Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

757

Consider how a cycle of abuse works in male-female pairs. The media stereotype features the battered wife and the controlling husband, however, anyone with any sense of the fairer sex realizes there is some female adaptive behavior involved with not only accepting some of the abuse, but in instigating it.

I don't want to explore the psychology too deeply here, only to point out how the broader cultural instigation by Jews of whites is related to this phenomenon.

When a woman instigates a man, perhaps for days on end, she is expecting his self-control and restraint to cause him to bottle up tension internally. In fact, she knows that his conscience punishes him when he loses control of himself, because this is masculine nature.

The intent is to eventually cause him to lose a bit of control and unleash this on her.

Why? Precisely because she knows that he will be morally harmed by this. The result is that she will be able to behave like a victim and hold it over his head for days, or weeks, or years. If you want to go there, there is a clear evolutionary explanation for why females would develop these kinds of behavior within a moralistic society. Enduring some small sacrifice nets greater power in the long run.

Jews are doing the same thing with whites. None of them believe in this Marxist nonsense they are peddling. The point is to instigate you, to make white society's internal water boil until eventually we lose our moralistic restraint and lash out with the big one.

When that happens they will have gas to run on for another century or two. They will be able to cite for all of those intervening years that time that 'daddy hit mommy'. Imagine for a second a parasite that could facultatively sacrifice some of its cells for the flourishing of the rest. It provokes the host immune system to attack it, but not annihilate it.

"Well," you ask, "why would the host ever stop short?"

In the case of white European society, it is because of our morality of course. It is expressed at the level of the whole, and in individual men. For individual men, some women will facultatively exploit this to benefit (over the long run) from the cycle of abuse.

At the level of societies, there are even some parasites that are fully aware of themselves. They know this process better than you do.

The point of all of this is to push the 'quiet kid' until he breaks. Then, despite the years of instigation, he becomes 'the psycho'.

And after years of instigation, the white man becomes 'the nazi'. And the world's non-white victims benefit in the long run because the Jew manipulates this cycle of abuse with indemnity.

EDIT: I should be fairer to women and say that many of them don't know this is what they're doing when they are doing it. It's functionalism. The behaviors promote a function that is conducive to the ongoing maintenance of the pair bond itself. She isn't aware of it most times.

She is incentivized by the emotional high of the reconnection after the bad moments. We always ask ourselves why women remain in cycles of abuse, and it is less often that we acknowledge that in many cases the abuse goes both ways in these cycles. We just treat the way the male characteristically returns his as the only kind of abuse there is.

You can't really understand the true nature of these things until you situate them in the functional cycle.

The same principle applies to relations between Jews and the gentiles.

Jews are the women who never understand why they are always in an abusive cycle. They cry out to God through the whole Old Testament about their victimhood.

They carefully control the frame of the argument so that people don't acknowledge the bidirectional abuse happening cyclically. They make sure the history books only contain the woman's case, much like a police report in a domestic abuse case. So our history books only go on about the violent reprisal of muh Holocaust.

Ever notice how some women will exaggerate things, as if their emotions actually dictated the cognitive mapping of the events that took place in a fight? Suddenly your stern tone becomes guttural screaming in her account? And you're standing there thinking: "I am not screaming, like at all."

This is also the difference between your view of the Holocaust and the Jews' view. To be sure, there are Jewish regarding the Holocaust, but for most of them, it isn't lying in the sense you think it is. It's like the way a woman lies about you screaming in a fight. The reality just is the way it felt to her.

Same idea. Many Jews don't care about the same theory of truth you do...you're screaming at them even when you aren't - because that's how it feels to them. So 6 million didn't literally die in the Holocaust. That's what being in the camps felt like. So like that one time Harry slapped Sally in the kitchen, he is going to hear about how he beat her to a bloody pulp for the next 20 years. And so you hear about work camps and shared bathrooms as if they were ovens and mass graves.

THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL?

Put it all together.

