Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Could Israel Have Avoided THAT October 7 by Praying the Rosary?


[Please note, despite some subtitling in the video, elsewhere I find the name of the seer of Kerizinen is Jeanne-Louise Ramonet, also what I find in the description.]


Our Lady Reveals How Satan Hides Her Apparitions From the World!
Jerome Chong | 18 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0VEgHRRXak


The first apparition* was 84 years before October 7 2023, and Jeanne Louise lived little more than 84 years.




* It warned of impending war.

And it was actually the second apparition, 14 months after the first.




History of Kerizinen
https://www.kerizinen.com/historique-de-kerizinen?lang=en

Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Setting Records Straight on Ius Primae Noctis and ... Simon Whistler is Less Candid ... on Early Marriages


Could Medieval Lords Really Sleep With Brides on Their Wedding Night?
Fact Quickie | 12 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fubpe_-ip-4


5:19 The Church didn't need to track it.*

If you didn't get the right and didn't wait, you simply had one more sin to confess next confession.

7:15 "Did not commonly get married before the age of 18."**

Did you see Mr. Baker do a video on a certain female lineage (Garsenda of Sabran)?

I checked it out and found*** 22 women in the Middle Ages whose marriages were:

11 at the youngest.
14 as lower quartile.
15.5 or 16 as median.
17 as higher quartile.
26 as the oldest.

I did a few other lineages°, on the female side. 105 women in total, including above.°°

7 or 8 at the youngest (obviously the cohabitation started later)
13 or 14 as lower quartile.
16 or 17 as median.
18 or 20 as higher quartile.
53 as the oldest.

When an "or" is indicated, it's because I've taken into account for each person the highest and lowest ages possible from the sources, like disputed year or date of birth or of wedding can mean the same person can be seen as wed at 15 or 16 or even greater variation, and each list of position values takes into account the high and low values of each.

So, a woman married before 18 was at least in the nobility pretty common. Commoners are so much less documented, I wonder how you do stats on them. Obviously the diocese of Cambridge or whatever during the English Civil War and Cromwell's era cannot be seen as a guaranteed faithful sample for the Middle Ages.

Susmitha Varma
@susmithavarma53
I think this video is talking about the usual age at marriage of commoners. Noblewomen certainly did marry very young.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@susmithavarma53 Now, the thing is, whether noble or commoner there was no such thing as the usual age.

If you take the span of ages between the one 1/4 and 3/4 up in the list of ages, you can get a typical age span, but even so, there are c. 1/4 who married younger than that.

The problem is, either Kim Phillips didn't present or Simon Whistler (or whoever wrote the script) didn't pass on the numbers for the early teens marriages. They were not a majority, but neither were they so among noblewomen.


8:14 I'm noting, Kim Phillips book is in the full title:

Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, 1270-1540.

8:16 I'm noting that he uses the word "the norm" here.

It was obviously allowed to wait a bit longer, and I think a monastic school among nuns would have been better suited to make this endurable while staying chaste than lots of modern high school settings.

The quote on the screen doesn't specify how common or uncommon a marriage around the age of puberty was.

8:36 Ah, OK, "a large portion of the sample married between the ages of 18 and 22"

I could say the same for my 105 woman sample.

The position values 66 to 88 are between 18 and 22

20 20 20 21 21 22 22 22
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Or even between 72 and 94

18 18 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Sorry, 95.°°° That's a large portion.

But I suppose his "large portion" could be sth like between the two quartiles, i e the middle 50 % or so. That would be less misleading.

It can be mentioned, Yorkshire is in the North, with delays of puberty in pre-industrial times, and also somewhat poorish, so delays of economic nature can have intervened. In other words, a similar sample from the Paris region might give a different result.

9:10 Massachusetts 1652 to 1800.

Like Cambridge, that's Calvinist country.+

For ancestors of the Count of Chambord, back to Henry IV and his wife Marie Thérèse of Modena, I got more younger marriages, with nearly no Calvinist ancestry, than for Francis Joseph and Sissi, with herself descending from a 16th C. Calvinist of Palatinate Zwei Brücken.

9:17 Oh, you give 19.5 to 22.5 as mean age.

But that doesn't specify the spread or anywhere near it.

How old was the Lower Quartile of age samples?

Case in point, in the ancestries of Marie Thérèse of Modena and the Count of Chambord, the furthest back generation I went to++ had these ages of women at their first marriage (not always coinciding with the one for the genealogy), here:

13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 21 22 22 23 23 23 24
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 29 35 37 39
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

So, the overall spread is 13 to 39, but the median is 19. The mean would not be too far off.

