By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Sept. 6, 2021 Anno Domini

Race denialists like Eugene Michael Jones of Culture Wars magazine would have you believe that race is only skin deep and people can change nationalities and cultures like they change underwear.

If he weren’t making these statements from a Catholic podium, one would think we were hearing yet another piece of Cultural Marxist flavour-of-the-week talking points from any number of the ruling elite’s parrots in the media. But that isn’t so. And, unfortunately, Jones is not the only so called Catholic with this opinion. Many, traditional and modern, Catholics share this opinion, likely due to decades of anti-racist brainwashing and distorted teachings from the pulpit.

So, what is the truth on the matter of race? Is it compatible with Catholic teaching or is it just bigotry? Is biological determinism (or some similar form of it) true, or is race just the colour of your skin which covers a completely blank body, mind, and soul with no genetic predispositions? I believe the answer is quite simple. Without the intervention of God, via the Holy Ghost, cultures/races/nations are predisposed to the immoral inclinations of their genetics and/or ingrained cultural beliefs. I guess you could say that biological determinism does exist, but if one converts to the true faith in Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost guides the person away from the bad inclinations of their genetic determinism and harnesses the good aspects of it. Evidence of this is demonstrated by the changes in followers of Christ who repent from their sins—sins being the inclination of their genetic determinism inherited from Adam passed down (is not original sin a kind of genetic determinism?). However, When a person repents from sin, they don’t change entirely. They still maintain aspects of their personality and behaviour before they repented. They still retain their unique character and the moral or neutral attributes of their genetic inclinations.

Throughout the Bible and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, nationalism is upheld as moral and virtuous. The Bible in no way promotes any inkling of multi-ethnic societies. The idea of Catholicism being universal relates to the application of salvation (to everyone, or universal). Many twist this into meaning some kind of “Holy” melting pot mechanism.

“The righteous exalteth a nation.” (Ecclesiasticus)

Indeed, the nation is a larger version of the family, which was instituted by God himself. The family is spiritually and racially cohesive, ideally. The propagation of nationhood and even ingroup cohesion is largely found in books of the Bible like Ecclesiasticus and Proverbs. For example, in Ecclesiasticus Chapter 13:14-19, it states,

“Love the Lord all thy life, and cull upon Him for they salvation. Every beast loveth his like, and every man loveth his neighbour. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like. What fellowship hath the wolf with the lamb? So the sinner with the godly. What agreement is there between the hyena and a dog? And what peace between the rich and the poor. As the wild ass is the lion’s prey in the wilderness: so the rich eat up the poor.” (Ecclesiasticus)

If race and nations are extensions or amplifications of the family, then wouldn’t the inverse of racial polygamy (race mixing) be marital polygamy? Is it just a coincidence that the multi-ethnic superstate under Nimrod was destroyed by God, as it tended towards tyrannical rule in opposition to God?

Aristotle wrote,

“Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction.”

So as God brought wrath upon Shinar for its multi-ethnic, one worldism, so now He brings wrath upon the world, which is pursuing the very same ill-fated goal of a one world (communistic) order via the mixing of the races and the feeding of immoral traits of genetic determinism, especially among the Third World, Islamists, and Jews. Aristotle goes on to explain the relationship between multi-culturalism and tyrannical world rule:

The guard of a [legitimate] king is composed of citizens: that of a tyrant is composed of foreigners….

It is a habit of tyrants never to like anyone who has a spirit of dignity and independence. The tyrant claims a monopoly of such qualities for himself; he feels that anybody who asserts a rival dignity, or acts with independence, is threatening his own superiority and the despotic power of his tyranny; he hates him accordingly as a subverter of his own authority. It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.” (1313B29)

Aristotle’s warning happened exactly as he said it would would in the case of the Satanic Soviet Union, whose domination was by that of foreigners, namely Jews. And now this same tribe exercises this same script all over the world to bring about the same end.

…what Tyranny in essence was: an autocracy based on military force supplied by a personal bodyguard and mercenaries; and reinforced by multiple dynastic marriages, the unscrupulous transfers of populations, and the enfranchisement of foreigners.

