From the Narrow Desert

Women are superior to men in sorcery because they are more easily transported by excess of passion. The word sorcerer clearly designates victims of chance and, so to speak, the poisonous muchrooms of fatality.

Greek sorcerers, but especially those of Thessaly, put horrible precepts to the proof and were given over to abominable rites. They were mostly women wasted by desires which they could no longer satisfy, antiquated courtesans, monsters of immorality and ugliness. . . . They were known as lamia, stryges, empusa; children were the objects of their envy and thus of their hared, and they sacrificed them for this reason. Some, like that Canidia who is mentioned by Horace, buried them as far as the head and left them to die of hunger, surrounded with food which they could not reach; others cut off the heads, hands and feet, boiled their fat and grease, in copper basins, to the consistence of an ointment, which they afterwards mixed with the juice of henbane, belladonna and black poppies. With this unguent they anointed the organ which was irritated unceasingly by their detestable desires; they rubbed also their temples and arm-pits, and then fell into a lethargy full of unbridled and luxurious dreams.

There is need to speak plainly -- these are the origins and this is the traditional practice of Black Magic; these are the secrets which were handed down to the middle ages; and such in fine are the pretended innocent victims whom public execration, far more than the sentence of inquisitors, condemned to the flames. . . .

Such is the woman who has sought to rise beyond the duties of her sex by familiarity with forbidden sciences. Men avoid her, children hide when she passes. She is devoid of reason, devoid of true love, and the stratagems of Nature in revolt against her are the ever-renewing torment of her pride.

Gustave Doré, The Death of Abel (1866)

I struggled with some demons, they were middle-class and tame

I didn't know I had permission to murder and to maim

And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. . . . And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free.

It's like giving a very young child rules to follow -- but the only punishment for violating them is that the child will be written out of his parents' will if he breaks any of the rules -- unless, of course, he sincerely apologizes at any point before his parents' death. Nothing is done at the time of the violation, not even an angry reprimand and a reminder of the standing threat of disinheritance. This is obviously not an effective way of enforcing one's demands, not the method that would be chosen by anyone with any understanding of human nature.

A: Why does God give us "commandments" but fail to enforce them, instead allowing us to do whatever we want, no matter how terrible?

B: Because human free will must be preserved. We must be allowed to choose good or evil without coercion.

A: But one of the things God allows us to do is to enslave and coerce others. Why would he allow that if preserving free will is so important?

B: True free will -- which is metaphysical, not practical -- lies in the realm of thought, not action, and cannot be taken away by coercion. Physical actions may be restricted or coerced, but the mind remains free. Paul taught that even a slave is free in the sense that matters to God -- spiritually free, free to align himself with Christ or with Satan.

A: But that means God could after all enforce his commandments, and prevent us from doing terrible things, without infringing on our free will -- which brings us right back to our original question.

[Mormon theology] also makes the things the individual goes through in this life [meaningful] because there's a post-mortal state. Basically, you "keep going" and doing other stuff in a way that isn't just entering a static afterlife. It obviously totally changes the story. I found this interesting because it would mean there really are ways that suffering in this life could be necessary, for you to learn something or something like that. In general, in our classical situation, it's much harder to appeal to this explanation cohesively. . . . [If] we're all going to Heaven, it's more difficult to imagine how extra suffering here will help you there because you're in Heaven. . . . Heaven not being static but being a full-on post-mortal existence where you do things makes lessons learned here applicable.

If my math is right, it comes out to approximately $79.37.

Say no to all coveting, stealing, and lusting,
And do not eat lobsters, for they are disgusting.

-- Yes and No

Let's -- to adapt a well-worn Intro-to-Linguistics example of syntactic ambiguity -- talk about sex with Bizarro cartoonist Dan Piraro. I've been a Bizarro reader since time immemorial -- a particular fan of that one where the guy's like "If a croissant is in your portable phone holster, what did you have for breakfast?" -- and I follow Mr. Piraro's blog, on which he occasionally holds forth on non-cartoon subjects. For a creative guy whose brand is Bizarro, he has a strong tendency towards blandly mainstream opinions smack-dab in the middle of the Overton window -- a fact that ought in theory to be surprising but of course isn't. This post of his can therefore be taken as more or less presenting Joe Sixpack's view on the subject of Teh Gay.

So, let's dissect it.

