In regard to your post of March 18, 2019, I am in almost total agreement. I was born in 1946 and over half my adult life has been spent in uniform. At age 19 I joined the US Marine Corps and my time therein included a tour of duty in Vietnam. A few years after getting out of the Corps I started working in law enforcement on the local, state and finally federal level and that was my career until retirement.
Perhaps it was my upbringing, perhaps my time in the Corps, but somehow I never learned the efficacy of running away. You are correct. The proper direction to run is “to the sound of the guns”. This has been a military maxim as long as there have been guns. While I do not know the Rules of Engagement as presently being forced upon our service men and women, no one can go far wrong by running towards the guns.
There was, in fact, only one statement with which I took exception in today’s post. You wrote “If you want zero casualties, surrender”. I would correct that to read “If you want zero casualtieson the enemy’s part, surrender”. Once you surrender there is absolutely no guarantee that you will survive.
A quote I rather like: “A soldier will shoot the enemy. A Marine will shoot the enemy then stab the bullet hole with his bayonet for extra credit.” I hope that my beloved Corps still believes in the Esprit De Corps.
“Hard Truths About Combat Tactics” originally penned and posted in September, ARSH 2011
I have received emails from very well-meaning guys and had conversations with various law enforcement and military fellows about civilian combat tactics, both in a general context AND as they apply to me directly given my situation. While I always appreciate expert advice and soak it up as much as I can, I have been struck by one commonality that I have heard and vigorously disagree with. I have been told over and over again that the first thing one must do when a close-quarter combat theater unfolds is to seek cover.
I’m sorry, but that is wrong. And yes, I realize that I am directly contradicting the near-unanimous advice of men who have training and experience that I lack. I realize that, but I still must disagree. If I EVER encounter a gunman or gunmen situation as we saw yesterday* in Norway, or as in the Giffords shooter in Arizona, or as in musloid Mumbai-syle attacks I will NOT seek cover. The “seek cover” tactic completely hems YOU in and basically demands that the gunman move into a position such that YOU have a shot on him, but he doesn’t have a shot on you. Guys, that’s never going to happen. And it is completely chickens***.
Any adult, male or female, with any degree of physical capability, regardless of armament, upon seeing a shooter should immediately RUN AT THE S.O.B. as hard and as fast as possible. If you have a gun, you draw it and start shooting as soon as you can. If you have a knife, draw it and brandish it and then go for the face and neck as soon as you are in range. If you are unarmed you can still tackle him and beat him into submission or death, if necessary, or gouge his eyes out (ladies).
At this point, most everyone in this culture would say, “That’s crazy! I’m not doing that! I’d just get shot!”
Um, yeah. I know.
When crazed gunmen start shooting in public places, people tend to get killed. But there are two variables that can be modified: WHO gets killed and HOW MANY people get killed. I remember hearing Dennis Miller speak very poignantly about the Virginia Tech massacre shortly after it happened in 2007. One of the dead was an elderly professor, Dr. Liviu Librescu, who was a Holocaust survivor. When the gunman appeared at his classroom door, Dr. Librescu ran straight toward him and forced the classroom door shut and held it shut while the shooter tried to force entrance. This bought time for the students to escape through the window. The gunman eventually killed Dr. Librescu by shooting him through the door. All but one of Dr. Librescu’s students escaped. The point Dennis Miller made was that Dr. Librescu, when he saw the evil standing in the door – which he had seen before six decades earlier and thus recognized – didn’t run AWAY from the evil, he ran STRAIGHT AT IT.
Our culture with its new god of “self esteem” has destroyed the average person’s sense of courage and self-sacrifice. There is no virility, and certainly no potency. While our fighting men in the military still have plenty of bravery, their pants-pissing, self-esteem candy@$$ generals refuse to let anyone fight because “someone might get hurt”. And so, our soldiers have to sit and watch as the enemy moves free and uncontested, and then our boys get killed as a result of that enemy freedom of movement. We should be bumrushing the S.O.B.’s with everything we have, from nukes to bayonets, if needed. Speaking of bayonets, did you know that the U.S. military has removed bayonet training from basic training? Apparently it was too aggressive, or some bee-ess like that. Nevermind that a bayonet charge is still an incredibly effective tactic which was last used by a squad of Brits in Iraq who were ambushed, pinned down and outnumbered 5:1. They fixed bayonets, charged, killed 35 of the 100 Iraqi rebels, and sent the remainder running with the contents of their bowels evacuated. The Brits suffered three very minor wounds. If they had used contemporary Western sissy self-esteem “I might get hurt” combat tactics, they would have been shot dead to the last man.
