Tuesday, July 7, 2026
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerick Seems to be Close to Getting that Prophecy Fulfilled
"The Greatest Schism in Catholic History" The Shocking Prophecy of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
Jerome Chong | 6 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnr8j8cFB6Q
6:29 A little note.
Anne Catherine Emmerick would have said "Evangelische" which doesn't equate to American Evangelicals, but more to sth like United Church of Canada. They are in fact a union of Lutherans and Calvinists.
Evangelische Kirche is the infector of "Synodal Way" and very much of it, if not all, made the Hitler salute back in the day.
"Noachide Laws" — Historically Wrong, Will Probably Remain Wrong
A) Sharing because of importance
B) Reservations on her teachings elsewhere: she's probably not a Catholic.
Warning! These Noaide laws are evil !
God’s Little Hummingbird- Bible Teachings | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zriiAOZnww
Jimmy Akin Probably Wrong on Johannine Dates
Gospel of John Was Written MUCH Earlier Than Scholars Say–Here's the Proof! | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 6 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nStpeGNrTtU
5:06 The traditional biography of John, while Fr. Jean Colson may have had a point that the Beloved Disciple wasn't the son of Zebedee, so not one of the Boanergs, would probably just be making a conflation and unlike his views actually be accurate to the Beloved Disciple after misplacing him into the twelve, and it specifically states that Domitian:
- tried to kill John by boiling him in oil and failed
- then banished him to Patmos
- whence he was released by "honest Nerva"
If St. John's measure to get the Apocalypse to the Seven Churches was writing to Caesar (as a banished person was allowed to), I would say that Apoc. 13:18 plus the fact that M. NEPOYA (genitive and vocative of M. NEPOYAC) adds up to 666, plus the fact that the book reached the Seven Churches and John was released actually does show Nerva was a very honest man.
I don't know what "the most recent persecution John mentions" is about, but the seven churches could be persecuted in other ways than by official Caesarian policy, the official Caesarian policy could have been there but be now missing, and if it's in the part that's traditionally taken as end times related, it wouldn't be about a persecution that John saw at all.
I obviously have very little patience for the revisionism that wants to see Apoc. as Preterist. Not how the Church traditionally read it.
5:55 Confirmed.
I started publishing in 2001 on MSN Group Antimodernism, and some Swedish and English stuff from back then is salvaged to blogs on my blogger account, when all MSN Groups closed down, and I am still publishing basically daily (though not yesterday). (For future reference, this is 7.VII.2026)
8:48 Yes, I've used the argument of:
- how St. John in his voice uses the word Jews
- contrasted with how Jesus in His voice used it before the woman of the well of Sychar, in Samaria.
I would tend to argue, 1) in Apocalypse he promotes a greeting from Heaven to Jewish heritage believers: "for the King of the Jews, you are the real Jews, your persecutors aren't" and then 2) guided by the Holy Spirit, in his Gospel tells them "but here on earth, you are actually pretty wise to allow those guys to use the word" ....
10:28 I'd say that St. Paul's use 2 Corinthians 11:24, like that of Jesus before Pilate in the Gospel of John, 18:36, was situational.
"The Jews" was a conenient shorthand, especially before Gentiles for that group of perpetrators.
In the Gospel, I suspect John is actually telling Christians whose grandfathers were Second Temple Jews "now it's time to leave that word to the other set" ...
For instance, in the Synoptics, when Jesus reproaches a group of Jews, generally that specific group (for instance "scribes and Pharisees") is specified in the actual words of Jesus, in the vocative.
In John, the group is left out, "to the Jews" is in the the sentence where John introduces the word, and Jesus is obviously NOT represented as saying "woe to ye Jews" .... whether He specified a group or not, John leaves it out, and in his own intro resumes this as "the Jews" ...
So, I'd date the Gospel to c. 100 AD, when the Sanhedrin of Jamnia or Yavne had claimed the name for non-Christians.
It's intriguing that one leading figure at that Sanhedrin was Yohanan Ben Zakkai, and I'm not sure he wasn't an unbelieving son to a believing Zacheus. Mentioned in Luke 19.
17:22 Horror of horrors.
I just saw a timeline where you put Matthew after Mark and Luke!
In the 19th C. a set of German liberal Protestants started campaigning for Marcan priority and while it was some time before the Kulturkampf, it was clearly popularised by the Kulturkampf.
You see, to certain Protestants, "accretions" are not just after the Bible, in Tradition, but even in the later written books of the NT. So, if Matthew was late, as they liked to argue, that could mean that the Papal and Indefectibilist statements of the Church in Matthew were "later accretions" ...
Traditionally, Matthean priority holds.
St. Matthew, the author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era [A.D. 41], he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fulness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock was a grandnephew several generations removed of one of the English martyrs. He published his comment in ...
George's brother, Thomas, was the Bible's publisher. Production began in 1811 and was completed in 1814, in a large, folio edition.[6] As were many editions of the Bible at the time, Haydock's was published and sold by subscription, a few leaves at a time. Subscribers would accumulate the sets of leaves over the years and ultimately have the completed Bible bound. Different copies have general title pages dated 1811, 1812, 1813 or 1823,[7] showing variously Thomas Haydock's Manchester or Dublin locations. English Catholics enthusiastically welcomed this impressive volume that symbolized a reinvigorated Catholicism on the verge of winning its long fight to repeal the Penal Laws. At least 1,500 copies of the first edition were sold.