Forget about furniture for a minute, let’s talk about sexual orientation. This is a topic near to my heart because I have one. A sexual orientation. And if there’s one thing I’m completely sure of about, it’s that I have had no control over which way it pointed. [. . .] And I can only assume that if I did not choose what kind of humans would attract my sexual interest, neither do most others. As I said, it’s an assumption so maybe I’m wrong about that.

This is already a question-begging way of framing things. It's the same as the pronoun nonsense. Pronouns are a part of speech close to my heart because I myself expect people to use the correct pronouns when referring to me. My pronouns are he/him, but yours might be he/schmim, they/them, xoo/xiff, or whatever. As for me, being referred to as he and him has just always felt natural for as long as I can remember, and being called anything else would just be weird -- so I can only assume that everyone else's pronominal orientation arose in the same way.

The unspoken assumption is that since the normal comes naturally, therefore the abnormal also comes naturally -- and that assumption is arrived at by framing things in such a way as to exclude the very concept of normality or abnormality. The idea of "sexual orientation" was created to normalize various disorders of sexual attraction; the pronouns-in-your-bio thing was created to normalize the use of ungrammatical or made-up pronouns. If we wanted to normalize pica -- the psychiatric term for the desire to eat things that are not food -- we could start calling normal people cibivores or something ("food-eaters") and cast cibivory as just another "dietary orientation." Why do some people want to eat chalk and gravel? Well, why do you want to eat food? Same thing!

Note that I'm not trying to argue directly against the point that Mr. Piraro is making in this paragraph. Like him, I assume that no one directly chooses to experience this or that sort of sexual attraction (although of course one can choose by one's actions, and by such thoughts as are under conscious control, to entertain an urge or to dismiss it, to fan the flames or to smother them). My point is that the approach he takes -- What could be more natural than a sexual orientation? Everyone's got one! -- biases the whole train of thought that follows.

This approach also has the effect of conflating abnormality with immorality. "Being gay" (the "orientation," not the lifestyle) can't be a sin unless it's a choice -- and it's not a choice, so it's not a sin. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with it, and we should destigmatize it and embrace it. Hell, why not celebrate it? Why not take pride in it? Haven't we conclusively proven that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it?

But try applying that logic to any other abnormal desire, such as pica. Supposing you regularly feel the urge to chow down on feldspar -- and remember we're just talking about experiencing the urge, not about acting on it -- well you obviously didn't choose to feel that particular urge, so the urge itself cannot be considered morally wrong. Therefore, pica should be destigmatized and embraced and celebrated, and we should hold Pica Pride events and fulminate against the evils of picaphobia.

What leads us to this insane conclusion is a failure to distinguish among the various ways in which something can be "bad," and the assumption that if something ought not to be punished as morally wrong (because it is not a choice), it is therefore "not bad" and ought not even to be discouraged as abnormal, unhealthy, or harmful.

At my current age, I understand that sexual orientation is a very slippery, sliding scale. Specific preferences fly all over the place, but in general, the question of whether you’re attracted to your own sex, the opposite sex, or both, presents a kind of scale with single preferences on either end and a 50/50 position in the middle. (If you’re not attracted to either sex, you’re not represented on this scale. Sorry, maybe next time.)

Maybe. That seems to be much more true for women than for men. Anyway, supposing it is true, it suggests that "sexual orientation" is labile and responds to incentives, and that efforts to encourage or discourage particular orientations are not insane attempts to deny and suppress people's fundamental and unalterable natures but are likely to bear fruit, whether for good or for ill.

Anyway, this line of thinking leads me to wonder who are these religious people who condemn as sinners anyone who is not cis-gender? They must think that homosexuality is a choice, right? A sin has to be a choice—you can’t sin accidentally, can you? You can’t unknowingly drop your business card in a lobby and then an old lady with a walker comes by two hours later, slips on it, and dies—you aren’t guilty of the sin of murder, are you? Of course not. So for any sexual orientation to be a sin, first and foremost, it has to be a choice.

First, that's not actually what cis-gender is supposed to mean. It refers not to non-homosexuals but to people who are not in denial about their own biological sex. It's another "cibivore" word, intended to normalize those who are in denial. Basic biological literacy is just another "gender identity" -- everyone has one, you know! What Mr. Piraro means is straight -- another loaded term, originally synonymous with square, as in un-hip. Just like those stodgy L-seven killjoys to begrudge the rest of us a harmless bit of gaiety!