How effective has it ever been for you to tell a woman: "It didn't happen that way." Even if you are correct, not only will she simply not accept your historical account, it will actually worsen the problem because your logical, factually true account becomes an assault on how she feels about it. After all, you're the big strong male.

This is your entire predicament with the Jew in a nutshell.

The Jew IS the feminine principle (not just female, but metaphysically feminine) embodied as a people.

The Bible often referred to the chosen people as the bride of God, and the messiah as the bridegroom.

The Jew is the MISTRESS OF THE WORLD. You do all the work so she can hoard and organize the money. She stays home while you go out and plow the field. No matter what, you lose the fight, even when you don't lose factually. And she never quite goes away. She holds the times you've beat her over your head forever and gets whatever she wants this way. Note that I have said the Jew is not the wife of the world, for a mistress is something you keep in secret, and this gives her more power over you.

The Jews are also the harlot of Biblical Revelation that rides the many-headed dragon: the men/nations of the world which carry her and the leash with which she binds them.

Incidentally, this entire dynamic is also portrayed in Kubrick's The Shining. I ought to do an analysis of this.

Consider how a cycle of abuse works in male-female pairs. The media stereotype features the battered wife and the controlling husband, however, anyone with any sense of the fairer sex realizes there is some female adaptive behavior involved with not only accepting some of the abuse, but in instigating it. I don't want to explore the psychology too deeply here, only to point out how the broader cultural instigation by Jews of whites is related to this phenomenon. When a woman instigates a man, perhaps for days on end, she is expecting his self-control and restraint to cause him to bottle up tension internally. In fact, she knows that his conscience punishes him when he loses control of himself, because this is masculine nature. The intent is to eventually cause him to lose a bit of control and unleash this on her. Why? Precisely because she knows that *he will be morally harmed* by this. The result is that she will be able to behave like a victim and hold it over his head for days, or weeks, or years. If you want to go there, there is a clear evolutionary explanation for why females would develop these kinds of behavior within a moralistic society. Enduring some small sacrifice nets greater power in the long run. Jews are doing the same thing with whites. None of them believe in this Marxist nonsense they are peddling. The point is to instigate you, to make white society's internal water boil until eventually we lose our moralistic restraint and lash out with the big one. When that happens they will have gas to run on for another century or two. They will be able to cite for all of those intervening years that time that 'daddy hit mommy'. Imagine for a second a parasite that could facultatively sacrifice some of its cells for the flourishing of the rest. It provokes the host immune system to attack it, but not annihilate it. "Well," you ask, "why would the host ever stop short?" In the case of white European society, it is because of our morality of course. It is expressed at the level of the whole, and in individual men. For individual men, some women will facultatively exploit this to benefit (over the long run) from the cycle of abuse. At the level of societies, there are even some parasites that are fully aware of themselves. They know this process better than you do. The point of all of this is to push the 'quiet kid' until he breaks. Then, despite the years of instigation, he becomes 'the psycho'. And after years of instigation, the white man becomes 'the nazi'. And the world's non-white victims benefit in the long run because the Jew manipulates this cycle of abuse with indemnity. **EDIT**: I should be fairer to women and say that many of them don't know this is what they're doing when they are doing it. It's functionalism. The behaviors promote a function that is conducive to the ongoing maintenance of the pair bond itself. She isn't aware of it most times. She is incentivized by the emotional high of the reconnection after the bad moments. We always ask ourselves why women remain in cycles of abuse, and it is less often that we acknowledge that in many cases the abuse goes both ways in these cycles. We just treat the way the male characteristically returns his as the only *kind* of abuse there is. You can't really understand the true nature of these things until you situate them in the functional cycle. The same principle applies to relations between Jews and the gentiles. Jews are the women who never understand why they are always in an abusive cycle. They cry out to God through the whole Old Testament about their victimhood. They carefully control the frame of the argument so that people don't acknowledge the bidirectional abuse happening cyclically. They make sure the history books only contain the woman's case, much like a police report in a domestic abuse case. So our history books only go on about the violent reprisal of muh Holocaust. Ever notice how some women will exaggerate things, as if their emotions actually dictated the cognitive mapping of the events that took place in a fight? Suddenly your stern tone becomes guttural screaming in her account? And you're standing there thinking: "I am not screaming, like at all." This is also the difference between your view of the Holocaust and the Jews' view. To be sure, there are Jewish regarding the Holocaust, but for most of them, it isn't lying in the sense *you* think it is. It's like the way a woman lies about you screaming in a fight. The reality just is the way it *felt* to her. Same idea. Many Jews don't care about the same theory of truth you do...you're screaming at them even when you aren't - because that's how it feels to them. So 6 million didn't literally die in the Holocaust. That's what being in the camps *felt like*. So like that one time Harry slapped Sally in the kitchen, he is going to hear about how he beat her to a bloody pulp for the next 20 years. And so you hear about work camps and shared bathrooms as if they were ovens and mass graves. THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL? Put it all together. How effective has it ever been for you to tell a woman: "It didn't happen that way." Even if you are correct, not only will she simply not accept your historical account, it will actually worsen the problem because your logical, factually true account becomes an assault on how she feels about it. After all, you're the big strong male. This is your entire predicament with the Jew in a nutshell. The Jew IS the feminine principle (*not just female, but metaphysically feminine*) embodied as a people. The Bible often referred to the chosen people as the bride of God, and the messiah as the bridegroom. The Jew is the MISTRESS OF THE WORLD. You do all the work so she can hoard and organize the money. She stays home while you go out and plow the field. No matter what, you lose the fight, even when you don't lose factually. And she never quite goes away. She holds the times you've beat her over your head forever and gets whatever she wants this way. Note that I have said the Jew is not the wife of the world, for a mistress is something you keep in secret, and this gives her more power over you. The Jews are also the harlot of Biblical Revelation that rides the many-headed dragon: the men/nations of the world which carry her and the leash with which she binds them. Incidentally, this entire dynamic is also portrayed in Kubrick's *The Shining*. I ought to do an analysis of this.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (24).
[–] • 0 pt

