As regards the stone throwing of Day Vox and Owen Benjamin in the above link, it should be noted that they live in their own glass houses with their own baggage and agendas.

• • • • • Rash judgment & detraction Publicly imputing grave sins without competent proof, venue, or jurisdiction is classic rash judgment; broadcasting a person’s alleged private sins is detraction—even if true—when there’s no proportionate good. Accusation-as-content violates the Eighth Commandment. A Catholic critique writes itself: “This is not how Catholics pursue justice; this is how we farm outrage.”
        • No due process, no witnesses, no forum of correction. Matthew 18 gives a graduated path; Canon law reserves crimes of sɛҳuąƖ abuse to competent ecclesial or civil authority. Turning suspicions into monetized streams/blogs is the opposite of fraternal correction.
        • Scandal and spiritual harm. Milking lurid insinuations (“pervy,” “honey pot,” “underage”) creates scandal—driving the weak to contempt or cynicism—without actually protecting anyone. If there’s truly a crime: report it; if not, stop smearing.
        • Incoherence with claimed goals. If the stated aim is defending Christian civilization, then calumny, mockery, and innuendo are self-refuting tools. Catholics can say: “You don’t defend Logos by bearing false witness.”
        • Pride & profiteering. Personality-cult feuds (refusal to debate, purity tests, victory laps when platforms ban rivals) reek of vainglory. A traditional Catholic response: “Less YouTube court, more confession.”

• • As for their moral credibility, Benjamin's repeated blasphemy against the Blessed Virgin and the Eucharist, and Vox’s open contempt for episcopal discipline, give scandal—exactly what St. Paul warns about in 1 Cor 8.  Their rhetoric often drifts into personal vindictiveness and detraction, sins that traditional moral theology treats more seriously than most modern Catholics do. In short, a traditionalist would say of Vox and Owen: “They speak some truths about the culture, but they do so outside the ark of salvation; stay for the Mass, pray for their conversion, and don’t follow them into the wilderness.”
    
    
    As for Chris Brunet and his hit piece “Top 50 Nick Fuentes Pedophile Scandals,: one can make note of the fact that Brunet is a Canadian writer who has carved out a niche exposing (or, depending on your view, weaponizing) the personal controversies of right-wing micro-celebrities. His Substack piece is exactly what the headline promises: a long, bullet-pointed compendium of every flirtation, joke, DM, and alleged gαy-op that has ever swirled around Fuentes.
    • • • • Accuracy: Brunet cross-posts screenshots and archived tweets; the raw material is largely verifiable. The spin is maximalist—every joke is “grooming,” every Discord log is “evidence.”
          • Motive: Brunet’s own politics are a mix of post-Trump, quasi-libertarian, anti-“Groyper” animus. The piece reads like a vindictive hit list timed to kneecap Fuentes after his 2024–25 media resurgence.
          • Catholic lens: Even if every allegation were true, the Christian response is still governed by Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5—fraternal correction first, public denunciation only if necessary and proportionate. Brunet skips straight to the public denunciation for clicks.
    So, read it if you want a one-stop catalog of Fuentes controversies, but filter it through the same skepticism you’d apply to any politicized dossier.

Quote from: Mark 79 2025-08-19, 8:25:58 AM
I propose unqualified admiration for no human, not even myself. I keep returning to two questions: (1) "Who can cast the first stone?" and (2) "What are the accomplishments of the loudest critics?"

Whatever the faults of Fuentes, Gibson, Hoffman, or name-your-favorite-whipping-boy, what are the accomplishments of the critics? Really!!! Some of the critics seem to imagine that they were immaculately conceived.

Quote from: Everlast22 2025-08-19, 8:46:06 AM
I remember watching the kid in October 2019, when the Pachamama psy-op took place. He poo-pooed traditional Catholicism saying it's all the same, communion in the hand, who cares, blah blah blah. Haven't took him serious since, and the patterns speak for themselves. The zoomers like him because he's anti-boomer, (which isn't too bad, I don't care for boomers either) non-gruff, and anti-establishment. Gives the kids something to hope for, ya know?

• Catholic teaching – deliberate virginity for reasons of the Kingdom is neither abnormal nor “closet weirdo” behavior.  Paul commends it in 1 Cor 7, and the Church still lists consecrated celibacy as a higher state than marriage.
• Young men taking a chaste path are actually counter-cultural today—they’re showing more masculine self-control, not less.  That’s the opposite of “lite in the loafers."

If a man can control his appetites until marriage, and your instinct is to mock it, that says more about your own self-mastery than his. The snide fanboy label is just ad hominem spray-paint.  High 7th grade energy!


Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email.

The time stamps indicate you reflected about 1 minute before returning to your Judgment Sewat.

I keep returning to two questions: (1) "Who can cast the first stone?" and (2) "What are the accomplishments of the loudest critics?"

What are your "fruits" and accomplishments?