I'd like to emphasize again that there is an element of choice in "sexual orientation." Desires arise unbidden, but it's our choice if we dwell on them or dismiss them, and it's certainly our choice if we embrace a given desire as a central an ineradicable part of our deepest identity, which it would be "hateful" for anyone to criticize or oppose. All normal men have felt sexual attraction for many different women, for other men's wives, and for young women who are biologically mature but legally underage. Most men have probably felt the urge to commit sexual assault. You're not to blame for your hormones, but you certainly are to blame if you deliberately feed and inflame those desires, to say nothing of proudly "identifying as" a philanderer, adulterer, ephebophile, or rapist.

Now, the religious type will say that it isn’t the desire, it’s the act of going through with it that is the sin. Yeah, I get why you make that distinction, but let’s go back a step and ask why you think it’s bad in the first place. It’s because The Old Testament says something about it. You probably wouldn’t have come upon this on your own if it didn’t, unless you’re the type of person who just condemns anyone who is into something you aren’t.

After going on and on about how desire isn't a choice and therefore can't be condemned, Mr. Piraro briefly concedes that "the religious type" actually condemns actions, not desires -- a concession which renders his whole opening argument irrelevant -- but it's already done its work of casting opponents of Teh Gay as bigots who irrationally condemn people for something beyond their control. Mr. Piraro himself seems to have a short memory; a few paragraphs down, as we shall see below, he's back to wondering at those "who think that sexual proclivities are an evil choice."

"Why not the Time Cube?" the late Gene Ray used to ask. "The ONLY REASON is educated stupidity." For Mr. Piraro, the only reason people condemn homosexuality is that the Old Testament says something about it. But that's obviously not true. As Mr. Piraro himself details below, the Old Testament condemns lots of things, from cotton-poly T-shirts to gathering firewood on Saturday, and nobody latches onto it. If people do latch onto the OT's prohibition of sodomy, it's not because they indiscriminately embrace whatever the Old Testament says but because they agree with it -- because they spontaneously feel that sodomy is wrong and that the prohibition makes sense. This spontaneous feeling is probably what accounts for the condemnation of sodomy among the ancient Hebrews and many other ancient cultures. Mr. Piraro is confusing cause with effect. If it's not, as he says, the sort of thing you'd come up with on your own, why did the ancient Hebrews come up with it?

The only other possibility Mr. Piraro has to offer is that people condemn sodomy because they're "the type of person who just condemns anyone who is into something you aren’t." Like, I don't know, badminton or something. Obviously that's not what's going on.

I mean, it’s not like LBTGQ+ are victimizing you in some way, letting air out of your tires, toilet papering your lawn, grabbing your ass at the grocery store. Whatever they’re up to, they’re doing it in the privacy of their personal lives, not yours, so this is a victimless activity. Can there be a crime without a victim?

LBTGQ+! The poor gays, who started this whole thing, have been demoted to fourth billing.

As for this "doing it in the privacy of their personal lives" thing, it sounded good when the movement was first getting started, but it's obviously gone way beyond that. "Pride" takes over all public spaces for one month out of the year, and everyone is under increasing pressure not just to live and let live despite disagreements but to actively endorse and "celebrate" LPGABBQ lifestyles.

If (a) such lifestyles are harmful to the people who practice them, and if (b) destigmatizing and normalizing and celebrating those lifestyles will result in more people choosing so to live, then it seems obvious that "Pride" and all that would be a bad thing. Even if we set spiritual considerations to one side, being a practicing homosexual shortens your lifespan more than being a smoker does. (See "Thank you for smoking" for details.) And while people used to laugh at the idea of "recruitment," the fact is that the relentless pro-Alphabet propaganda campaign has led to a sharp increase in the number of self-identified Alphabet People.

What harm are they doing? Well, at minimum, they're normalizing a harmful lifestyle and pushing it on impressionable children. And you can see that without so much as cracking open your copy of the Old Testament.

But back to the Old Testament, if you’re really going to make the whole world toe the line with every little thing that one book says, good luck. You’ll also have to stop people from wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork, shellfish, or rabbit, and selling their daughters into slavery for the wrong reasons. All that’s in there, too. 

Right. As I said before, this is strong evidence that "it's in the Old Testament" is not the primary reason people oppose Teh Gay.