This is also what happened at Columbine High School. The SWAT Team sat outside the school while the killers roamed free because the SWAT Team was trained to not engage if they could potentially get killed. So, they sat and waited for Harris or Klebold to step in front of a window and give them a clean, “safe” shot or some such. The only reason Columbine ended was because the two shooters shot themselves. They were granted 100% situational control to the very end by the SWAT Team.
In Norway*, even if there were two gunmen (they’re still not sure), the gunmen were outnumbered something like 200:1. The adults and older boys (I think it was a group of teenagers) could have rushed the gunmen. Would people have been killed? Absolutely – but not the 85 that were killed. A gunman can’t kill everyone if being rushed by dozens of people. Numbers WILL break through.
And here’s the tough part for most people. Let’s say that I rush a gunman. In the time it takes the gunman to see me rushing him, aim, fire and drop me, other people have advanced four or five steps closer to him. Each person he has to kill buys the other people four or five steps. This is war, writ small. What do you think D-Day was? Eisenhower knew that the Nazi machine gunners would mow down thousands of troops – but both Eisenhower and the soldiers themselves knew that the Nazis couldn’t kill all of them. Zero casualties was never the objective. The objective was victory, and those two things are NOT the same, and sometimes they are exact opposites. If you want zero casualties, surrender.
In our culture, not only has the notion of self-sacrifice unto death been completely lost, but people have been taught that they are personally “God’s gift to the world” and that their life is the single most important thing that there is, ever has been and ever will be. People have such an inflated sense of their own importance that they simply cannot fathom that perhaps their ultimate “purpose” on this earth might be to buy 2.3 seconds of time so that someone else can advance on a gunman, ultimately saving numerous lives. This ties directly to the fact that pretty much no one believes in the first paragraph of the Catechism: Q: Why do I exist? A: I exist to know, love and serve God in this world, and BE HAPPY WITH HIM FOREVER IN THE NEXT.
What people fail to understand is that the life of freedom and decadent prosperity that they now enjoy was bought and paid for by millions of men who ran into gunfire, bayonets, canon fire and swords over the centuries so that the cause of righteousness could advance. Do you like being a free person who can sit and read whatever you want on this thing called the internet? (For now…) Are you glad that you are Christian and not musloid? Thank the long dead and individually forgotten men who fought at Vienna, Lepanto and Tours. If it weren’t for them, you either wouldn’t exist, or you would exist and be a musloid. They died not just for their immediate families, but also for YOU. I’m sure many an evening campfire throughout the centuries heard soldiers ask the question, “I wonder what the world will be like in the year 2000?” Our lives are the answer to their question, and sadly we have almost completely pissed all of it away.
The problem today is that people are so monstrously narcissistic that they are incapable of viewing themselves as anything other than the sole beneficiary and culmination of history, when in fact we are all just bricks in the road of time that stretches on in front of us. Everyone has been taught that every single person is born for earthly glory, fame and riches, and anything that falls short of that just CAN’T be right and certainly can’t be God’s will. I have had, on more than one occasion, Christian people say to me with a completely straight face, “What purpose can a person serve and what good can they do if they’re dead?”
Oh, none. There is no example of death serving a greater purpose. Especially in Christianity. Not-a-one. Sigh.
Peter Paul Reubens, The Crucified Christ, ARSH 1613
The amount of damage that the infiltration of the Church and the resulting Novus Ordo effiminized “church of nice” paradigm, and Super-fun Rockband entertainme-church (™) has done to this culture can not be overstated. And you wonder why I rail about these things like I do.
When the devil shows up on your doorstep, you fix and raise your bayonet and run at him as hard as you can, precisely for the love of God and for the love of your fellow men, and leave the rest to God.
