Is the Catholic Church a religion or a sect?

https://youtu.be/MSrVvGibSVE
                    So, hello friends.
                                        In the first part of this video, we will talk about possible reforms of such a dark institution as the Catholic Church . I will look for some ways in which even in such an extremely dark institution, at least a little light could get in. I will also talk about the topic of the potential for manipulation of religion, how egregors work. Although I have already talked about these egregors, I will talk about something new, about some new topics that I have not talked about yet, from some other points of view.
                    Furthermore, in the second part, I will focus on current political topics, some power, media, and political games.
                    A side note: I've said it several times at the beginning of the video, but I'm also trying to use AI to process this video. I'm trying to improve myself in these things, look for better AI solutions, and look for certain shortcomings and try to solve them.
                    For example, the last time I was dealing with the problem that speech-to-text conversion was not of sufficient quality and accuracy. Fortunately, I managed to find some better solutions. Then the AI can process the text better.
                    Furthermore, I have to be very careful, for example, not to use the word fascist in my videos. Labeling someone as a fascist or neo-Nazi can sometimes be very problematic. It probably has to do with Trump's policy that these American corporations are extremely submissive to political power. Simply put, Trump supporters or the MAGA movement are probably very sensitive to being compared to neo-Nazis or fascists and the like.
                    Of course, the same rules apply not only to America but also to the territory of Slovakia. America is simply a different world than Slovakia. For example, Mark Zuckerberg, right after Donald Trump won the election, started to sprinkle ashes on his head, saying that he was very sorry that they had censored hoaxes about COVID, for example. At that time, Trump had not even been inaugurated; it was just after his election victory. But suddenly, Mark Zuckerberg miraculously changed his mind. And of course, purely for business reasons, or perhaps the owners of his companies, the shareholders, pressured him in this way to adapt and follow the philosophy that " he whose bread you eat, you sing his song," as they used to say during communism. That is, he would somehow, for purely business or purely self-serving reasons, adapt to the government's power.
                    This is just an introduction, some interesting facts that I usually provide before we delve into a basic topic. Generally, in America, corporations simply submissively obey government power, sometimes excessively so. These corporations don't stand for any values, but simply dance to the tune of the government. This is quite different from the internal values we have in Europe. As the saying goes: " Different countries, different customs."
                    Right at the beginning, I will address political matters because they are very interesting and closely related to the church. These political matters concern an amendment to the constitution , and I have absolutely shocking new information about this. We have definitive, one hundred percent confirmation that a certain unnamed influential black magician – and this is probably the most powerful black magician in Europe – was involved in this matter. Of course, I don't want to reveal the name of that person. I don't want to provoke this person unnecessarily, so I will not mention their name. But those of you who have been following me for a longer time can probably guess who it might have been.
                    This man has de facto publicly admitted to it. From the videos he published on his own YouTube channel, it could be very clearly deduced that he was performing some black magic rituals just before the vote on the constitutional amendment. Although, in that video, the man doesn't actually say anything bad that one couldn't agree with, on the other hand, it is known about him that he " preaches water and drinks wine" – he says one thing and does another.
                    That man was also involved in the liquidation of my YouTube channel. When I got into conflict with him because I exposed some of his scams, he liquidated my YouTube channel by connecting with religious fanatics. And this time, he has once again, for the second time, connected with religious fanatics in black magic for something very bad, and that is the amendment to the constitution.
                    It's truly a miracle that the constitutional amendment passed . These are not things that can be taken for granted. It really surprised absolutely everyone. Although some positive rituals, albeit of low intensity, were performed for Slovakia even before that vote, it is very strange that it passed anyway. I immediately knew then that some very powerful black magicians must have been involved.
                    I noticed it a long time ago because I had a hunch. I didn't say it directly, then it occurred to me that I could have added it later. Until now, I said that it could have some side effect of black magic that was done on Czech politics, but in reality, it wasn't like that. In reality, that person was targeting Slovakia directly. I had already thought before that this was one of the possible versions, and now that person is basically admitting it outright, he admitted it on his YouTube channel.
                    So, as I say, it's not some secret who that person is. If you send me a private message or an email, I have no problem giving you some specific names of who that person is.