So who are these people who think that sexual proclivities are an evil choice?

Acting on sexual proclivities can be an evil choice. So much for "Yeah, I get why you make that distinction"! And is anyone going to make a serious argument that acting on one's sexual proclivities is never an evil choice? Everyone, including normal "quadratosexuals," experiences sexual urges which it would be wrong to act on, and everyone recognizes the need to resist those urges. This is like Civilization 101. "But muh sexual proclivities!" just isn't a valid defense of anything.

I suspect most are people who have chosen to live in opposition to their true nature. Surely, these are non-heteros living as heteros.

This is ridiculous. If I'm naturally lazy but nevertheless work hard, am I lazy person living as a non-lazy person? If I am afraid but overcome my fear and do what needs to be done, am I a coward living in opposition to my true nature?

Actually, these are pretty deep questions, questions inherent in the paradoxical concept of "self-control." If one aspect of my nature subjects and controls another aspect -- which is all that "self-control" can mean -- is that good or bad? Which part is really me -- the part that takes control, or the part that shouts "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" What is the True Self? What is your True Self, Dan Piraro? The part that wants to have sex with a particular sort of person? Is that the master principle of your life, to which all else must be subjected?

It not only explains how they think others have chosen to be gay -- because in their mind they chose not to be -- it also explains why they’re so unreasonably angry about people who are living their truth openly; If I have to live a miserable lie, you should have to, too, mofo!

"Mofo" is an ironically appropriate choice of words, since it refers to a sexual proclivity that most everyone agrees definitely should be repressed.

"Living their truth openly" -- is that what they're doing? Well, that is for them to decide. Making that kind of choice is what humans do; it is what makes us human and potentially divine. In the immortal words of the Moody Blues, "We decide which is right -- and which is an illusion." But that doesn't mean every choice we make is Good. Since the Old Testament has been invoked, let's give the last word to Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

[I]t is the engulfing effects of [the] deteriorating world on Church members which is the “clear and present danger.” . . . Yet we must not be intimidated or lose our composure even though the once morally unacceptable is becoming acceptable, as if frequency somehow conferred respectability!

One of the most subtle forms of intimidation is the gradual normalization of aberration. Alexander Pope so cautioned:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. . . . Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

I would like to present to you a personal testimony of a hieromonk who made the mistake of getting pecked. This is his confession. If anyone wants to know his name, I can tell you privately. He is a priest under Archbishop Ieronymos of Greece. I will be reading directly from the publication, which fortunately is still on the Internet.

"In a few words, I will relate my experience after taking my first dose of the Phyzir peck. God obstructed me with many signs before taking the peck. Due to shortness of time I will not mention all of them. As I was heading towards the pecking center, right before I was getting into the queue, I felt something obstructing my approach. As I approached, I felt a stench that surprised me," said the monk.

You see, God cautioned him, and he still went ahead.

"While I was taking the peck, others were waiting outside. As I was leaving, I was unable to wear my kalimafi [clerical headdress]. I felt great shame within myself and left holding my kalimafi in my hands."

As you can see, he began to feel the demonic influence right away, as he was ashamed to wear his kalimafi even though he is a priest.

"Arriving home, I went to the bathroom to wash my face. Upon looking in the mirror, I was frightened at my face due to the expression I had. The next day, I went shopping at the supermarket, and since it was still the period after Easter, I would normally greet the shopkeepers with 'Christ is risen!' or respond 'Indeed he is risen.'"

So as you know, for 40 days after the Resurrection, we refrain from saying "Good day" and replace the phrase with "Christ is risen," and the other person should respond, "Indeed he is risen" and not say "Likewise."

"As a hieromonk, I was surprised to discover that I was very ashamed to say 'Christ is risen' to the shopkeepers. This greatly overwhelmed me."

He began to realize more intensely that something was not going well in his soul.

"A day later, I went and attended a divine service at a local church, but not to perform the service as priest. Upon entering the sanctuary, I felt as if I were dead."

You see, a living spiritual person notices the difference straight away.