Ok, that's good to know. I'd feel bad if I put together some thoughts and only ended up wasting your time.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I just read the Wiki page on Hislop; while I haven't read any of his works I am familiar with his line of argument - namely the association of the Catholic faith and practices with paganism. I do not find this line of argument compelling or threatening to what the Catholic Church actually is, but if you find it a compelling argument against Catholicism, then please present it as you understand it, and I will share my thoughts.

In brief, I will say that we have to understand that Christ is Truth, and that anything that is true belongs to Him. If we suppose that anything that existed in the world prior to Christ must be false, then, indeed, any connection between Catholicism and the pagan world would be just cause for criticism. But can we really suppose that there was nothing good or true in the world prior to the Incarnation? I know many Protestants have their belief in "total depravity" after the Fall, but frankly I find this view to be impossible unless one adopts a pagan understanding of evil. The pagans would say that evil has its own principle, its own being, its own representatives, etc. But this could only be so if there were some eternally existing Evil One, an "anti-God" like the Zoroastrians and Manichees believed. For it could not be that God could create a principle of evil, for God is all good and what He makes is only good. Therefore all being is good. And therefore evil can only be a privation of being. This is a necessary understanding of evil from the Christian perspective, as far as I'm concerned, based on the understanding of God that Christians have - unless we are talking about heretics who would deny God's omnipotence or omnibenevolence or His sole claim to being uncaused, but I don't think you deny these divine attributes.

And so if being is good, then any notion of total depravity is incoherent, for unless something good in man's created nature remained after the Fall, there would be no man at all!