Before Saint Thomas Aquinas warned of granting immediate citizenship to foreigners, Saint Isidore of Seville warned of a cabal of foreign Jews conspiring against their new (Christian) citizens:

“We have recently and undoubtedly discovered from clear confessions that those Hebrews from the regions beyond the sea call on the other Hebrews to act together against Christianity … among their other crimes [the Jews] had not only chosen to throw the order of the Church into confusion but also attempted to ruin the fatherland and the whole people in tyrannical conspiracy in such a way that they are already celebrating their own era and committing various massacres of Christians.” —Canon 8, Toledo Council XVII

When Eugene Michael Jones claims that race is inconsequential to the Christian, he is telling a half truth. Race is inconsequential to repentance and the resultant salvation of Jesus Christ, but genetic determinism still exists in the believer to some degree and especially thrives in the non-believer. This determinism affects the person and those around him. Therefore, non-believing foreigners should be treated very cautiously and should never be allowed to make up or influence the dominant culture or, as Aristotle warns, that society will end up in a tyranny. And we today see this effect happening before our very eyes in the West. As for believing foreigners, the same Aristotelian advice would apply. Foreigners are to be treated with charity but are not to be allowed to dominate, disrupt, or influence the culture. Furthermore, a Christian foreigner’s moral or, at least, neutral genetic traits can still negatively affect those of his adopted nation, based on ingroup-outgroup dynamics (see works of Professor Kevin MacDonald for more on this, especially his magnum opus Culture of Critique). Therefore, segregation of even Christian foreigners seems prudent to the overall health of a nation. The so-called racism of the Israeli state, instead of being something to abhor, is something that the Western world used to uphold in the West and should re-adopt it now. Perhaps, then, we would provide a stronger counter to the Jewish offensive against the Christian world.

In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.
—George Orwell, 1984

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
December 6, 2017 Anno Domini

Mathematics is a truly objective discipline that is not subject to the opinions and value systems of those who seek to impose their world view on others.

Growing up, I hated dealing with math. I could not wrap my mind around its technical, rigid, and seemingly complex systems. But that’s just my mind. I am inclined towards linguistics and writing, which is why I maintain this blog. But what I respect most about math is its objectivity and application of logical thinking.

Math provides just the raw facts: here they are, like them or not; no whining; no complaining; no crying about intolerance, bigotry, or hate; no bending the truth to fit your oxymoronic notions of “alternative facts”. This is the truth. Critical thinking required. Law of non-Contradiction in effect.

Aside from modern abstract ideas of math like fuzzy logic or multi-valued systems, the fundamentals of mathematics have stood the test of time as immutable truth, for math exists within the ordered and complex creation of a prime Creator…there it is. Mathematics—when sincerely drawn to its ultimate end—points directly to the existence of our creator and to the beauty within Himself and His creation. The Golden Ratio (used in the design of the human face) is one small example of creative beauty pointed to by mathematics.

Perhaps, then, this is why the Jewish-masonic social engineers, through operations like the United Nations’ Common Core, have come to attack the last bastion of objective truth that is taught in the education systems across the world. They have already removed honest study of religion from the system. Now they must remove the teaching of logic-based math—a science that naturally leads sincere students to religious conclusions. Logic and critical thinking have long been removed from the world education system. This explains why not only literacy rates but also mathematics comprehension rates are plummeting, mostly in the West. Most people don’t even know what the Trivium is. Math is the last discipline of objective truth slated for removal by the social engineers. It cannot be allowed to be taught anymore, as it conflicts with the post-truth world agenda. Only lies, contradiction, and nonsense are permitted. Feelings, passion, and gratification are all we need—forget about truth and beauty. The cult of ugly, in all its decay, shall prevail.

So it is that fundamental math is now being replaced, at best, by fuzzy logic and, at worst, absurd formulaic gibberish like that used in the Common Core agenda. Get the kids while they’re young. Retard their minds from learning to think critically and you will have a completely plasticized brain with which to mold into whatever you wish: a slave…an automaton…a creature alienated from his creator.

No further evidence is needed to expose these architects as either controlled opposition or unwitting dupes than an examination of the beacons of freedom and liberty they hold up as the primary goal around which “truthers” must rally.

Forget that the U.S. Constitution was adopted by a largely freemasonic clique of American revolutionaries or that it was shaped from the freemasons’ own constitution, the document is fundamentally illogical and contrary to true freedom. The Constitution’s absolute promulgation of indifferentism—that all beliefs are equally valid—is the most glaring error. This gross error permeates the document as well as its offspring movements libertarianism and Americanism. Indifferentism violates the primary law of philosophy, the law of noncontradiction, that no two truths can contradict each other. All beliefs cannot be equally valid simultaneously as Christ claims to be the only Truth. The U.S. Constitution then is declaring unequivocally that Christ is not the only Truth. This denial is in harmony with their loose definitions of “God”, freedom, and liberty.