"The joy I used to feel at the divine service was lost. It was as if I were not entering the sanctuary of a holy church, but as if I had entered a room in a house. All these things surprised me, but at the time I did not believe they stemmed from the peck. I saw familiar parishioners turn their faces away from me. The next day, I found that my conscience was causing me terrible pain. It was as if I had been pierced in my heart with such pain as I had never felt before in my life. I told this to a fellow archimandrite, what I was feeling, and he consoled me. He told me something along the lines of, 'Its nothing, don't worry about it.' Upon leaving, I found that this pain in my conscience was relentless and was deepening further within me. From that day forward, I was in a deeply troubled state with lasted 13 days. I could not sleep or calm down. Now allow me to explain the most terrible part. Day and night I constantly saw Satan in front of me, his face an inch away from mine. I went to sleep at night and felt him embracing me, and I would get cold all over. I would read the Salutations to the Virgin Mary, and I would feel as if my blood was burning in my veins. I felt a foreign presence within me, and it was judging me. I felt a horror, as if someone was saying, 'You belong to me now.'"

Do you understand how terrible these things are? And very true, because we personally know this person. This corroborates the experience of another hieromonk who was doing exorcisms, and the demon being pressed told the truth while having a dialogue.

"Why am I telling you this? I don't want to tell you this, but I am being pressed."

The hieromonk replied, "I am not pressing you."

The demon replied, "I am being forced to tell you."

So the demon told him, "We did a ceremony at a lodge in America for the pecks." The Satanists performed a ceremony for the pecks.

Furthermore, the demon said, "Those who take this peck will be unable to repent." Now this may seem too harsh.

The hieromonk then asked, "Why won't they be able to repent?"

The demon responded, "Because I will be inside of them."

You can see the correlation with the first hieromonk, who was saying the same thing, that he felt Satan inside of him and saw him an inch away from his face, telling him, "You belong to me."

The hieromonk performing the exorcism was having a dialogue with the demon. The demon was speaking through the demon-possessed person.

The demon told him, "Those who have taken the peck cannot repent, because I am inside of them."

The hieromonk asked, "How are you inside of them?"

The demon answered, "With the blood of the aborted fetuses."

We have mentioned previously that fetuses were used in the peck and were purposely murdered for their cells. These cells were extracted from the living fetuses by these atheist scientists and doctors who don't hold anything sacred or holy. They also remove the organs from a living fetus. If the fetus is already dead, the organs and the cells are useless. Therefore, they were not taking the fetuses from the waste bin -- which, even if they had been, would not have made it morally right, as an abortion had taken place. However, in this case, these fetuses were specifically prepared for an abortion.

So the devil confesses, "I am already inside those who took it via the blood of the fetuses." So this confession of this demon correlates with the hieromonk who was seduced into taking the peck. So as we previously read, he was saying he was ashamed to wear his kalimafi, to say "Christ is risen," how he felt dead whilst in the holy sanctuary, how everyone turned their faces away from him because his face was altered, how for 13 days he could not sleep or settle down, and most terrifying of all was seeing day and night the face of Satan an inch from his face continuously, and how he felt Satan embracing him, and though he was trying to read the Salutations, his blood was burning in his veins, and he felt someone saying to him, "You belong to me now."

Thus the hieromonk continues: "I had stayed at my family home in case of an adverse reaction. After a few days, I left. At the monastery where I currently reside, at the Divine Liturgy, I found that I could not understand a thing. I felt as if I were dead. I was constantly rushing through the service and felt great anxiety, not a speck of joy. I felt as if I were not a priest or even a baptized Christian! I reached a point of being unable to speak, as if I had lost my voice. I felt my life was dark and a constant state of despair."

You see, this person made this mistake and is being humbled. This means he has an ecclesialogical conscience. This is very important, as there are others who have made this mistake, and after seeing this mistake do not confess it so that they may warn others.

Let's continue reading.

"While I was in this hopeless state, a familiar family came to visit the monastery. I spoke with the mother. She said to me, 'Father, why are you speaking like this? Many people after taking the first dose do not end up taking the second dose. So you, too, should not take the second dose!'"

She gave him some courage.

"As she was telling me this, I felt a certain refreshing dew entering my soul."

This was from God.

"I was consoled by God's grace."

Because he had begun to repent. God sends people to console us, to inform us. This is how God works during such situations. Just a word, though many times irrelevant, shows us the way. So she said, "Okay, you made a mistake. Don't make the next mistake," i.e. don't take the second dose. Let's continue.

"I find it unnecessary to mention the despair I went through and the tears I shed. I don't know whether it's a coincidence or not, but exactly 40 days after the peck, I started to feel the grace of God again."