                     Magic and its influence
                    Also, not everyone can believe in such a thing as black magic, that it can actually work. In previous articles, I have addressed the issue of whether things like magic really move today's world, whether something like magic can really have an influence.
                    The truth is that they really can have an influence. Of course, there are some charlatans who may imagine some abilities, whether of white or black magic, and they are certainly the majority. On the other hand, if someone really masters that magic and has some ability of astral travel, then they are certainly able to misuse their abilities in a very bad way.
                    Now I realize that I had a philosophical reflection on what would happen and what our society would look like if a large number of people or even the majority of people on this planet mastered magic. And some advanced knowledge in the field of magic and also advanced meditation techniques, if some people commonly mastered them. This would not necessarily mean that we would be better off on this planet, because these abilities (such as astral travel or exteriorization) can be misused by people for bad things.
                    Since people are generally bad, or a large part of people are downright bad, they would of course look for ways to abuse those abilities, and not use them for something positive.
                    We also see this in the case of this person, who is constantly tempted by black magic. I, on the other hand, am such a good-hearted person that I wouldn't hurt a fly. It wouldn't even occur to me to use any black magic. On the other hand, there are, of course, people for whom it is probably a great temptation to abuse their abilities. To abuse the ability of astral travel, and even for such things as connecting with the darkest. And that from which immense darkness emanates is the Catholic Church .
                    We see that the person did something similar for the second time. The person also claimed to me that he is a musician, he just had some visions. Visions that there should be shooting in Slovakia. And indeed, there was a real shooting in Slovakia at the Prime Minister. Well, we see that it was probably not just some telepathic vision of his, but rather he was really behind that black magic. That's probably why he knew well what was going to happen in advance, because he himself already had some black magic in mind.
                    The thing is, I also master various advanced meditation techniques, and I also realize that if such knowledge were to fall into the hands of bad people, it could be misused for bad things. Unfortunately, that's how it is.
                    That unnamed gentleman published four videos about Slovakia, where he dealt with the issue of magic in Slovakia and the influence of magic on politics. In one video, which paradoxically he published last, but was actually recorded first, you can see that the man is wearing short sleeves and not a single tree had started to shed its leaves or had any brown color. This means that it must have been before the vote on the constitutional amendment. So there was clearly a video that was in the border area of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, which was before that. And then it was later, in central Slovakia, that was after the constitutional amendment was approved.
                    Some people may not believe it, some may mock it, saying it's magic, just some nonsense that can't work and can't influence political events. But the opposite is true. On the contrary, I also have a huge number of positive experiences where many things have been changed for the better, even in the field of politics. So it is possible to help other people.
                    One of my friends had very serious problems in his life, he was going through very difficult trials. He told me not to try to help him through the most effective form of magic, because the shamanic rituals that are done from those acupuncture points are very effective. He said that he wanted to learn to solve his own problems himself, so I shouldn't help him artificially. So, of course, I respect that and I respect his wish. He noticed that the effect of these shamanic rituals is extremely strong. Really extremely strong, that these things can influence, whether it's someone's individual life, or influence very significant political events. Whether in domestic politics, or even foreign policy.
                    Of course, then all sorts of strange things happen. For example, right after the shamanic ritual, a mysterious spy helicopter was flying around my house, recording some images with advanced camera technology and so on. Such things also happen, of course, because these are things that really affect history. I am very glad that I can participate in something like this. On the other hand, I certainly handle these abilities very responsibly and have never abused them.

⛪ Possible reform of the Catholic Church

                    Now I will say something about the Catholic Church, about its possible reform.
                    The Catholic Church, especially in Slovakia, is a very specific case. The Slovak Catholic Church in particular cannot even be called a religion. The word sect would be more appropriate to describe the Catholic Church.
                    The fact that the Catholic Church is a sect can be well proven, especially when we see the double standards .

1.                     On the one hand, priest Michal Lajcha dared to write a book in which he discusses the topic of voluntary celibacy in the Catholic Church. This book angered the bishop so much that he suspended him. The word suspension means that the priest loses his job, stops receiving money, and is also forbidden to administer sacraments, celebrate mass publicly, or, I think, even provide confession and other things. (Suspension is not the same as excommunication, which is an even higher punishment.)
2.                     On the other hand, sometimes it takes a bishop up to fifteen years to dismiss or suspend a priest whom he knows to be a pedophile abusing young children. It takes the bishop up to fifteen years. Perhaps sometimes it is the secular media that have to point out that a Catholic priest is abusing, only then does the bishop realize that he should dismiss the sexually depraved Catholic priest. And on the other hand, Michal Lajcha was suspended only because he wrote a book as a priest – he was suspended for de facto nothing.