The U.S. Founding Fathers’ deliberately vague writings on “God” are completely consistent with the doctrines of freemasonry, which are equally as vague and indifferent. Of course, not believing in any one truth, how can they adequately describe God? They are functioning on the basis of a fundamental lie. In Freemasonry, “God” is liberation from the true God, freedom from the true God and His just order of the universe. The masonic ambition of Godless autonomy is manifested in the rebellious character of Satan, in the pride of mankind, and in the “do what thou wilt” revolutionary spirit. It is codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and commonly known as “separation of Church and State”. Ironically, the truth movement is sold the lie that anything that violates their masonic liberation from God Almighty is “enslavement”. The global conspirators, as guilty as they are, function as a mere prop in this grand delusion. Truthers are struggling against a ghost and have no truth from which to defend their true freedom, which is only found in Christ Jesus, the true and only liberator of mankind.

I can hear supposed Christian constitutionalists arguing that notions of “free speech” and the “right to bear arms” are Godly. Under the overall rebellious spirit of the U.S. Constitution, concepts such as freedom of speech are also loosely defined by the document and the fathers. What exactly constitutes free speech and what limits ought to be in place, if any? Obscenity and pornography have only gained prominence in American society because they have been attached to freedom of speech. Is this merely a misuse of the Constitution? How can it be when the concept is so loosely defined, open to interpretation? If the framers of the Constitution wished this not to happen, would they not have clearly stated so? It’s virtually the same with every other supposed misuse of the Constitution, whether it be the dominance of corporations over the U.S. government, infanticide (state-sanctioned abortion through the 14th amendment), Talmudic influence through the courts, or, worst of all, state-sanctioned usury through institutions like the U.S. Federal Reserve. It appears that the U.S. Founding Fathers, guided by dark spirits, designed the Constitution to fail the people in their true pursuit of freedom, which comes only through Christ Jesus. To corroborate this, we have the testimony of the authors of the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a documented purported to be the documented framework from which the world’s anti-Christian conspirators would execute their specific plans for world governance. Whether or not the document is real or fiction matters not. The concepts and ideas were in circulation among the populace of the time of the document’s writing.

Constitution designed to self-destruct?

The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots – the kings on their thrones – are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart. (Protocol 3:1, 19th Century)

This shows that the Elders of Zion knew full well the self-contradiction of the humanist constitutions they went on to feed the gentiles as the saviour of mankind. It makes their governance of mankind all the more diabolical.
Most Protestants and some Catholics alike have been hoodwinked by the masonic mechanism of Americanism. In order for the “truth movement” to realize its true purpose, it must recognize its error and return to Christ, the true liberator of mankind. An American or libertarian identity is really a pseudo-identity. Only through a resurgence in Catholic/Orthodox identity can the New World Order be defeated and Logos be restored.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
October 16, 2014 Anno Domini

Uptalk—the form of speech generally perceived as emanating from the vocal chords of young, diffident girls, where the voice rises toward the end of a declarative statement—has crept into Western speech habits as a covert saboteur of logic-based thinking.

Uptalk, also known as “valley girl” speech (from California), upspeak, rising inflection, or high rising terminal (HRT), has become so common among English speakers that most are not even aware of why or when they do it. It’s that highly irritative sound you hear in declarative statements that are not meant to be stated in the form of a question but are. An example using a hypothetical interview with an eyewitness to a crime on a newscast would go something like this:

“We were, like, walking down the street (?)… when we heard this loud crashing sound (?)… and there was, like, blood everywhere (?)….

Unfortunately, young girls typically do not grow out of this speech pathology and, what’s worse, they tend infect everyone within their social sphere, even their parents, and even grown men.

Linguists tend to view this speech pathology as indicative of insecurity in the speaker, who subconsciously raises their intonation in order to seek approval of their unsure “declaration”. It is argued that women are more susceptible to this speech pathology, as they tend to be less aggressive in their speech habits.

Believe it or not, there are actually people who defend this pathology and call it the progressive evolution of speech. Uptalk, they argue, indicates empathy in the speaker and creates a more comfortable and relaxed speech environment. This, despite the fact that healthy and confident English speakers can be as empathetic as anyone and can be as easy to talk to as one’s best friend. And there is nothing inherently feminine about uptalk. Truly feminine speech should be pleasant and elegant. Even those unable to clinically recognize uptalk as speech pathology know that there is just something about it that is irritating and unpleasant. Uptalk is ugly. It not only makes the uptalker unattractive, it also makes them sound less unique, since it is so ubiquitous.