And if even Fallen man has some good, insofar as he has being and is still called to God as his final end, then Fallen man is still capable of creating good things. And this applies to the pagans as to anyone else. And so if there are certain artworks, or technologies, or archetypes, or philosophies that pagans produced, that has some good, then it is totally allowable that Christians would incorporate these good elements into their lives and their communities. Plato and Aristotle, while pagan, both had many true ideas which helped shape Christianity. To claim that nothing pagan could be touched, on pain of delegitimizing the faith, would be to say that Christianity was not in fact a synthesis of Hebrew theology and Greek philosophy, but was rather merely a continuation of the Hebrew tradition - but this denies the very victory and mission of Christianity! Christ established a new and eternal covenant, a final covenant that brought all peoples into the fold, Jews and Gentiles. It was a victory over paganism, which is why the Cross (a Roman torture weapon) was made our symbol, and Rome was made our seat; not because we are pagan, but because we have triumphed over the pagan. What is the Resurrection if not a defiance of the Cross? By remembering the Passion, we don't celebrate the pagan, we celebrate our victory over the pagan (and death itself)!

Of course it incorporated what was good from all traditions - and discarded what was bad! You referenced people smarter than us who have discussed this - there are certainly many in that category. But I would argue that the number of years, and therefore the total selection of smart people to be thinking about these things, is much more expansive within the full Christian tradition, than is to be found in a relatively modern offshoot of that tradition.

Are we really to suppose that the real Christians slapped themselves on the foreheads 1500 years after Christ's resurrection and realized that all Christians always and everywhere had been doing everything wrong for 1500 years? Are we to imagine that there were no "smart people" within this span of 1500 years, more proximate to the historical events in question, and comfortable with the knowledge that the Church was conformed to the expectations of reason and the teachings of Scripture?

To suppose that the Protestant form of worship - typically, coming together and listening to one man with no connection to the Apostles give his opinions on Scripture - is superior to the liturgy of the Church, which has successfully directed the minds of all the faithful to things divine for centuries, is simply not a serious claim to me. But I am always open to arguments to the contrary.

I do think most Protestants are guiltless, insofar as they are born into traditions that are founded on the arguments of men smart enough to formulate such arguments, without having truly delved into the implications of such arguments. How could they? People have lives to live, families to support - we don't have the time to personally familiarize ourselves with every factoid of Church history, every detail of Christian dogma, every page of spilled ink of polemics and apologetics - all the more reason to suppose Christ would have established not just an abstract Church, but a hierarchical one with Apostolic succession and a solid doctrinal tradition, a Church that the faithful would have sufficient reason to believe in, so that they, like the eunuch, could rest assured knowing that Christ had chosen an Apostolate to clarify and teach.

@Chiro

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

We clearly have very different definitions of Christianity. I can find no room for fusion of man's philosophy and God's perfect Word in a plain reading of the Bible. The New Testament is a perfectly completed fulfillment of the Old Testament, not a synthesis of Hebrew and Greek philosophy forming a new system. That's the gnostic form of Kabbalism.

Hislop's charges against the foundation of the Catholic rituals are not superficial or related only to the trappings and decorations. It would be worth a read on your part. My understanding is that the parallel fallen system of worship set up as an alternative to the worship of the one true God that was in place at the Tower of Babel has simply been renamed and reskinned throughout history and found its most powerful incarnation in the Catholic church and that the doctrines and ritual adopted along with the pagan trappings are not just incidental but incompatible with the worship of the God of the Bible. But Hislop presents it far better than I ever could.

Are we to imagine that there were no "smart people" within this span of 1500 years, more proximate to the historical events in question, and comfortable with the knowledge that the Church was conformed to the expectations of reason and the teachings of Scripture?

We are to suppose that these "smart people" were hunted down and killed and the historical records controlled accordingly. The wars between the Catholic church and her vassal kings and groups such as the Waldenses who held to the purity and simplicity of the Scriptures are exceedingly well documented. Why would the Catholic church suppress and oppose the plain reading of the Scriptures by the layman if the system of ritual was compatible with the teachings in the Old and New Testaments?

To suppose that the Protestant form of worship - typically, coming together and listening to one man with no connection to the Apostles give his opinions on Scripture

We are called to be Bereans. I listen to men read and teach the Scriptures. And I seek the Scriptures myself to see what is incompatible. I don't set any man's interpretarion and tradition above what I can plainly read.

For it could not be that God could create a principle of evil, for God is all good and what He makes is only good. Therefore all being is good.

