimir B, Vladimir II). These two are potentially common with Zelensky, which could explain why he made Russian non-official across Ukraine. Volodimir does not so add up. And V POUTINE (V. POUTINE, but pointless, since full stop is called a point in French), like if he did sth pointless in a French speaking country.

ENGELSMAN. skotte.

(Elisabeth was ENGELSKA / skotska, does not so add up).

Both are, and so is Zelensky, endorsing Covid vaccination.

5:20 Sometimes technology in your hand spells out allegiance.

You held a cell phone in your right hand in 2021, you showed the vaccination app, you showed you thought you owed more to a medical scare endorsed by the government than to the unborn.

CELLPHONE also spells out 666 in ASCII.

5:26 Looking up Irenaeus.

Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.

I would say:

Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [name], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.

In other words, he is not warning against calculating the numbers of already known men, but trying to know the name well before the arrival.

Supposing anyone had in 1850 calculated in advance (very fictitious example, since not so adding up) that the Antichrist would bear the name Adolf. There could have been two outcomes related to a certain baby in 1889. a) He could have been deliberately so named in an attempt to secure him the position of Antichrist, or b) he could have been beaten in 1945 and people thought the peril was over, when a much better candidate was a certain WLADIMIR A (Wladimir A, Wladimir I, Lenin), who was still worshipped in his maosolaeum and whose successor Stalin was clearly not out of the way.

St. Irenaeus is not warning against looking out for a certain person. He's warning against knowing the name before the person appears. You can't do that in the same culture. Hebrews could literally in advance know from Isaias that a certain deliverer would be called Cyrus. But that was because the people around Cambyses were totally unaware of Hebrew prophecy. Since the Antichrist comes after world wide Christendom, after preaching of the Gospel (including the Apocalypse) to all nations, a direct prophecy of the name would be a shortcircuit.

Isaias didn't prophecy Jesus would be called Jesus, he prophecied Immanuel, which is the same meaning as Jesus. And John didn't tell us the actual name, but the number of the name. Having that number is not an immediate indictment, as can be seen from M. NEPOYA. But not having it is an acquitment.

St. Irenaeus is actually telling us what to wait for:

But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.

The division of the kingdom into ten ... if it's a round number it has happened in more than one break-up of Roman and deutero-Roman statehood.

Austro-Hungary had 8 successor states. Or nine if you count the same territory twice, first as SHS and then as Yugoslavia.
Russian Empire. Russia, Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Romania (as it took Bessarabia), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Mongolia, perhaps?
West Rome had some successor kingdoms in the Age of Migrations, Carolingian Empire started out parting into three parts, but the middle split further ...

5:31 Ah, you stopped citing Irenaeus before he told us what to wait for ...

No, he didn't refuse to play the game.

He said it was premature to play it, the stage was not yet set.

If you go to Lateran V, the language echoes that sentiment.

Now, Irenaeus may have misunderstood "ten kings" as "ten independent states" rather than a single state ruled by committees of ten. As Ancient Roman Republic was more than once.

There is another Biblical thing to wait for. "until the one withholding is taken out of the way" ... if the katekhon is Jesus Christ and His Church, that cannot happen. But if it's for instance a Christian Roman Emperor, well Nicholas II of Russia was murdered and Charles I had to leave the Hofburg. According to one founding father, Karl Renner, of the first Austrian Republic, he and all heirs not formally and finally abdicating, could have no Austrian statehood or residence. Otto von Habsburg had an Austrian passport "valid in all countries except Austria" ... I would say Charles I did not just step out of the way, but was in a real sense taken out of the way.

The Medieval monk Adso (not "of Melk," that being a fictional character in Umberto Eco, but I can't recall the actual place he was abbot of) didn't include East Rome, but just the two divisions of West Rome / Carolingian. Germany and France.

1789 (or 1791 or 1830) and, as mentioned, 1918.

6:26 As you mentioned Holy Mass, bishops closed down Masses during the Covid emergency.

8:22 Actually, the First Covenant or Old Covenant (which had precedents prior to Moses and in that sense wasn't the first) lives on in the New Covenenant.

Judaism, as in non-Catholics, apart from its capacity to be apostasy, is more like cosplay than direct participation in the Old Covenant as it stood until Caiaphas made it impure.

8:52 "the true worship over the counterfeit, the Eucharist over the endless scroll of fear"

Apocalyptic fearmongering doesn't pretend to be in and of itself an act of worship.