After 40 days, he began to feel that he was baptized again. He came back with repentance. So he confessed his sin, received the rite of forgiveness, and shed many tears. As it is written here, he cried continuously for 40 days, and only then did he begin to feel the grace of the Holy Spirit.

"I began to feel peace and consolation, that God had forgiven me for what I had done, even though I had had no knowledge of what this peck actually was."

Sadly, there are many people like this. Not everyone is indifferent. There are others who are directed by tyranny and fear, or by pressure, by their children or doctors, etc. However, when you have the correct information, you don't submit to all of this. This poor fellow was seduced, but now he has corrected his actions, so after 40 days he began to feel the forgiveness of God.

"I do not dare or want to know what would have happened to me if I had taken the second dose of the peck. The only thing I can say is that God felt sorry for me. Even though I now feel better, I have not recovered to the state I was in prior to taking the peck. In my humble opinion, this peck by Phyzir that I took is a mark but not the final mark, most likely a forerunner to the final mark of the beast."

This last statement correlates with another remark made by a demon during another exorcism. A close friend of mine, a respectable hieromonk, had told me of it. He had a dialogue with a demon during an exorcism.

The demon told him, "No, this peck is not the final mark, but it is still a mark, a forerunner, and those who are like you, when they take the peck, they lose their light."

The demon continued, "A short man used to burn us with these exorcisms!"

This short priest is well known and performs exorcisms.

The demon continued, "Now that he [the short priest] has taken the peck, he has lost his strength. Now I am able to approach him and kiss his hand!"

Previously, the demon would tremble before this priest, but now that the priest has taken the peck, the demon is able to get his blessing. This correlates with the hieromonk we have been reading about: "Even though I now feel better, I have not yet recovered to the state I was in prior to taking the peck." As you can see, these pecks cause not only physical harm but also spiritual harm.

We have read this testimony as an example, and it is from a person living a proper ecclesiastical life, because as we previously said, when someone makes a mistake that is impacting many others, it's most beneficial to correct this mistake publicly. This is in order to protect other members of our holy church from making the same mistake.

As St. Chrysostomos says, "The lukewarm Christians are living in comfort." The lukewarm are those who want to combine everything: the world, Christ, hedonism, avarice, the external appearances, not to be disenfranchised, to go to church, take Holy Communion, Holy Confession, etc. These lukewarm "Christians" cause the most damage to the church. They don't admit to their mistakes, as they think they do everything correctly. If they make a mistake, they don't correct it. They do not publicly repent of their sin so they may protect those around them. As it is written in the Book of Revelation, these are people that God will spit out.

It is best to be hot or cold, never lukewarm. The one who is spiritually cold may at one point understand his spiritual blindness and become hot. God wants us to be hot. However, the lukewarm are comfortable. Sadly, most people nowadays are lukewarm. As mentioned by Father Athanasios Mitilinaios, most Christians are lukewarm. We, too, are lukewarm and need to stop being lukewarm.

To a faithful person of God, death does not exist. This is the reality. We have forgotten this, and we now fear death. Not only do we fear death, we also fear being fined, possible imprisonment, and prosecution. In NO case can a person call himself a Christian if he fears death. When a person is afraid to die, he becomes an idolater or an atheist. Instead, a Christian should long to die. The saints wanted to die. The reason that Christians truly want to pass away is so they can be fully united with the Lord they worship and love above all else. They want to go and are joyful when they are passing away. However, they never cause death to themselves -- they do not commit suicide -- but when the opportunity arises to become a martyr and confessor for Christ, they do this without fear of death.

Unfortunately, these things are not being heard from the preachers, bishops, and priests, but as you know are heard from the demons. A well-respected hieromonk who performs exorcisms once told me what a demon said to him.

The demon said to him, "How are you Christians fearful of death? I have seduced and deceived you into taking the peck with the fear of death!"

A demon again confesses that the pecks are his doing. In fact, he says, "We did a ceremony at a lodge in America for the pecks." See what the demon confesses!

The demon continues, "What did you fear? For you, death does not exist." For Christians, death does not exist. Do you understand, fellow brothers and sisters, where we've come to?