And now the cat video. The cat just runs at the dog as hard as it possibly can. Bravo, cat.
Christ Embracing St. Bernard, Francisco Ribalta, ARSH 1627, Museo del Prado
Since we now are specifically enjoining St. Bernard’s intercession with regards to the Bergoglian Antipapacy, here is a very small collection of quotations from St. Bernard, each one a priceless point of departure and reflection, particularly now during Lent:
“There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge; that is Curiosity.
There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others; that is Vanity.
There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve; that is Love.”
“Many of those who are humiliated are not humble. Some react to humiliation with anger, others with patience, and others with freedom. The first are culpable, the next harmless, the last just.”
“Neither fear nor self-interest can convert the soul. They may change the appearance, perhaps even the conduct, but never the object of supreme desire… Fear is the motive which constrains the slave; greed binds the selfish man, by which he is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed (James 1:14). But neither fear nor self-interest is undefiled, nor can they convert the soul. Only charity can convert the soul, freeing it from unworthy motives.”
“What we love we shall grow to resemble.”
“A saint is not someone who never sins, but one who sins less and less frequently and gets up more and more quickly.”
“There is no greater misery than false joys.”
“If you concentrate hard on the state you are in, it would be suprising if you have time for anything else. ”
“Learn the lesson that, if you are to do the work of a prophet, what you need is not a sceptre but a hoe.”
“The more I contemplate God, the more God looks on me. The more I pray to Him, the more He thinks of me too.”
“Rest is in Him alone. Man knows no peace in the world; but he has no disturbance when he is with God.”
“To have a restful or peaceful life in God is good; to bear a life of pain in patience is better; but to have peace in the midst of pain is the best of all.”
“O wretched slaves of Mammon, you cannot glory in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ while you trust in treasures laid up on earth: you cannot taste and see how gracious the Lord is, while you are hungering for gold.”
“And real happiness will come, not in gratifying our desires or in gaining transient pleasures, but in accomplishing God’s will for us: even as we pray every day: “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.”
I’ve been screeching for a decade now about how politics is pretty much Kabuki theater, and thus I just can’t see wasting my time (and yours) trying to parse as legitimate something which clearly isn’t. BUT, I did watch with interest the AOC video that so many folks sent to me, and yes, I think it is an accurate description of what the “next-level” plan is – installing completely expendable, completely inept, completely controllable “facade” candidates (generally based on affirmative action/quotas/the victim group du jour) like AOC, that are rotated QUICKLY into and out of office, while the controlling entity never changes. I think the days of the grifters like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, and John Boehner squatting in Congress for decades are over. Yes, I think we are seeing a paradigm shift from the days of the VISIBLE criminal political class to the INVISIBLE.
Then, last night, it occurred to me that this is the same thing as the Freemasonic agenda of “demythologization” that we have talked about with regards to the Papacy. The plan with the whole (doomed to failure) attempt to completely dissolve the Papacy qua Monarchy and turn it into a quick-rotating succession of meaningless figureheads (via the normalization and EXPECTATION of resignation) is almost exactly the same as the AOC paradigm. Antipope Bergoglio is an idiot that was hand-picked by the Sankt Gallen Mafia (the equivalent to the “Justice Democrats” mafia described in the AOC video) to be the usurper because he was “Latin American”. That was Antipope Bergoglio’s “affirmative action” qualification. But I think that even Antipope Bergoglio is too “independent” for the real power players. I think someone more to their liking, if they aren’t stopped and they get another invalid conclave and another Antipope, will be this guy, the AOC of the College of Cardinals, Luis Antonio Tagle:
He’s dumb, a heretic, and BROWN. But not… too brown. “Piano, piano,” as they say in Rome.
With regards to the whole notion of AOC being essentially “cast” in the part of “Congressman” via a literal casting call that was done in ARSH 2016, a very similar thing is happening with the College of Cardinals by the Bergoglian/Sankt Gallen regime. They are elevating a lot of BROWN PEOPLE from tiny backwater dioceses, sometimes dioceses with only a FEW THOUSAND Catholics, and oftentimes the bishops that are elevated happily admit that they are completely unqualified to be made Cardinals, have no clue about the working of the Curia, and have no idea why they were elevated. The reason they are elevated has exactly zero to do with “going to the peripheries” but rather because they fit some “affirmative action quota”, and will be controllable and zero threat to the Vatican Mafia that is actually running the show.
