Some thoughts on a philosophy of taxation:
having "property" tax is kind of a bad idea, but on the other hand taxes are taxes. Whether there is a "property" tax or not, people are still being taxed at the end of the day. I guess a point is, maybe a low "property" tax would probably be preferred over a higher tax that isn't called a "property" tax.
Also, regarding the idea that "taxation is theft": even if we didn't have a central government, we would probably have companies that provide "governing services". While taxes are compulsory, paying for such services wouldn't be compulsory, but since people often need such things, there is a sense of compulsion involved. Just like with food, yeah, no one has to force you to eat food, but since everyone must eat, there is a sense in which we are forced to eat. I think it's important to make all these distinctions about freedom, compulsion, and taxes.
So, taxes are some kind of 1) cost for a good that is compulsory 2) in need and 3) as decreed by government. Having no central government may result in removing #3, the compulsion of a decree by government, but it does not remove something of a #2 need for governing services (police, courts, legal help, etc.). To some extent, people can cut down these things to a more minimal level (a smaller police institution for example, or eating less expensive or less food), but at some level there is probably a "need" for such things. Having no central government also does not remove the #1 cost for the good: people still end up paying for food, or for police protection (or for their own defense tools if they want to "be their own police" in such a scenario without government).
why are "conspiracy theories" so hard to understand?
There are groups of people who compete to be in control and make plans to do so
It's really simple like that; there are these different factions of people vying for control: Christians, Muslims, Jews, non-religious, and so on and so forth
(naturally each group isn't necessarily uniformly organized: "Christians" has major divisions of Catholic, orthodox, protestant, and disagreements within each of those groups; while "Jews" has orthodox and liberal groups that may have disagreement within themselves. Wealthy "elites" too have various groups I imagine where sometimes there is collaboration and sometimes conflict)
Jews are trying to promote their own group, hence created Israel and are trying to get other groups to promote their interests; they may be "successful" in doing so today
It doesn't mean all the groups vying for control are equal, or are attempting to be in control in the same way, but it's such a basic premise of "conspiracies" being "groups making plans" (perhaps in secret, and they try to deny they are making such plans)
Once the above is understood, it shouldn't be complicated to point out areas where Zionists have promoted their interests perhaps more "successfully" than some others
I'm ok with it being legal to burn the flag; people who do so can be "punished" by creating a bad reputation for themselves though? Kind of like how Bud Light got boycotted and lost billions? So we can both have the freedom, and "penalties" of sorts?
the problem is a lot of Jews are leftists, so they push "tolerance", which would also extend to "tolerance" of this kind of thing...
very sad she was deceived and spread such deception
another common "Worst Generation" L?
ehhh they removed the young child as a saint because they are trying to politicize the topic like with nostra aetate
"cult" - this word was used in the past without modern connotations I think, more of a synonym of "following" or "group"'; I'd read it as saying "a group of people venerating [person] as a saint"
In the English speaking world, the word often carries derogatory connotations, but in other European languages, it is used as English-speakers use the word "religion", sometimes causing confusion for English-speakers reading material translated from other languages.
ehhhh, I'm of the other opinion, need to speed things up, it's been 60 years of Vatican 2 confusion, Vigano is sadly probably trying to slow this down by misdirecting people into the wrong directions (accepting '62 missal, creating some broken "independent" church, giving the "recognize and resist" position more life instead of fundamentally rejecting Vatican 2 and its papal claimants, etc.)
I think basically sedevacantists should work on strengthening or just spreading their case and then eventually people will have to accept it which will probably more rapidly "flip" the Vatican back to pre-Vatican 2 norms.
Still glad to see Vigano redpilling people but still think he is kind of working for the "deep church" and pretending not to, because he doesn't seem to get to the root of the problem:
(Vatican 2 not being Catholic, the recent papal elections being "stolen", that Catholics have no pope and need to become aware of this and Vatican 2 not being Catholic and then to elect a pope)
It's not a good look and I share the sentiment of skepticism of good intentions unlike other commenters
his profile pic is still him in baphomet costume 🤔
has there been discussion on the thought that if butler incident were successful it would have been kamala versus trump alternative (so fresh candidates on both sides, probably planned in advance)?
"(dark?) brandon strikes back"
maybe their goal is to attempt to move the overton window (still knowing they won't win?)
I think Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice had looked at allegations of papal heresy and found none
John XXII has been discussed at length and was not found to be a heretic: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/brief-facts-on-pope-john22/
I would encourage you to pray and think on this topic further because it sounds like you basically agree Francis is a heretic / non-Catholic but you think he is still pope; which is an understandable confusing situation but I think this clearly resolves to the sedevacantist position
Vatican Council considered the possibility of a "heretical pope": https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council/
So again if Vatican 2 is heretical, Paul VI might have immediately lost his pontificate upon issuing heretical teachings, and the John Paul I could not have become pope.