And what I found at least a very close shadow of the mark of the beast in is itself, not via internet primarily, or via its private actors, but via state sponsored information, a "scroll" of fear. Fear of being the next one to transmit a virus that may be deadly to someone unless you tick off every point in a checklist, but primarily two items:

• mask worn as a metopon (one meaning being face shield)
• a cell phone in the right hand used to show vaccination status or for payment without contact ... which is still very promoted. And becomes more and more of an excuse against alms.

---

I mentioned Austro-Hungary as broken up into 8 territories, but before that the Holy Roman Empire, what Adso meant by Germany, had already lost Switzerland in the Peace of Westphalia and Germany in 1870. And 1870 is also the time when France last ceased to have a crowned monarch, Napoleon III. Now, 8 + 1 + 1 = 10.

---

One more suspect:

84 + 82 + 65 + 79 + 82 + 201 = 593 (TRAORÉ)
73 + 593 = 666 (add an I)

Except, if he was never baptised, he's not an apostate and is therefore not fulfilling that pretty probable if not certain criterium.

Bad Polemics Against the Papacy Will Include Anti-Fascism

Is the Pope From God or From Men? The Case Against Rome | Mike Gendron
Philippians 1:9 Ministries | 30 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do75NfgAkLM

Three remarks.

1) You didn't even bother to look at verse 19, where "thee" clearly refers to Peter. And with a language making him parallel to Eliacim.
2) You didn't note that the Church was founded on a rock and doesn't just consist of individuals, but regardless of leadership type is an institution, a stable community.
3) You feature personal immorality as non-leadership, like as if James [VI and] I's presumably sodomitic affairs had made him non-king, and add three authors, one of whom is a very recent modernist, adept of Vatican II, one of whom was a dropout in school, but presumably still correct on the historic facts, and one of whom takes support of Fascism, any kind, not just NSDAP, if you call that a Fascism, as a clear moral failure.

On the last point:

Who were the chief traitors to the cause of democratic civilization? Catholic France — that is to say, the Catholic and Pope-directed part of France, Belgium (or its Fascists, royalists, and priests), and the Catholic Croats of Yugo-Slavia.

Who made the best fight against the invading Huns? Norway, which has only 2000 Catholics to nearly 3,000,000 Protestants; the Serbs, who are bitterly anti-Papal and were let down by the Catholic provinces of their country; Greece, where the Pope has no influence; and Russia, where, if you will forgive in Irishism, he has still less. Not for a moment do I belittle the fine resistance of Poland, but it was not fighting Fascism as such. It was already Fascist and had for twenty years persecuted religious minorities. It fought for its national independence and to prevent the extension to Poland of the anti-clerical elements of Nazism.

He could have added Austria to Poland, except Austria, to avoid a bloodbath, didn't fight in 1938. Previously it had both fired on and executed NSDAP.

McCabe argues as if adherence to Democracy (including apparently Communism) were a moral duty and adherence or even alliance with a Fascism, any of them, were a moral failure.

To some who consider each and every one of the non-NSDAP Fascisms as "NSDAP lite", no, not the case. Italy was certainly not the purest, but even there sth like Aktion T-4 would have been and for the ventennio was unthinkable. Also, given Gipsies were trying to enter Italy in 1926, 100 years ago, and Mussolini blocked their entry in that year, it's obvious Gipsies were not oppressed in the early parts of the ventennio. After that block, I'm not sure if all caravans were targetted or just those drawn by horses ... given Mussolini's alliance with Fiat, that's a possibility. But even if not, even if he tried to force them to live in one place, democratic régimes, including Norway which McCabe praised, have oppressed them far worse than that.

So where does McCabe find in the Bible that Democracy is a duty and Fascism a sin? He doesn't.

(Clarification on Mussolini's block and the targetting of caravans, two different but connected stories. Legally, from Mussolini's side, foreign gipsies could no longer enter. In administration, from a chief police, gypsy caravans were targetted. And I'm not sure how much or why or what came of it, but I suspect it was a long term project and even in 1937, when gipsies were transferred from Istria to Sardinia, some gipsies, though fewer, were still roaming around in caravans. And those in Istria got to take their caravans with them, whether horse drawn or motored.)

---

One more.

This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us
[Acts Of Apostles 7:38]

No proof that the word "church" or ecclesia doesn't mean an institution.

We simply say, that was the Jewish Church, a perfectly legitimate (up to Caiaphas the night to Good Friday) precursor of the Catholic Church.