I suspect the long-term Freemasonic plan (doomed to failure) is to settle into a paradigm wherein a new “AOC Pope” is trotted out every five years or so, and then “resigns” in a blaze of dazzling, dazzling “humility”. The net effect, as articulated in the AOC video above, is that EXACTLY the same small synod of invisible tyrants – some churchmen, and some laymen – maintain uninterrupted iron-fisted control in perpetuity. And, as an added bonus, if they ever need to offer up a victim upon the altar of public relations, well, they always have a meaningless figurehead “AOC Pope” to burn, with a line of potential replacements waiting in the wings.
I think this is the plan – doomed to failure.
Think long and hard, Americans, about why it was that we were all so stridently indoctrinated against Monarchy. Ask yourself why the project of Freemasonry, from its conception in the early 1700s, has been the elimination of ALL MONARCHIES from the face of the Earth with the Papacy being the explicit ultimate target. Ask yourself why, exactly, Our Blessed Lord established the Papacy as a Monarchy – and not just a Monarchy, but a Monarchy that enjoys, completely uniquely in all the universe, SUPERNATURAL PROTECTION. Think long and hard about who, exactly, would want to convince even THE ELECT to stridently embrace the Freemasonic “DEMYTHOLOGIZATION OF THE PAPACY” agenda, raging EVERY DAY that the Papacy “clearly isn’t what we all thought it was”, and that Antipope Bergoglio is the “proof” of that.
Question: Pope Benedict specifically said in his official resignation statement that a conclave would have to be called to elect his successor. How do you reconcile your position to this fact?
Answer: Great question, and the clear answer lies in Pope Benedict’s “final audience” speech of 27 February, ARSH 2013. Let’s look:
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for-ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to RESIGN THE ACTIVE EXERCISE OF THE MINISTRY does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the POWER OF OFFICE FOR THE **GOVERNANCE** OF THE CHURCH, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
Pope Benedict, as we have seen from the mountain of evidence from the Teutonic theological academy of the mid-late 20th century (and there is more to come in this space…), was very much of the mind that the Papacy had to be transformed, demythologized and that its monarchical structure was no longer applicable to the “modern, democratized world”. As obviously erroneous as this sounds, Ratzinger was actually the relative “arch-conservative” in the Teutonic academia, and defended the Papacy against the notion of total abolition being aggressively pushed by the likes of Hans Kung and Johannes Neumann, among many others.
So, given not only the decades of academic literature on the topic of the distinction between and desired splitting of the Petrine Office from the Petrine Ministry, much of which Ratzinger himself edited, but most importantly Pope Benedict’s words on 27 February ARSH 2013, that he was resigning from the “active exercise of the ministry” “for the governance of the Church”, it is clear that his call for a conclave and election of his “successor” was his SUCCESSOR AS THE ACTIVE, GOVERNING MEMBER of the now “fundamentally transformed”, “expanded”, “collegial, synodal” Petrine Ministry.
And as we shall soon see, not only did Pope Benedict intend to remain the prayerful, contemplative, HUMILIATED Pope, but he actually believes himself to be the superior member of the “synodal” Papacy – the UBERPOPE, if you will.
It’s all error, obviously. One aspect of the Petrine Ministry can not delegated to a “co-Pope”. There is only one Pope at a time, and he and he ALONE as the SOLE, LIVING HOLDER of the Petrine Office has the OPTION of exercising the Petrine Ministry – or NOT exercising it, as he sees fit, or in the case of incapacity, all ministerial function can be necessarily suspended. A Pope in a coma can not exercise any aspect of the Petrine Ministry, but retains the Office in toto. Remember, OFFICE = BEING something. MINISTRY = DOING something. Totally different categories, totally different terms. Words have meaning.
The Pope CAN NOT delegate any portion of the Petrine Office to anyone else, because that would constitute a fundamental transformation of the Petrine Office (bifurcation, expansion, any non-MONarchical form). The Papacy is immutable because it was established by Christ Himself. Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam Meam.