This is probably going to end up at the root of our disagreement. How can all being be good when the Scripture tells us that, no man is good, and that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked? Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon. It's contradictory to a plain reading of the Bible and yet your tradition leads you to adopt it.

The Catholic church claims superiority through age and I find both claims to be false. The pure, simplicity of the Gospel story is presented in Genesis, repeated throughout the Old Testament, and fulfilled in the New Testament. As Jesus proclaimed on the cross it is a finished work and it does not need man's philosophy to interpret or change it.

You claim that God would not leave us without a system set up to interpret His Word for us. I maintain that His Word needs no such mediator and that He left us with a faith that can be plainly understood by anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

>Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon.

This is the heart of the issue, because what it exposes is bad history and bad metaphysics. I mean no offense by this. I was a Protestant, and then an atheist.

Gnosticism came into being after Christ. This is crucial. Ancient Babylonian religion was not gnostic. It shared in what was truly a mixed bag of ancient mythological types bearing a family resemblance to Sumerians, Akkadians, and peoples of the land of Canaan. Every single monotheistic tradition today is like the crest of a wave which began in this crucible. The scriptures of the Old Testament date to absolutely no earlier than first millennium B.C. Relatively advanced civilizations with religious systems such as those already mentioned had existed for millennia prior to this.

In order to make any coherent sense of the religion you have inherited that is conciliable with history and reason, these are facts that must be confronted, and which are not amenable to a simplified bifurcation between 'good' religion and 'evil' religion, say, as Jerusalem v. Babylon. In fact, that very idea is part of a religious tradition!

Even within Christianity, proto-Christianity and its Jewish precursors, one can make light of this by observing Biblical history from a bird's eye view. In the beginning, let's say the Deuteronomical age, we don't begin with the messiah arriving with the good news. The entire story of the Old Testament is the preparation and chastening of a people in advance of the coming messiah. But first, we have the ages of the prophets. Well, what is prophecy? It is an incremental process of revelation. The fullness of revelation was not had by Abraham, nor by Moses, or Elijah...the complete revelation was consummated by the passion and resurrection of Christ, and communicated in fullness by the moment of transfiguration.

This causes the concept of revelation to be very complex. On the one hand, Christ IS the revelation in its final deposit. But in itself this suggests another form of deposit which had been occurring in history. Thus, we must consider mankind's revelation of the One, True God as a progressive revelation. Every level and degree of understanding that mankind gained of the Logos of Creation from the beginning of consciousness becomes an encounter with the trinity, though pre-Christic in terms of the incarnation. All of those ancient pagan traditions should very much be considered to have contained some elements of Truth - again, revelation was in progress. There are many venerable Christian thinkers who speak to this. It wasn't until Christ that this operation was complete. Many comparative religious scholars use the similarity of certain symbols and types between world systems to build up an attack on Christianity, but within the scope of a progressive revelation, it follows logically and simply that these world systems ought to have contained figments of the truth, if God truly gives man the soul and its intellect, then that intellect at all times in history has had a capacity to see God's truth in aspect - if not completely. The sin of the non-Christian world systems was not that they failed to target the identity of the One, True God before the consummated revelation of Christ, it lies in their failure to recognize it afterward.

An intelligent person can look at the Hindu religion, for example, and find elements within it corresponding to Biblical themes and even Christic themes. Why wouldn't we expect this if what we think about God is true? There is a thoroughgoing Protestant idea that the Jews were the chosen people in the sense of God communicating ONLY with them. This misses the entire significance of the good news. It's not that all other races have been completely cut off from God, rather, it's that God gave the CHRISTIC prophecies to the Jews, and knew forever that it would be from among the people of Israel that the messiah would come, to consummate the revelation for all, gentiles included. The story of the Bible is the awesome story of God taking a world that had only been groping for Him in the dark, and making himself known, bringing himself into communion with everyone. The Jews were a vector for this, but we should not think that all of the world religions prior to Christ were simply EVIL. To be sure, they contained falsehood, but man could only have perfect truth in Christ.