In the Gospels, Christ said something correlating with our present situation. When he entered Jerusalem and the children were calling out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!" the children were proclaiming Jesus as the awaited Messiah, and others were indignant, and said to Jesus, "Do you hear what they are saying to you?" Christ responds, "I tell you that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." So, correlating with today's situation, now that the priests and archpriest are not proclaiming that death has been conquered, the demons are proclaiming it instead.

"How are you Christians fearful of death, and are all running to take this peck?" -- which isn't really a peck, but rather gene therapy, with the aim of oppressing humans.

This is the aim, which is why there will be more doses. In fact, there are many people who say there will be seven doses. The demons also state that there will be seven doses. Those who were deceived into taking the first or second dose, hopefully, will not take the remaining doses. May they repent, weep, and go to confession, because their salvation is in danger. We all ought to be vigilant of this.

I'll read another hieromonk's testimony to you all, which was published on the Internet unless it's now been erased -- because whatever is true these days is usually censored on the Internet. As you know, the Internet is Satan's. Unfortunately, the Internet is not governed by God's people. Whatever they want, they remove. As much as possible, they eliminate anything that is good and right.

So this hieromonk who published his testimony on the Internet said, "I thought taking the peck was nothing, so I went and got it. But after I got it, I lost my prayer. I felt Satan coming and embracing me. For 40 days, I could not even say, "Lord have mercy.'"

This hieromonk has testified this publicly. I personally know him. He is from a monastery in the Peloponnese. He also urges everyone not to make his mistake, and whoever has already taken it, not to take any further doses, which will cause more harm for both body and soul.

In conclusion, these are the things I wanted to say to you, brothers and sisters in Christ. As you can see, there are many testimonies from many individuals. God even caused the demons to give testimony. Remember what the demon said to the hieromonk during the exorcism? "Why am I telling you all this? I do not want to tell you, but I am being pressed."

We must also remember that the devil lies, too. However, there are many times when the devil speaks the truth, especially when forced with the prayers that are read during an exorcism. Likewise, we read in the Gospels of the demons speaking the truth to Jesus: "Thou art the son of God!" The demons confessed that Christ is God.

Let us take these things into account so that we don't fall into this trap of Satan, which as you can see, Satan is using much force to direct all of humanity into this trap so he can kill as many as possible. This is the murderer that Satan is.

This is now all coming to fruition with what is happening globally. The devil wants to take as many souls as possible. This is his final goal. If all these things were good, why would they make them mandatory? Something that is good is not forced. You see Christ, whenever he went to heal someone, he would ask, "Do you want to become well?" These rulers nowadays are trying to force us to be well. That's what they think.

However, they don't want to make us healthy. Quite the opposite is occurring, actually, because we know these pecks cause sterility and thousands of other adverse reactions. Over two million adverse reactions were recorded in Europe and over 600,000 adverse reactions in America. Over 21,000 deaths in Europe, and 14,000 in America. These are all mainstream statistics that you can find online. Therefore, we don't need to be idiots. Under no circumstances are we to accept these things that the evil one is selling us.

May God bless us all. May John the Baptist guide us, not only to cease committing evil, but to call out evil when we see it. Whoever cowers and is silent before sin becomes an accessory and an accomplice to sin. So what I tell you, you need to tell others. Inform all our brothers and sisters sot hat they may not fall into this trap of Satan's and lose the kingdom of God. Amen.

The constant carnival of intense control (Card by Jean-Pierre Payen of Avignon, 1713)

I'd just listened to about half of the Book of Exodus when it crossed my mind that I hadn't checked out Jonathan Pageau on YouTube recently -- so I did so, and found a fairly recent video called "Now Is A Great Time to Understand the Plagues of Egypt." He really only talks about one of the plagues, that of the hail mingled with fire. Here, lightly edited, is the comment that most struck me.

Think of our day, think of our age, where you both have the most intense level of control that has ever existed -- the greatest police state that has ever existed in the history of humanity, with the most control and quantification and calculation that has ever existed -- and at the same time, this sense that we live in a constant carnival, and that anything goes and that anything can happen. It's like the Beast and the Whore together; somehow they shouldn't be together, but they're together, and so this is the image of hail and fire at the same time.

Faust. Where are you damn’d?

Meph. In hell.

Faust. How comes it then that thou art out of hell?

Meph. Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.

It would be my contention that just as there is a divine plan for mankind so there is also a demonic plan. . . . Their aim is to absorb the energy from human souls for their own benefit and use. They have cut themselves off from the source of life and need life energy to maintain their existence. So they seek to corrupt souls. 