And that’s why Pope Benedict’s attempted abdication in February ARSH 2013 was invalid, and thus per Canon Law, he retained the Papacy whole and entire. The See was not vacant, and thus it was ontologically and legally impossible for the Cardinals to call a valid conclave, much less elect a Pope. It was all null per Canon Law and common sense.
Alternative title: SHOCK WAVES RIPPLE THROUGHOUT ROME AS ARCHBISHOP EXPOSED AS HETEROSEXUAL!
After I posted the link to the Crux story exposing the slave-driving of illegal alien workers by Papal Nuncio Archbishop Chullikatt, a former Mission staff member who spoke with the Crux reporter emailed in.
There was a mistress. Crux knows all about it but those with best knowledge of it wouldn’t go on record. Chullikatt accidentally sent several texts intended for the mistress to Mission staff, including at least one nun and one priest. I never focused that that because I knew the Vatican wouldn’t care. One of the priests is going to try to get a separate story published on that next week.
Let us not forget that Diabolical Narcissism doesn’t always mean HOMOSEXUAL. There is plenty of sexual sin that is 100% heterosexual, and plenty of Diabolical Narcissists who are 100% straight. In fact, in absolute terms, of course there is far more sin committed against the Sixth Commandment that is heterosexual in nature than any other type. While it SEEMS that sex perverts outnumber non-perverts, that isn’t the case. On a percentage basis, sexual perversion is still low – but it is growing exponentially as Diabolical Narcissism explodes, especially amongst the young.
It was pointed out to me recently, I think by a priest if memory serves, that when a priest engages in ANY form of fornication or sodomy, that the act is, by definition, INCESTUOUS, because the Priest is a spiritual father to his flock, men, women and children alike. So, a priest, like +Chullikatt, when he carries on with a woman, is not only committing the sin of fornication, not only committing the sin of adultery because the priest is espoused to The Church, not only committing the sin of sacrilege, but also the sin of spiritual incest.
Consider now the state of a cleric or prelate who is committing these sins against chastity, and how incredibly grave these sins are, and these priests then OFFER THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS WHILE IN THIS STATE. Their sin does NOT invalidate the Mass one bit – but can you imagine what it does to their souls? Can you imagine what it does to their intellects, how darkened and convoluted they must be?
The thrust of my video presentation was not only educating people (especially Americans) about this memory-holed genocide, and the REAL nature of the French Revolution, taught in American schools as a wholesome spreading of the “glorious” (in reality, Freemasonic) American Revolution to Europe, but primarily to point up the parallels between the spiraling descent into evil between late-18th century France and modern ‘Murica, and what people are capable of doing to one another with surprisingly little persuasion. And remember, almost everyone in 18th century France was a “practicing Catholic”. Consider the starting point of modern ‘Murica, and Europe is pretty much completely POST-CHRISTIAN, add some satanic rap/hip-hop “culture” and the whole sodomite zeitgeist to the mix, and… yeah.
Two commenters over at the Quillette piece put it very well:
Charlie:
Excellent piece. The French Revolution provided the template for revolutions in the name of progress to be used as an excuse for some people to exercise their blood lust and cruelty beneath a veneer of morality. A Breton told me of similar murders occurred when the Bretons tried to protect The Church. Those instigating Revolutions tend to be good at harnessing the services of people who enjoy killing and inflicting pain on others. As M Shalamov said ” the lust for power, for unpunished murder is great. 95% of cowards are capable of lethal meanness after a light threatening and I saw what a a forcible argument a simple slap could be for an intellectual.”
A Briton who lived in France in the late 1940s and early 1950s said the French have not fully recovered from the Revolution and this helps to explain why.
jakesbrain:
“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” –Aldous Huxley
According to McKeegan, the Vatican follows a familiar pattern with corrupt prelates.
“They quietly remove the bishop once the risk of exposure is extreme, give them a soft landing while a supposed investigation takes place (the results of which are never made public), then reinstate them in a top position far away from the original post, where the process likely repeats itself. These resemble the actions of a criminal syndicate.”
Keep the faith and please pray for me!
Terry McKeegan