This also shows why Jesus could rebuke Peter a few verses later, since the Catholic Church was not yet founded as such at this moment. Cephas didn't become the first Pope of the New Covenant while (Hannas or) Caiaphas (or someone) was the last (or second last) Pope of the Old Covenant.

Christine Niles with John Salza and I Take Distance from SSPX, from Different Positions

She's OK with Vatican II, I'm a Conclavist. First an afterthought from today, then my original comments from yesterday. But even before that, her video.

SSPX Extremes | FORWARD BOLDLY
Christine Niles | 30 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQuhPuxWqZA

You considered it a kind of dissimulation to not include the position on the Mass into the Creed.

But a position is not a dogma or even an inherited ecclesial doctrine.

It is dogma or doctrine that Babel happened as described in Genesis 11. It is my position that this temporally happened in 401 after the Flood, not 101 or 529/531 as other text versions would indicate, and that that is 2557 BC. It is my position that this corresponds in carbon dating to c. 8000 BC. It is my position that this geographically was Göbekli Tepe. It is my position that Nimrod intended a space rocket, not some kind of skyscraper. It is my position that bricks for stones and slime for mortar describe slightly different materials, but the words were reused for what we refer to as bricks and bitumen.

Each of these positions could be false, even if I don't think any of them actually is false. But the falsification of any of these would not in the least involve falsifying the doctrinal position that Genesis 11 is history. Nimrod in some way tried to reach heaven and didn't have the means to do so, he forced all the human population to cooperate with his project and God liberated them from that by miraculously exchanging the linguistic content in the formed language capacities of adults. Each knew one language, like I know more or less 8, dialects of Germanic and Latin. Each went to bed knowing the same language and they rose next morning knowing different ones (as if tomorrow I didn't understand a bit of Germanic or Latin, but knew Chinese, Japanese, Cantonese instead, examples of languages I don't know). This would be true even if each of my positions were wrong.

I put my positions into essays, I'd not include them in a creed, even if I had the authority or task imposed by an authority to formulate one.

5:30 What exact year is this page from?

Bc I had heard "we will never recommend anyone to go to the new mass" ... and "often at risk of invalidity" before I attended reverend Novus Ordo by a priest ordained before the changes in a time and place where a TLM specifically from them was inaccessible.

6:49 Indeed.

The only logical options are:

• Novus Ordo is valid and licit
• not valid or at least not licit since St. Paul VI, prisoner in the Vatican; acted under duress (position of Palmarians)
• not valid or at least not licit since Montini was not validly Pope and neither was V-II a Council. (position of Sedevacantists and Conclavists)

7:45 Your beef, as OK with Vatican II, and our beef, as Conclavists, and their beef as Sedevacantists, with SSPX is the same.

Pope Michael I called it "pope-sifting"

11:01 In other words, they are in the canonical position of Abbot Schachleiter if he wanted to celebrate Mass in a Church in Munich outside his monastery (I'm not sure whether his faculties in the monastery depended on the bishop or the abbatial arrangement).

The withdrawal of faculties was bc of his personal friendship to Hitler. Taken to allowing him to assist Mass (he was, like other highranking NSDAP, excommunicated by German bishops). However, he didn't take it to allowing Hitler to get absolved or receive Holy Communion.

As a Conclavist, I pretty much agree with [Salza's] assessment on SSPX, though I have been cirkling around that position about half of my life. I take his position as less reasonable about Conclavism or Cum ex Apostolatus ...

19:07 Truth ... it was back at Novus Ordo (reverent, by a priest ordained before the change of rite) that I heard of CCC §283.

In 1991, when I was more like Ecclesia Dei, CCC was not there.

In 1992, when I got to SSPX, I had so much other stuff, I vaguely heard about it.

Only in Malmö, 2001, did I hear about CCC § 283. Not by the old priest. But it was still in a Catechism, or what purported to be such. Prior to this, in all of my conversion (Christmas 1984 to Pentecost or Easter Tide 1988), in my turning to Ecclesia Dei and to SSPX, no priest had ever asked me to treat Young Earth Creationism as an error. Or Geocentrism, though it wasn't sth I held yet.

Here the logical alternatives are:

• the Church and even Jesus got it wrong for near 2000 years, until John Paul II corrected things in 1992
• Wojtyla was not the Pope.

If you think "tertium datur" please spell it out. As far as I know, Salza is not keen on CCC § 283 either, but he can afford what I can't afford, or couldn't afford over decades, being accepted in a NO parish while decrying Old Earth as an actual religious error ... and by now Heliocentrism as one.