However, 12 of 72 or 1/6 were married before age 16.

9:35 The average is not a good substitute for the minimum.

If you make "the average" a decent hint at where to put the legal minimum, you cut out all the previous lower half of ages.

Did Kim Phillips really just give the average? That's dishonest.

Now, the lowest 1/6 are certainly not "the norm" but they are a far bigger portion than the lowest 1/100, so can absolutely not be stamped as "abnormal" either.

10:15 No, I don't think early marriages are a recipy for high divorce rates.

Bad preparation is, and Baby Boomers had part of the worst messages in some popular Anti-Fascism or Anti-Nazi propaganda, Feminism, to poison some of their marriages.

Sure, we shouldn't put people into very degrading camps because of their origin, but that doesn't mean that Bund Deutscher Mädel was wrong about the role of women.




* The curate could sell the couple the right to not wait to the third night. ** Female marriages. *** The post Mariages dans la lignée de Garsende de Sabran ° Seven Generations Women, Age at First Marriage, Age at first marriage and at death - a few more °° The total is given in Encore de lignées féminines : l'âge au premier mariage. °°° The font on that blog has shorter space for numbers like 1, so the numbers don't line up properly. They do in the comment section of the youtube video, so I took last portion to verify. 66 was the beginning of a line, and 72 is just 6 items in from that. + I should have mentioned, a study from 1960 or so did use Cambridge or some other clearly Calvinist dominated diocese, in a period involving the Civil War and Cromwell. ++ Encore une génération ou deux ?

First Part of Trent Horn's Video on Zionism in the Light of Catholicism


Can Catholics be Zionists?
The Counsel of Trent | 16 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwnGWVihNQ8


1:21 I went to the wiki* and found this:

"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."


Palestinian "Arabs" descend mainly from 1st C Jews, Samarians and Galileans.

They are Hebrews.

They are the non-Jewish very close cousins of Mitsrahi Jews.

So, Zionism wants to get them away because they don't keep the halakhot ... as if Yuval Noah Harari does, and as if they were after AD 70 the correct sign for an alliance with the God Who promised a Seed as Stars and Grains of Sand. To the common ancestors including his son and grandson.

But the meek shall inherit the land, and shall delight in abundance of peace.
[Psalms 36:11]
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
[Matthew 5:4]


In the years leading up to AD 70, some of the then emerging Jewish confession were proud and opposed Rome.

The Christians were meek and recalled the words of Christ in Matthew 24 and fled to Pella. That's not in South Macedon, near Skydra, it's in Jordan, Al Fahl. After wintering out the Roman incursion and conquering (ecclesiastically, as missionaries) Edom, Moab and Ammon, they went back. Unlike people of the at this point highly Antichristian Jewish confession, they weren't chased by the Romans. So, they inherited the land.

The Muslim Palestinians have some slight percentage from the Arabian Peninsula, but are essentially Christian Palestinians and Mitsrahi Jews more or less willingly or forcefully embracing the religion of the invader, and taking two to three centuries to learn that foreign language.

That's why I'm no longer a Zionist. I was raised one.

1:34 There are no cats in America, and the streets are paved with cheese ...

I had heard of pogroms before then.

A reason why I prefer Wrangel over Denykin is, the latter tolerated (but arguably didn't initiate) pogroms, Wrangel didn't even tolerate them. The French far right has fond memories of Denykin's daughter, by the way, so I try not to be too harsh on that family.

1:48 But the Lord actually did tabernacle on Zion. Bethlehem, Mount of Olives, Golgatha, the Empty Grave, and the OT temple where He was circumcised. Or where at least the offering of purification took place.

The Christian Palestinians know that.

1:52 We know the true fulfilment of these prophecies, don't we?

For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and that which shall be saved out of mount Sion: the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 19:31]

For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a, remnant, and salvation from mount Sion: the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.
[Isaias (Isaiah) 37:32]

And many nations shall come in haste, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob: and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.
[Micheas (Micah) 4:2]


A majority of the then and there Jews apostatised and cried "we have no king but Caesar" (on Zion, where God claimed kingship all over the OT). This makes those in the upper room a remnant (Our Lady and the Twelve among them) and St. Peter did give the word of the Lord to many nations in Acts 2.

3:53 Yeah, Herzl was underwhelmed by God's representative on Earth.

