So, what you've forgotten, despite the fact that Matthew has promoted Bishop Williamson for decades now, is that "nitheness" and "politeness" are not somehow the supreme virtues, and in the face of lies, slanders, and attacks on the truth, "politeness" is not called for, as those things need to be beaten down with fists.
I guess that another thing you've forgotten, and should have learned via Bishop Williamson, is that women should not be mixing it up with men, much less lecturing men, in public ... and your comments here speak precisely to why. It's not contrary to or inconsistent with, nor does it to violence to male nature for us to be involved in contention, competition, and combat with others ... whereas females personalize absolutely everything. Growing up with 3 brothers, on occasion we'd get into physical knock-down drag-out battles, and when the smoke had cleared, five minutes later we're eating ice cream together as if nothing had happened, whereas girls can hold grudges and bitterness for decades over even the slightest insult.As Bishop Williamson said of those who promote error, "No, I don't like you. I DESPISE you."
SeanJohnson and I had some of the longest-running and most epic heated battles here in the history of CathInfo, and now that we're on the same page, there are literally zero hard feelings or bitterness or resentment. If a boxer gets knocked out by another guy, he will respect the guy who defeated, and simply resolve to work harder to get him next time, instead of a female who might go on some slander campaign out of spite. That's why women do not belong in the workplace, in the military, in the police, in competitive sports ... or on forums debating with, arguing with, and lecturing to men.
More and more lately these trolls have been coming in here doing nothing but stirring things up by shit-posting on various topics, and while it might generate some traffic, it's also a waste of time and does no service to the truth, and they need to be exposed for what they're doing.
Let's take one example. Gladius, Pax, and I are just calmly discussing current events vis-a-vis the alleged prophecies of Alois Irlmaier. No big deal to any of us, and none of us is deeply invested in whether they pan out or not, just find it of interest, are casually discussing it, and this clown here just interjects out of nowhere as follows ...
Weird behavior for adult traditional Catholics. Running in circles chasing prophecies. Acting like a bunch of hyped up school girls running head over heels around some new found rock star and using detraction/name calling against those who would question in any way them or their new found hero. When it comes to Church doctrine they position themselves as some sort of all knowing de facto magisterium and ready to censor anyone by way of slurs/smears who opposes them. One more reason why trads come across as a bunch of loons even to other trads.
This is what I rightly refer to as shit-posting. It's stream of insults, exaggerations, slanders ... and fallacies. Not a single one of us has exhibited the behavior he's smearing us with, "running in circles chasing prophecies", engaging in "weird behavior for adult traditonal Catholics", "hyped up school girls running head over heels [as if following] some new found rock star", "using detraction/name-calling" [ironic, isn't it in a post that's nothing but a litany of name-calling, and I'm not even halfway through it], "position themselves as some sort of all knowing magisterium" (another slander), "ready to censor anyone by way of slurs/smears [again, quite ironic in the middle of this shit-post] who oppose them", and making Trads "come across as a bunch of loons".
This kind of obnoxious shit-posting is nothing but gargage, and deserves any response it gets ... and it's a stream of lies. Some of us who are interested in Irlmaier were quite calmly discussing current events to see if they might not line up with what he said, and for no other reason than that we keep an open mind about the possibility that Irlmaier may have had a genuine gift, it's been one interjection like this after another, and an occasional citation from Grok that's seething with atheistic Anti-Catholic sentiment, where if anyone doesn't conform to the reality as defined by Grok, he's a "loon". If I believe that God can and sometimes does (with whether in this case he actually has being open), then I'm a "loon", and of course so is the Church as a whole, who has acknowledged the credibility of a fair bit of private revelation, or at least not condemned it, from Mary of Agreda, Catherine Emmerich, Anna Maria Taigi, Marie Julie Jahenny and many others. Here's another one who is a total slave to human respect and then attacks and gaslights anyone who has some opinion that's not inconformity with the mainstream as making Trads "look like a bunch of loons". This is the same attitude that the SSPX have caved to, always wanting to appear "normal", so we're not going to talk about women dressing immodestly or wearing pants, we're going to claim that the Flood was just a local one since, it being contrary to muh science, it would be impossible and so we'd look crazy if we actually believed what Catholics everywhere believed for nearly 2000 years, and the Jews before them, and let's not look like crazies by saying anything about the jab or even signing objections of conscience for those who have problems with it.. Like so many, this guy clings to the need for "normalcy" and "acceptance" by the world, like some kind of security blanket ... as if genuine Traditional Catholicism doesn't already give the world 1,000 reasons to consider us "loons". That's how they categorized Bishop Williamson, and this clown obviously would put him in that same category.
But this strawman shit-post is also packed with lies and slanders, and that's why I rightly called him out as an "abject liar and slanderer". Not a single one of us exhibited the behavior he smeared us with, running around in circles like immature schoolgirls chasing prophecies and then smearing those who object (in the midst of a post that was a literal litarny of smears and insults), and in fact the rest of us were quite casual about the subject, and if ANYONE was in a tizzy over it, it's been this guy, since it evidently cause him some deep psycholical disturbance. Were it not for his shit-posting (and one or two posts by another there), this would have been a very casual, quiet two-page thread. HE's the one that blew it all out of proportion and turned it into what it became.
Not a single one of us was acting like "Magisterium", since 1) we all realize that we have no authority, duh ... and merely expressing a strong opinion on the subject does not indicate the contrary, and 2) we realize that Irlmaier is no matter of faith and nobody's require to believe a word he said (duh), and 3) absurdly attacking us for smears and insults, amidst a veritable litany of them against us ... and then snowflaking, playing the victim, when he gets back maybe 10% of what he's been dishing out, and 4) censoring those who disagree with them. That's just stupid and incredibly dishonest. So we object to his tactics, his attitude, his shit-posting (such as the example above) and now we're "censoring" (as if any of us can censor). In fact, if anything that's an attack on Matthew who deleted one of his posts that was clearly slander against someone. We have no ability to censor. But if we do not accept his viewpoint, we're "Magisterium", "censoring" (as if we other than Matthew have any such ability), and, if we do not accept his trantrums about Irlmaier, and decide to keep an open mind that he might actually have a legitimate preternatural gift, then we are running around like schoolgirls chasing prophecies. That's a series of lies and slanders and insults. What I stated about him being a liar and a slanderer is simply demonstrably true, where Matthew had to delete one of his posts, and then you need only see the clip above for evidence. See, unlike this clown above, I do not make assertions like this just as a tactic and an insult when I have no other argument, but if I write something like that it's because there's evidence for it. But he'll dish out stream of insults like the above, and then he'll snowflake about having not nithe things said about him in return, where our not nithe things are backed up by truth ... whereas his are simply an effusion of some kind of strange aversion he has to the topic of Irlmaier, thus the apt metaphor of having his panties in a bunch.
So I stand by everything I wrote, and there's evidence for it, and retract nothing of what I wrote ... at this time. If something I wrote were shown to be UNtrue, then I would happily retract it and even offer an apology, but nothing along those lines has emerged thus far from his snowflaking and tantrums.
Topic: Mat183 (Read 6339 times)