So, it's not as if I came with some kind of novelty ...
21:25 There are some more interpretations on who the seven kings are:
A) Berean:
Let's us briefly examine the historical kings of Rome to see where we are in the timeline at the time of the books writing. Here are the kings of Rome:
1) Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
2) Augustus Caesar (31 BC – AD 14)
3) Tiberius Caesar (AD 14-37)
4) Gaius "Caligula" Caesar (AD 37-41)
5) Claudius Caesar (AD 41-54)
6) Nero Caesar (AD 54-68)
We see, starting from the first Caesar of Rome, that Nero would be the sixth. But what about this future seventh one, you ask? You know, the one that the book says was to come but only for a little while. That will surely be a tell-tale point to determine if we're in the right spot with this counting. Well, after the suicide of Nero in 68, the next king to appear was Galba, and guess what? He reigned just seven months before being murdered in January of 69.
The page is going to argue what you have also argued that 666 refers to nrwn qsr.
B) Haydock:
Ver. 9. Seven mountains. We have already observed that ancient Rome stood upon seven mountains. The same cannot be said of modern Rome, as some of the hills are not inhabited. --- The seven heads....are seven kings, or seven Roman emperors, who were particularly distinguished as the chief supporters of idolatry, and the most virulent persecutors of the Christian religion. Their names were Nero, Domitian, Severus, Decius, Valerian, Dioclesian and Antichrist. --- Five of them are fallen or gone, viz. Nero, Domitian, Severus, Decius, Valerian, who supported the idolatrous empire for a time; one is, viz. Dioclesian, with whom the reign of idolatry falls; and the other is not yet come, that is, antichrist.
Ver. 10. Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet. The meaning of this is obscure. And perhaps it were better to own with St. Augustine that we do not know the meaning, than to advance suspicions and conjectures. But it is not improbable that by these seven kings may be understood the collection of kings, in what are called the seven ages of the world, from its creations to its consummation. The first age, is reckoned from Adam to Noe[Noah], and the deluge: the second age, from Noe to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to Moses; the fourth, from Moses to David; the fifth, from David to Christ. These five were past, and fallen, when St. John wrote. The sixth is, and is to last from Christ to antichrist. And another, the seventh, is not, being the time of antichrist, and only a short time. See Cornelius a Lapide on this verse. (Witham)
C) Peter Goodgame and Rob Skiba II:
1) Nimrod
2) Pharao of Exodus
3) King of Babylon
4) King of Tyre
5) Antiochus IV Epiphanes
6) Nero or Domitian, depending on the date of the Apocalypse
7) Hitler
"the eighth is one of the seven" ... they take this not as Satan, with the seventh as Antichrist, but that number 8 is the Antichrist. Rob Skiba thought it was Nimrod.
Now, I'd say Lenin was both more evil and ruled a shorter time and over a larger space. He's still in a maosoleum. So, I'd replace Hitler with Lenin on the list.
23:05 Consecutio temporum.
In Latin, you have separate tense forms for "prior" and "subsequent" action.
qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum.
In Greek, however, you have aorist for "prior" and future for "subsequent" in subordinate clauses.
23:43 "or has happened so recently"
I think you have answered your Bethesda argument.
John could simply not have known that the well's porticos had been destroyed. W a i t ...
πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα would be true simply if it had five porticos back when this was about.
The porticos may have been erased by Titus, but that doesn't mean the well wasdried up. And St. John doesn't even specify that it still has those five porticos, since, in Greek, a participle is "contemporary", now, primarily to "estin" but ... this functions as an intro to the actual story. So, it could be contemporary to the story ensuing, even if the only part still true when he wrote was that the pool still existed.
26:03 By definition, John the Beloved, whether he was son of Zebedee (as St. Irenaeus thought) or a Cohen and host to Jesus (as Jean Colson thought), was living memory.
The late date is no obstacle.
If, one of my options for John the Beloved, building on Jean Colson, he was Theophilus Ben Hanan, though my friend Stephan Borgehammar contradicted that from Revelations of St. Bridget saying John was a virgin (though not exact same terms as John the Baptist was a virgin), that would mean that, dying by c. 100 AD, he had lived to 120, the last hagiographer like the first one (unless you count Job as written before Moses by the man concerned). 120 is a humanly possible lifespan.
You might hear "but back then they only lived to around" ... sorry, but medium lifespan is no indicator on how far out the extremes go. For a selection of Polish and Austrian royals, imperials, ducals, royal ancestors prior to Sobieski, I got lifespan mediums 43 for men, 42 for women. But maxima reached 78 for men and 61 for women. On other selections, I've seen for great-great-great-great-grandparents of Marie Antoinette: Médiane 50/52, Maximum 80.
Sunday, July 5, 2026
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.
- Nathan Cook
- @NathanCook-h5v
- @hglundahl Nothing in the universe indicates we need a creator.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @NathanCook-h5v Reading my argument before answering it isn't exactly your forte, is it?
I already said what shows it, you try to show why it doesn't.
12:04 Unlike Erasmus Darwin, Chambers actually did write and publish in Victorian England.
- Jock Young
- Calvin* doesn't care if what he says is correct. He once did an entire video about Lyell when it was clear he was actually describing Huxley.
- *Footnote
- Calvin Smith, the man doing the video.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @jockyoung4491 I doubt that, but would you mind linking if it should be true?
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.
Saturday, July 4, 2026
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)