Other arguments have been offered to establish John XXIII was probably a pre-election heretic incapable of becoming pope (admittedly I think these arguments require more attention, but John XXIII definitely indicated his anti-Catholic orientation with his actions)
The analogy to our possible shared politics is, just like the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the papal elections since 1958 have been stolen by non-Catholics. Just like the Birther argument that Obama may not have been born in the U.S. and hence could not have been a U.S. president, so the papal claimanta since 1958 haven't been Catholic and hence never became pope.
I appreciate your reminder that our side probably needs to more actively speak on what (in our view) are non-arguments like the case of John XXII (or Honorius, Liberius? There were some others). There are however other arguments I think need attention.
edit: your linked article rather mentions John XII rather than John XXII, who has also been discussed - https://novusordowatch.org/tag/pope-john-xii/
Is this their plan?
maybe one distinct possibility anyway
no difference
I think there definitely is a difference, and what's going on is unprecedented.
I think it's important to understand the "problem(s)" and then possible solutions can be discussed.
The problems are perhaps three-fold (or more):
-
"Catholicism" has declined since Vatican 2, see these statistics: https://www.olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml
-
Traditional practice has basically been banned. There are no masses available (know of any?) that offer Tridentine "latin masses" (only the 1962 missal is used in some places).
-
Many who take the name of Catholic, at least in the U.S., do not believe or practice Catholicism, which has caused practical problems. For example it has been estimated 90% of U.S. "Catholics" believe the use of artificial contraception is moral: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/
So, I suppose it would be possible to interpret my view as being a reaction to decline, not being able to practice as a Catholic prior to the 1950s, and due to practical problems experienced from those around me not really believing or practicing Catholicism, who say they are Catholic.
Yet it has not been much of a leap of logic to rather instead consider that what is going on is not Catholic instead.
So if you're clear on some of the problems, then you can look at the theological positions which have been suggested as solutions.
If you simply try to follow the Vatican in its current form, it actively suppresses traditional Catholic belief and practice, for example the "Franciscans of the Friars Immaculate": https://novusordowatch.org/2013/12/why-francis-punished-ffi/
It also has the Vatican 2 documents which have been alleged to have errors and/or heresies: https://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html
It also has papal claimants making series of anti-Catholic statements, like Francis saying:
- "If someone is gay, who am I to judge?" https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/07/29/206622682/pope-francis-discusses-gay-catholics-who-am-i-to-judge
- "There is no Catholic God" https://religionnews.com/2013/10/01/excerpts-pope-francis-new-interview/
- "Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification" https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
So a Catholic layman in the U.S., going to their local parish church, is unlikely to experience Catholicism as one might in the 1950s. So, such people then look for these "indult" or "latin mass" (1962 missal) communities. But, as mentioned above, groups like the Franciscans of the Friars Immaculate are often suppressed; they also only have the 1962 missal, and don't often require the traditional Lenten fast (which is all 40 days of Lent except Sundays; reduced by the Vatican 2 church only to Ash Wednesday and Good Friday).
They might then find the SSPX, who also follows the 1962 missal and doesn't have the Lenten fast as examples. The SSPX is in a "halfway" position (sometimes called "recognize and resist") which recognizes the Vatican as Catholic, but doesn't submit to it (like where Vigano is, kind of, although he has made statements going beyond this). If the SSPX became more obedient to the Vatican like the Franciscans of the Friars Immaculate, many of their traditional practices would be suppressed, and this happened I think to multiple other "traditional" organizations that did this: https://web.archive.org/web/20140401130141/http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-dead/the-whole-picture
So, given that you can't openly be "traditional" under the Vatican without suppression, one naturally concludes the Vatican is not Catholic (in combination with the other things stated by papal claimants and the Vatican 2 documents, which contradict Catholic teaching) and embraces the sedevacantist position (Catholics have no pope).
(Going one step further, without a pope to authorize the creation of bishops, a handful of sedevacantists also believe there are no known clergy available)
I may differ from other sedevacantists in how I think things will be resolved however: I think eventually most people will become aware Vatican 2 can't be Catholic, nor can the papal claimants since Vatican 2 be popes, and once that awareness spreads, then an election of a pope can happen somewhat rapidly. I think of the situation like a modern Western Schism, where there were 2 antipopes and a pope and confusion for 40 years about if there was a pope or who it was; the people following the antipopes were not considered to be non-Catholic because they were simply genuinely confused about what was going on. Today I think those who follow Vatican 2 might be considered to be Catholic, to the extent they are unaware of contradictions in the Vatican 2 documents to Catholic teachings, since the documents appeared to come "from the Church", leading to genuine misunderstanding.
Do you think every Pope was good and only said things that were true?