                    We also see double standards: Michal Lajcha was suspended for nothing, on the other hand, priest Marián Kuffa , an extremist who spreads hoaxes and hatred wherever he goes, does not bother the bishops at all. They will not dismiss him.
                    It is also understandable why Bishop Trstenský does not suspend him, because Kuffa already has such a great influence in the Catholic Church that it is quite complicated to dismiss him. Even if he suspended him, it would probably cause quite a lot of tension. Kuffa has a large number of supporters who could even rebel against the bishop. He is probably afraid of this too.
                    On the other hand, bishops, regardless of whether the faithful will be offended or not, should always stand for some Christian values. And simply, a priest who spreads hoaxes, hatred, and malice is certainly not a person who preaches any Christian values. Regardless of whether this brings some division within the Catholic Church, the bishop is clearly obliged to act.
                    This is very clear evidence that the Catholic Church is simply a sect .
                    Further proof that the Catholic Church is a sect is that when the Pope dismissed Bishop Bezák, a small rebellion arose among some Catholic priests. The Conference of Bishops of Slovakia issued a ban for all Catholic priests, for several years, from appearing in the media . They could only appear in the media if they first obtained permission from the Bishop's Office to appear in such a medium. And only then could they appear in the media. Of course, there had to be some certainty that Bishop Bezák would simply not be discussed in the media. If the Bishop's Office had such certainty that the interview with the media would not concern this topic, then in that case, after a very long bureaucracy, the priest could give an interview to the media, which is completely bizarre.
                    Religion doesn't work like that. Only some sect works like that. It's really undignified when the bishops treat the priests like little ten-year-old children who ask their parents for permission: "Mommy or Daddy, can I go out with my friends?" And so the parent finds out if it's safe, if they can let the child go. Well, if they are assured that it's safe, they simply let the child go out to play. It seems to me that it's something like that, that it's so undignified.
                    We see that the Catholic Church is completely different. In the Catholic Church, the logic is completely different from that in the secular world. This is not how religions work. This is how sects work.

❓ Why does this happen?

                    This happens because the hierarchical subordination in the Catholic Church is extremely strong.

•                     At least in Protestant churches, these bishops are elected for a predetermined time, and they are elected by other pastors, where there is no such abuse of power as there is in the Catholic Church.
•                     The Catholic Church is truly a monstrous institution . That bishop lives his own life in the Bishop's Office, he is isolated from other priests and increasingly closes himself off in his own bubble. He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. It's precisely because of these double standards that I mentioned. He actually has no self-reflection .
•                     Catholic priests are now afraid to express any disagreement or say anything critical to the bishop, simply as a matter of principle. This is because Catholic seminaries engage in what is literally sectarian brainwashing . Officially, this is called priestly formation . There, they literally live like monks, in some enclosed spaces. They are even strictly forbidden from having visitors. I think their relatives can only visit them in a very limited way, at some predetermined times and dates. There, the novices, the so-called seminarians, are really living in a monastic regime.
•                     They are constantly being brainwashed into believing that obedience to the bishop is the highest value of the Christian faith . This is simply the highest principle, the most important of all. In principle, they, the Catholic priests, take it as part of their own faith: " If I am a Catholic priest, the highest value before the Lord God, what the Lord God wants from me, the most important value is obedience to the bishop."

                    This is one layer of the problem. And the second layer of the problem is that Catholic priests are actually very afraid of the bishop, and for objective reasons. Because if a Catholic priest works in a city and now somehow expresses disagreement with the bishop, the bishop can very easily and quickly take revenge on him by transferring him to a village .

•                     If a Catholic priest works in a village of two thousand inhabitants, if he expresses disagreement with the bishop, he can be transferred to a village of two hundred inhabitants.
•                     Perhaps only five people come to such a priest's mass. On Sunday, maybe twenty people come to his solemn mass. And it is, of course, unpleasant for that Catholic priest.

                    So logically, it is not worth it for the Catholic priest to express even disagreement in any way. Every Catholic priest just flatters the bishop. Then the bishop closes himself off in his own bubble. He probably thinks what a holy, most holy man he is, that bishop, and actually completely loses contact with reality . And then it really becomes a sect from the Catholic Church. I have already stated that the Catholic Church is indeed a sect.

⛔ Impossibility of reform

                    And now imagine that such a church has a reason to reform itself in some way. There is no reform.
                    These bishops are literally obsessed with power and money. But despite this, they are highly praised by all priests. All priests are afraid to express any disagreement to them and are only flattered as much as possible. So, in principle, despite being obsessed with power and money, they think they are amazing, perfect, holy men. And they no longer have any reason to make any reforms in the Catholic Church. There is absolutely no motivation for that. Because de facto, any liberal reform in the Catholic Church only weakens the power of those bishops, of that church hierarchy. So why should they, in principle, go against themselves?