Another speech pathology that is commonly associated with uptalkers is the use of the submodifier/conjunction “so” at the beginning of a response to a direct question. One can often hear professionals, experts, even doctors, using this annoying little speech impediment in interviews, especially on shows on National Public Radio (NPR). Like uptalk, this error is believed to have originated in the Silicon Valley tech sector. It appears the use of “so” at the beginning of a response to a direct question indicates a belief of superiority of the speaker. Linguists see it as indicating that the interviewee believes he is superior to the interviewer, and thus uses “so” to detach himself from having to answer directly to the question. Instead of responding with “yes” or “no” and continuing to explain why, the interviewee will begin with “so” (detachment) and go on a bit of a diatribe before eventually getting around to answering the question. These speakers also tend to use “so” frequently, almost in response to every single question in a series, and even at the beginning of fresh, declarative sentences.

The above examples of speech pathology are by no means the only diseases plaguing the great English language and its speakers. There are many. One need only look at the prevalent form of communication today by subcultures (ghettoized Africna Americans), for example, or those communicating by the plethora of mobile techno junk to know how much real, effective, and beautiful communication has deteriorated. But uptalk has a dastardly unique characteristic to it. It appears to be re-engineering how we think.

The source of uptalk is uncertain. It is claimed to have originated everywhere from Silicon Valley tech executives to Australians and seemingly timid Canadians, though, it is certain that it is not very old. It seems to have emerged right alongside the counter-culture revolution that began in the 1950s and ‘60s in the English-speaking world. The diffident nature of uptalk pseudo-statements seems to reveal that the speaker is unsure of basic facts and logic and therefore is caught up in some kind of subjectivist underworld of the dead. Columnist Hank Davis writes, in The Uptalk Epidemic,

“It’s a nasty habit. It is the very opposite of confidence or assertiveness. It’s gotten all out of control. These days, even statements about which there should be no question or doubt are presented in this tentative, timid and deferential manner. Here’s an example. I teach a 4th year university course in which part of the requirement is a seminar presentation. Students used to stand up and share the results of their research in a way that conveyed their confidence and knowledge. They no longer do. Even if they do feel confident, their culture now mandates that they dial it back and sound like this:

My name is Jennifer? My seminar today is on bystander apathy? There is quite a bit of research on this topic?”

Davis continues,

“Why all the questions, Jennifer? Just what is at issue here? Are you not sure of your name? Are you willing to change it if we don’t nod our approval? Why are you unsure of your seminar topic? Does that, too, require our approval?… I think we have an answer to that question. Making a declarative statement is no longer OK. It is not socially acceptable for a 21 year old woman to stand before an audience and tell us her name or what she knows without turning into a shy little girl whose statements are questions or pleas for consensus.”

The speech trend of uptalk is a social engineer’s dream come true. Instead of the brutish, laborious method of forcing a subject to accept a particular ideology, simply get the subject to believe this ideology was arrived at on his own by getting him to think and talk in subjectivist form. After all, how can anything be for certain when one cannot simply state anything with certainty? Now the subject is ripe for social engineering by elites who know for certain in which direction they want to guide us.

So it follows that uptalk has arrived on the scene simultaneously with the surge of socially engineered public education, particularly that advanced by the United Nations Agenda 21, Common Core initiative. Common Core re-education is fairly obvious collectivist, secular humanist propaganda, designed to rip out from the minds of the youth any concept of God, country, family, or any shred of high scholastic logic (in Common Core mathematics, for example, 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4, they claim). Are social engineers also attempting to emasculate men with uptalk or is this all merely “progressivism”? It’s more common to encounter women who are unsure of themselves than men. Men are natural leaders, and even when they are unsure of themselves, they tend to behave and speak as if they are. For men, real men, uptalk is a direct path to emasculation—and with it, patriarchal Christian mores. For women, uptalk instills in them a false sense of feminine speech. For both sexes, uptalk is anti-logic, counter intuitive, and rewires their brains to think in subjectivist terms.

The phenomenon of uptalk may not be the direct work of social engineers, but it certainly appears to be the devil child of the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and beyond, perhaps stretching back to the anti-classicism of the Enlightenment saboteurs.