It must be distinguished that a Pope is able to sin, but not able to be a heretic:
Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as pope] would be null and void. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm
Therefore if the Vatican 2 documents are heretical, at least John Paul I onward could not have become popes, as they would have been heretics upon being elected, and so their election would be null and void.
I would appreciate any thoughts you have on moving this discussion forward; it seems to be stalled with a lot of people who aren't aware of the issues, and the of the few that are, of there only being so much discussion. I think more attention needs to be focused on proving the sedevacantist case, which when proven with greater strength or with arguments being strengthened, would naturally lead to Vatican 2 and the recent papal claimants being rejected and a new pope being elected.
The difference is today the various papal claimants are contradicting past Catholic teachings, leading to torturous attempts by people to somehow consider them as Catholic
For example, Francis has said:
https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point [Luther] was not mistaken.
Luther believed people were justified by faith alone, excluding justification by faith and good works. Thus Francis appears to contradict the Council of Trent:
Canon no. 9, condemning the heresy of justification sola fide:
If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
Naturally though if it's fine to be "protestant" according to Francis, as we are accused of being, then it wouldn't really matter, as we are in good standing with God according to the view shared by Francis.
These are the kinds of problems we are trying to resolve by adopting the position of sedevacantism we have taken.
Skating has always had a lot of different subgroups of people, including people who identify with Christianity, with companies like Santa Cruz or Zero putting out boards with religious graphics, Christian Hosoi creating the "Christ air" trick which became a (slightly irreverent) Tiktok meme, and other such things. I think I've seen skatepark(s) run by something like baptists before that had Bible verses on display.
I don't really feel skateboarding needs to be in the Olympics as it feels more like a subjective art form (although they do have artsy competitions like figure skating I guess), but since it's here it's nice the OP competitor spoke about the important things (religion).
edit: not something to cancel necessarily, but the Thrasher logo (top popular skateboard magazine) is literally 666 Baphomet / pentagram sometimes. Why not "cancel" it? I think trying might embolden them. You could instead encourage them to use other logos as they do sometimes. Or promote a competing magazine, but honestly they're kind of the top dog. This illustrates the polarization in skating (some christians versus some "satanists" of sorts?). Regrettably, Transworld mag stopped doing physical prints but they still have skateboarding.com .
although vigano says a lot of things we might find funny or agree with, I suspect he's basically a globalist pretending to be "one of us":
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." -Lenin
Macron and Obama are kind of off topic for an archbishop... who perhaps might instead speak on some weightier issues that cater to spiritual needs.
We also find his theological position to be confusing and inconsistent: recognizing Francis as "pope" and yet "resisting" / "disobeying" him (Catholics are to obey a pope). Instead if Catholics cannot in good conscience obey Francis as a pope, this seems to logically imply Francis is not Catholic nor a pope.
Vigano acted like Francis was a pope, then when he was "excommunicated" claimed that the church Francis leads is not the Catholic Church. These inconsistencies lead us to believe Vigano is simply a character created to be a modern Lefebvre (of SSPX) to continue to muddy the waters about the issues; our position in contrast is "sedevacantism" (Catholics have no known pope today).
Yet I hope more people draw the necessary conclusions and that God uses Vigano to shed more light on these topics until they're resolved in a satisfactory way.
i think ancapistan can work but it would end up being sometime a bit like what we have now. there wouldnt be taxes but there would be some fees for a bunch of services. people would form security services that would be like police and laws. this is why leftwingers say they think "it's not real anarchy" because it ends up looking kind of more like a State, while not being one
While he says a lot of things we agree with, he ultimately strikes me as working for the globalists and offering false hope. We believe his theological positions to be inconsistent and incorrect (they don't go far enough) and it's really not necessary to speculate about Obama or Macron and kind of a distraction from an archbishop promoting spiritual remedies to modern ills. I certainly hope God uses him to shed light on a lot of errors common today but he strikes me as a character created as a remix of "archbishop" Lefebvre, for today's audience.
We believe Francis is not a pope and Vatican 2 is not Catholic. Vigano has confusedly recognized Francis as "pope" and then after being "excommunicated" denounced his church as not the Catholic Church. This is inconsistent and we think he should have considered Francis to not be a pope a long time ago. He thus seems to carry on the "recognize and resist" position which we believe is confused, and since it is not as clear as it can be, we suspect Vigano is deliberately spreading confusion rather than a logically consistent view of rejecting Francis and Vatican 2 (the "sedevacantist" position).
they banned russia and belarus I think... not very "unitive"
kamala basically has nothing; even to steal the election risks backlash if it's clear there's more support for trump, and it seems that trump has too much support for a plausible steal
it honestly looked like they threw the election on purpose, just gave up with selecting kamala. probably just looking to the next election knowing this one is lost?