I'd like to return to the idea of gnosticism for a moment. I said before that it arose after Christ. To my knowledge, this is not really disputed by scholars. Almost everyone refuses to put a date on or to even give an explicit identity to this phenomenon called gnosticism, because it wasn't really one thing. It was a loosely and widespread class of affiliated heresies, essentially representing misunderstandings of the Christic revelation.

Gnosticism is, in the main vein, Hellenized Judaism. It's what happens what Platonic philosophy meets Judaism. It was the fuel for what would become Kabbalah, and as Wolfgang Smith (a Catholic scholar that PS introduced me to) points out, there is a great deal of half-Truth in these things - but they always and necessarily miss the mark because they misinterpret Christ. In other words, they fail to accept in faith what Christ was; you find Kabbalah and its gnostic precursors were very intellectual kinds of activities. What fundamentally distinguishes these from Catholicism is not this intellectual emphasis (the Catholic intellectual tradition is intimidating to say the least), but that Catholicism emphasized the leap of faith and the incompleteness of man's intellect, whereas the gnostics did not. For the latter, and for the Kabbalists, communion with God was possible through man's 'going inside', in and of itself. Salvation becomes knowledge, and loses the element of grace. The emphasis in these errant modes is on the individual man, and not in the first analysis upon God.

So, you see, we have on the part of many Protestants a good deal of bad history and bad metaphysics. Gnosticism was never pagan. It was always an offshoot of Judaic and proto-Christian Palestine.

Further, the idea that 'all Being is Good' did not come from Babylon. It came from Plato. The reason why you are associating it with gnosticism is for the reason I just cited: gnosticism is what happened when mystical Judaism met Greek philosophy (Plato). Christianity also absorbed a Platonic metaphysics as well, but never prior to or above the Christ. Thus, the Catholic theology never takes place (intellectually speaking, as of a mental 'space') before, outside of, or atop Christ. It always takes place in the infinitely expanding funnel that comes after Christ, but which emanates from the single point, the singularity of the Christic revelation.

Hermeticism is even younger than gnosticism. There's really not much good evidence that the so-called hermetic tradition even existed before the Renaissance concepts. It's more of an Italian-European bit of historical intrigue after the rediscovery of Plato. I mean, there are definitely elements of the metaphysics of Hermeticism in the neo-Platonists of the 4th and 5th centuries, but the attachment of all of these ideas to Hermes Trigmigestus who is supposedly contemporary with Moses doesn't come until much, much later. It's not uncommon for people trying to popularize old ideas to do these kind of pseudo-epigraphic things: "Ah yes, this comes to us from long, long ago." (Still, it always has struck me how everyone, including modern Satanists, ALWAYS use the Christian historical schema to refer to in order to legitimize themselves. Isn't that strange? They could come up with their own unique history if they'd wanted. They never do.)

What must be acknowledged is that this is also possible to do in order to attack another Church, or to attack a set of ideas. One can posit all kinds of intriguing historical toxicities to spoil the contemporary image of something, which is precisely what the Protestants appeared to do to the Catholic faith. (Let's be clear that I'm not attempting to whitewash the full history of Catholicism, and certainly not some of the things happening in the Church today; we'd be naive to think that, as Christ's Church, it has not been the subject of Jewish attack for millennia, and that at some points and times, there has been infiltration.)

The lion's share of the the pagan-satanic-Babylon-gnostic mishmash (without proper categorization or historical context) comes from 17th century Europe. It was not the consensus omnium that produced the Protestant schism, rather it was the outcome of reasoning through the schism after the fact. This concept of purity had to be taken up as justification, a kind of auto-intoxication that was reasoned to have necessitated the shedding of 1500 years of Tradition. The idea that one could branch off from 1500 years of said tradition somehow in possession of the pristine womb of all Christianity, with all of its good eggs, but set apart from the very Church body that had protected this womb seems to me like a completely heretical idea. In fact, it strikes me as Anti-Christian (do not take this offensively, I speak only of the concept).