"If Jews come there, we'll have priests ready to baptise them"**


And meanwhile, the Zionist state has persecuted those priests and also persecutes converts. If a Jew converts to Catholicism, and loses his job, are you aware that Catholics are not allowed to offer him a job?

Back in my Zionist childhood, I didn't know Jews were going that far to push back against Christianity.

4:42 In fact, it is the teaching of an OT prophet.

Hosea was told to call his son "lo Ammi" = not my people.

A very good definition of Jews who reject Jesus.

* From the wikipedia article Zionism ** From my memory, which wasn't too bad.

Sunday, February 15, 2026

An own state is not the universal right of every nation, Anti-Zionism is not Hypocrisy or Double Standard


SSPX & Rome Reunion? Catholic Kicked Off Panel; Muslim Mayor Snubs Catholics | CATHOLIC NEWS ROUNDUP
Christine Niles | 13 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grP4mvBFDQE


Ari Berman!

When did you last stand up for the right of Gipsies, Sorbs, Lapps, First Nations, Catalans, Basques (I could probably go on, but these are the cases I know best) to have their own state?

And the right of Palestinians to have their own state?

Carrie Prejean Boller, you rock!

Élites Promote Evolution: a Conspiracy, Not a Theory


A little more than one century ago, the US philanthropist Carnegie funded scientific institutions on condition they promote Evolution. I obviously prefer his Swedish relatives that started the brewery for Carnegie Porter.


Epstein Files REVEALED: Why was he pushing evolution?
LSNTV | 13 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j9U9I25ysY


5:33 One harmonious system.

On the astronomic scale too? With Geocentrism, the answer is yes.

6:29 "first time"

No. Julien Offray de La Mettrie was an Atheist, while Jean Le Rond d'Alembert and Denis Diderot gravitated into that direction.

How come this was possible in the 18th C. while it was clearly absent from the 13th?

Heliocentrism.

12:09 About the frequency of mutations and the time it takes for one to take over an entire population too.

So far, you are underestimating the impossibility of "big picture evolution" (like more radical than pepper moths or hedgehogs diversifying into species and even genera).

You haven't mentioned that some functions require more than one gene.

My favourite example since a few years ago is the retina of ... not sure if it was Astyanax Jordani or some blind cichlid, I think a cave in Mexico was mentioned, indicating as I look up the former, and then blind cichlids (indicating Congo river, other side of the Atlantic) could be a false memory.

Either way, the blind fish in question has ten genes for retina development. Two of them are damaged with a mutation or two. When coupled with relatives of non-blind populations, the hybrid isn't blind, the mutations are recessive.

So, ten genes, and getting only two things wrong on two of them is enough to make the retina non-functional.

However, this cannot be what St. Paul talked about, since genes and these blind fish have not been studied since the beginning of creation. Day and night, summer and winter, new moon and full moon have.

14:21 This case is not from biology, but from linguistics.

Human language functions on certain bases.

The logical bases involve:
  • concepts can be named for themselves, not just as part of a pragmatic signal ("food" doesn't mean "let's eat" and "lion" doesn't mean "lion danger, lets climb the trees")
  • they can be named in different types of absence : past, future, hidden, far, negated, conditional.


But the thing that makes this possible is:
  • sentences are broken down into concept signals, known technically as morphemes (usually words, but also endings, prefixes and a few more), neither or none of which denotes a complete sentence ("let us eat some food" has five parts, and none of them gives the pragmatic signal by itself)
  • morphemes are broken down into non-signals that only code for difference ("eat" and "ease" differ by T from Z sounds, neither of which has any meaning).


The corresponding things in "monkey talk" are:
  • usually one signal per "concept"
  • and that signal either one sound or a regular back and forth, but not a direction specific sequence of different sounds
  • usually only pragmatic and emotic "concepts" ("I'm worried you look sad" or "lion danger, let's climb the trees" are two concepts, while "sad" and "trees" aren't)


These are linked. With very limited capacity to differentiate signals, you don't have the room for discussions about interesting topics, you just have the room for pragmatics and emotics, the equivalent of languages entirely in traffic signs and emoticons, no rebus involved.

So, how would the latter change into the former? Increasing vocabulary by subdividing such concepts by sound sequences would be pointless, if each "word" is an entire signal and learning one means to learn how to respond to yet another type situation. But increasing sentences by subdivision into theoretic concepts, into topics, would be impossible if the "vocabulary" remained as limited.