What is their aim? It is still the corruption of souls as it always has been but now there is something else. I believe, and I believe this because of what I can observe around me, because of the pattern of recent history and because of intuition, that they are seeking to make hell on Earth. That is to say, they are seeking to externalise hell onto the physical plane, to extend their domain, as it were.

If hell can be defined as separation from God then it should be obvious that we are in hell now.

You don't have to go out and do anything publicly but through your thoughts and prayers you can serve God and help souls struggling for truth in the spiritual quagmire of the contemporary world. This world may be turning into hell but heaven awaits those who simply wake up to that fact.

I hadn't made this obvious connection until I watched this video by Jonathan Pageau, in which he gives an extremely insightful analysis of a speech given by Apple CEO Tim Cook a few years ago. (I've been watching more and more talking videos recently, having discovered the trick of playing them at 1.5 or 1.75 speed to make the experience more tolerable.)

Cook is giving a fiery speech about how Apple is standing up for its "values" because "it's the right thing to do" -- and, as Pageau shows, he makes it perfectly clear what those values are. Pageau's summary:

The only value that really matters is the value of inclusion, and the only thing that is a problem is if you oppose yourself to that system which is created to include everybody.

Cook talks about how Apple is going to deplatform anything that promotes "hate" or "violence," but, as Pageau points out, the two examples Cook focuses on are not songs and movies that literally glorify hate and violence (those are okay, obviously!), but rather "white supremacy," i.e. excluding and marginalizing other races, and "violent conspiracy theories," i.e., questioning the System and its motives. (By the way, what the hell is a "violent conspiracy theory"? Must be something like a colorless green idea!)

"Inclusion" means everyone and everything must be fully incorporated into the System. No one is allowed to be excluded or even marginal. The excluded must be included, the marginal must be redefined as central. There's a classic cartoon-villain term for this goal: taking over the world.

And those who would exclude or marginalize others, or who would question the goodness of the System itself? Are they to be excluded, leading to an obvious self-contradiction? No, they are to be either assimilated or destroyed. When Cook says that those who "push division and violence" (meaning, as we have seen, exclusion of others and criticism of the System) "have no place on our platform," he obviously doesn't mean that they should leave Apple and find some other platform. No alternative platforms can be tolerated, since then there would no longer be one single all-inclusive system. He's not telling white supremacists and conspiracy theorists to take their business elsewhere; he's telling them to fuck off and die. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

A very clear example of the Ahrimanic ideal: "that one soul shall not be lost."

As it happens, the iconic six million figure long predates the existence of the German National Socialist Workers Party, and even predates the existence of Germany, Charlemagne, and the Holy Roman Empire, as it goes back to at least 136 AD. Forget Nazis and death camps, we are reliably informed that six million Jews faced starvation in 1931 after another six million Jews died in the Bar-Cochiba Revolt during the Third Jewish-Roman War.

What's the significance of six million to them? Does it have occult symbolism or something?

I think the 6 million choice for a number is based on some kind of kabbalistic principle. There is a consistent belief that there were 600,000 Jewish souls at Mt. Sinai, based on the number of letters believed to make up the Torah.

There's yet more significance to the idea of inverse letters. The 600,000 letters correspond to the 600,000 souls of Israel. Although there are many more than 600,000 Jews, there are 600,000 general souls which divide into the individual sparks that become each of our souls.

This eight-meter statue represents the country's first president.

Officials said that six people drowned in the flood.

Rodney Matthews, Out of the Pit

The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands.

And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. . . . And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Faustus: The devil what the devil what do I care if the devil is there.

Mephisto: But Doctor Faustus dear yes I am here.

Faustus: What do I care there is no here nor there. . . . I saw you miserable devil I saw you and I was deceived and I believed miserable devil I thought I needed you, and I thought I was tempted by the devil and I know no temptation is tempting unless the devil tells you so. And you wanted my soul what the hell did you want my soul for, how do you know I have a soul, who says so nobody but you the devil and everybody knows the devil is all lies . . .

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none -- and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

-- 2 Nephi 28:22

And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

For all that here on earth we dreadfull hold,

Be but as bugs to fearen babes withall

Comparèd to the creatures in the seas entrall

And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only . . . men . . . . And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months.