Think about that for just a moment. One is leaving the Church which has protected the revelation and carried the Keys of the Kingdom for 1500 years, whose patristic fathers laid down the intellectual heart of your entire tradition, and this person is suggesting that the Lutheran translation of the gospel LITERALLY IS the heart of Christ's church. The scripture itself. I know that I'm not being clear enough about this. It is difficult to articulate, frankly. Scripture is Holy. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But to cast off the other things I mentioned somehow strikes me as so heretical. So the entire worldly body of Christ's church for 1500 years is to be just tossed aside? Just keep the book? Did Christ come to earth and tell us to write a book? Or did He command us to become a Church?

[–] • 0 pt

We clearly have very different definitions of Christianity. I can find no room for fusion of man's philosophy and God's perfect Word in a plain reading of the Bible

What about Romans 1:20, which proves that truths about God can be learned and known by looking at nature, at created things, which are other-than-Scripture?

And where does it say "plainly" in Scripture that only what is written in Scripture can be known about God? Has not what I've said about Scripture's own words about the "extra-Scriptural" traditions proven that things can be known about God that are not explicitly written down in Scripture?

Hislop's charges against the foundation of the Catholic rituals are not superficial or related only to the trappings and decorations.

I just finished reading a book by the veritable genius, Catherine Pickstock, on the sublimity of the form and structure of the Catholic liturgy. Hislop would be hard pressed to convince me this is something "essentially pagan."

We are to suppose that these "smart people" were hunted down and killed and the historical records controlled accordingly

That's ridiculous. The Church needed only to sic its Doctors like Augustine and Aquinas on the heretics in order to convert the masses - their ideas and arguments were sufficient (the very nature of argument suggests an appeal to reason, by the way, and is not reducible to simply quoting Scripture without elaboration as sola scriptura would require). Heretics were only killed when they claimed to be within the Church but did not submit to the Church - like the conversos during the Inquisition. This was not about killing people who didagreed, but uprooting subversive who claimed to agree and submit to Chrust's Church, but did not. The Church does not have a deep history of polemics against heretics because she "hunted down and killed" all the "true Christians".

Why would the Catholic church suppress and oppose the plain reading of the Scriptures by the layman if the system of ritual was compatible with the teachings in the Old and New Testaments?

The religious wars are complex, and are certainly not reducible to a "hunting down" of "wrongthinkers." The Church has her doctrine, which she is more than capable of defending with words; and then she has her property and temporal means, which she has often defended with the same means (force) that were used to deprive her.

We are called to be Bereans. I listen to men read and teach the Scriptures.

Where does Scripture advocate for this over a submission to an Apostolic exegesis or hermeneutic?

I don't set any man's interpretarion and tradition above what I can plainly read.

Scripture speaks often of the guiding interpretative role that a tradition can play, like with Philip and the eunuch.

How can all being be good when the Scripture tells us that, no man is good, and that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked? Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon. It's contradictory to a plain reading of the Bible and yet your tradition leads you to adopt it.

God is Being; nothing could be unless He sustained it, created it, and loved it. Would you accuse God of sustaining, creating, or loving evil?

"No man is good" means precisely what i am saying - that without God there is no good. It is not as if God made man and now man possesses some good independent of God. That's impossible, since unless creatures "participated" in God's being, they could not be at all. Man's nature is Falken, and so he is wicked and has a deceitful heart - but God's grace can save us from this. But grace does not accomplish this by creating a new man who is good; it does so by perfecting the existing man, since "grace perfects nature" as Aquinas says.

Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon.

I don't think is a central tenet of that tradition, but even if it were, what I said before would make this no problem, since "all Truth belongs to Christ."

As Jesus proclaimed on the cross it is a finished work and it does not need man's philosophy to interpret or change it.

Yet what is any argument if not the application of man's philosophy to Scripture to aid in understanding? The very fact that you have posted words here other than merely Scriprure quotes proves that more than Scripture is being drawn upon. If Scripture requires no interpretation, it could have only one possible reading - which is so plainly false and plainly disproven by what Scripture itself says that I cannot take that seriously.

@Chiro