Even more.
  • chimpanzees cannot hear consonants (outer ear too thick)
  • chimpanzees cannot pronounce pure vowels (hyoid tied to air bags for distortion and amplification)
  • chimpanzees, by absence of Broca's and Wernicke's areas and a human version of the FOXP-2 gene cannot learn vocabulary, properly. Or vocabulary and sentence structure.


In the pretended line from "Ramapithecus" (ancestral to chimps and men, according to evolution) to us, there are only three categories of skeleta:
  • all of above traits (when found) human (even if Homo erectus had somewhat thicker ears, and might not have heard T, but could have heard CH or K, which are less shrill)
  • none of above traits (when found) human (Australopithecus, for instance)
  • the skull is too damaged to tell.


14:33 Darwin neither knew the genes of a retina, nor the working of human language.

16:20 I second Franklin M. Harold, adding Human language and cosmic Geocentrism to it.

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

On Apologists and Our Duties


THE ISSUE WITH CATHOLIC INFLUENCERS - A Vlog
Amber Rose | 9 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkaSIP3BHFc


OK, holding controversial opinions, is that also a sin?*

I suppose Our Lord was pretty controversial twice over in the temple.

4:59 Some converts have to get into Apologetics instantly, as per school or family.

I was, when arriving at SSHL for ninth grade, a basically Evangelical Apoologist. When I left after twelfth grade, I was a Catholic one.

With some school mates, minutes of apologetics was the most peaceful interaction we had.

I was only received after leaving High School, since I graduated in 1987 and was received in 1988.

Now, this kind of thing can happen online. I think Sips with Serra and the Jewish Catholic are in this kind of position.

And in fact, well before the internet existed, a certain Chesterton who was already doing apologetics was received in, I think, 1922. Writing was his career, he couldn't just stop and he had to explain why he left the Anglican communion. In 1922, he denounced Eugenics, before Pope Pius XI did so in Casti connubii. In 1923, he wrote a booklet on St. Francis of Assisi, and in 1925 he wrote Everlasting Man.

Another case like that was a certain John Henry, future Cardinal, Newman. However, in his case, he was given the explicit order to write before getting instruction. One often forgets that Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is what reflects the Anglican deciding to become Catholic, while that was fresh in his memory, not the Catholic case as it would be presented by a well instructed Catholic.

"I 5:38 mean, it does, but you're not like 5:40 authoritatively trying to speak on the 5:42 church. You know what I mean?"


The exact same thing is true about Apologetics.**

Trent Horn would be in a very great pickle if his pretence that Cardinal Baronius had said "the Bible doesn't teach us how the Heavens go" in the connection of the Galileo affair had been made authoritatively on behalf of the Church.

Cardinal Baronius had died before the Galileo affair, Galileo made the quote but didn't say what highly placed Church man, it's dubious if Galileo had even met Baronius, and I think the earliest person to pin it down to Baronius (a good apologist against Protestants and a holy disciple of St. Philip Neri) was in the 19th C. Perhaps the Anfossi affair.

[end] As you multiple times referenced "the Catechism", can I hope it's that of St. Pius X, or Baltimore?

Or the one of the Council of Trent?




* She mentioned rage bait is. ** They are also not speaking authoritatively.





Other possible criticism of me. I supposedly get my information from Social Media, which is getting clicks by feeding me what I believe. Basically what Ali-Marie Ingram is saying:

@alimariehere
STOP 👏🏼 WORSHIPPING 👏🏼 YOUR 👏🏼 ALGORITHM 👏🏼 #reality #truth #fyp
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G4guBbDvnhY


The problem with this approach is, for one, if I click a wiki article, I get the article there is, not the one the algorithm "thinks" I want to click, and for another, the algorithm cannot tell what I am going to believe and what I am going to contradict. I click Gavin Ortlund a lot because I disagree with him. I click Gavin Ashenden a lot because I agree with him. The algorithm cannot tell. And therefore you cannot tell simply from the time I spend on social media whether I get my information from trustworthy sources or not. But those who are most eager to pretend I get it from untrustworthy ones, usually what they complain about isn't my basic info, but the conclusions I arrive at from it, going beyond what my sources were clearly and openly saying. There is a difference between seeing the census of US population per age and gender in 1977 and in 2025, which anyone can do, and making the conclusion that those wanting to mentor someone have increased in comparison to a decrease in those possibly needing a mentor to mentor them, which is what I concluded.

Like lots of people who'd like to mentor me on items of the internet and what I'm doing there, who are so old they cannot tell the difference between a post I naively trusted and a post I cunningly made. Even if I'm well above mentoree age, but some crooks want just any excuse to treat a man of 57 as if he were 17.