🕊️ Interlude: The Positive Impact of Liberal Priests

                    Just a side note. I'll be jumping from topic to topic a bit, but an interesting thought just occurred to me:
                    I also know very hardline Catholics, i.e. very furious religious fanatics, even in the Catholic Church. But when a more liberal Catholic priest came to the parish, even the religious fanatic really started to change his opinion, at least a tiny bit, towards liberal theology.
                    Just don't imagine some liberal priest to be a liberal in the true sense of the word. Because a Catholic priest has very strictly limited what he can and cannot do. That Catholic priest must very strictly adhere to the official teaching of the Catholic Church and any room for maneuver he has is very narrow. But nevertheless, yes, there are perhaps some more liberal priests. It is said of this priest that he does not have much understanding among his colleagues, that he is clearly in the minority. The liberal wing does not have much influence in the Catholic Church.
                    But I noticed that it also has a positive effect on religious Christian believers, as long as the Catholic priest is more liberal. The Catholic Church operates in an extremely hierarchical way. The priest is really considered a kind of intermediary between God and people. He has a huge say there. And a truly liberal Catholic priest can bring a lot of good to such a very dark institution as the Catholic Church.
                    This is a Catholic priest who, for example, has a slightly more tolerant approach to LGBT people . Or he rejects religious fanaticism, or he claims that the Catholic Church should not be just about sexuality and sex and will be literally obsessed only with some prohibitions in the field of sex. So, what is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic, and even those Catholic priests very often emphasize this, because it may also be related to some historical roots in the Catholic Church.

😔 Lack of will of the faithful

                    Another problem is that even Catholic laypeople and ordinary believers have absolutely no desire for any reform. There is simply no such mood in the Catholic Church that any reform would be needed at all. Rather, it is a call for some conservatism , but not for any reforms.
                    What is conservatism? Conservatism means that those people or those believers or priests refer only to the dark history of the church , only to the past. Even the Second Vatican Council was extremely liberal for its time. Even that is no longer emphasized in the last part of the Catholic Church. It refers more to some older history. And that is very dangerous.
                    It is also very strange, by the way, that there is no civic initiative within the Catholic Church calling for the dismissal of priest Marián Kuffa. It is truly unbelievable that this doesn't bother anyone, not even the believers.
                    What a huge slavery it is to be a Catholic believer. To be a Catholic believer means to be an absolute slave who does not even have enough reason to create some civic initiative within the Catholic Church, not even with such a brutally large extreme as Marián Kuffa, who openly adheres to very dangerous, even fascist ideologies and who openly spreads hatred and malice.
                    So it is also clear that the Catholic Church is not a religion, but a sect . Simply, I think that even in some Protestant church, if it came to such an extreme, the believers would really start to unite in some initiative or petition to recall such a pastor who spreads hatred wherever he goes. That is such an extreme, but we see that it does not work in the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church itself, there is no civil sector . It really works like in some monarchy.
                    Really, the thinking of those Catholic priests is still stuck in some dark Middle Ages . I am very strongly convinced that the energies of the Middle Ages are still present in the Catholic Church today. Because even today, no one, not even among the Catholic faithful, has the courage to launch a civic initiative, even for such a great extreme as the recall of Marián Kuffa.
                    Why does it actually work? It would also be very good if at least some initiative made up of lay people was created within the Catholic Church itself, for some reform of the Catholic Church. Nothing like this exists. If something exists, it is perhaps in the sense of some conservative, even ultra-conservative, even some far-right tendencies , but nothing liberal exists.
                    It is probably also related to the deep history of the Catholic Church. That the energies of the Middle Ages are still present in the Catholic Church today. After all, we see that the biggest military conflict ever in the history of planet Earth was the war between Catholics and Protestants, when up to a third of the population was wiped out. Even when we add up the First and Second World Wars, there was not such a large reduction in the population in Europe. This war between Catholics and Protestants lasted eighty years and the population was reduced to one third.
                    This means that the genes of Catholics still carry the resistance to reforms , which is extremely strong. When open reforms in the Catholic Church were discussed, the Catholic Church rejected the reform. It did not want to make any compromises or agreements with the Protestants. On the contrary, the Catholic Church became even stricter. And so, the resistance to any reforms is extremely strong in the genes of Catholics.
                    Perhaps a major exception was the Second Vatican Council , which took place in the sixties, when there was simply a huge increase in the collective consciousness of planet Earth. In Muslim countries, women completely threw off their burqas. There was a huge secularization in Muslim society, as well as a major reform in the Catholic Church. But later, the Catholic Church in the present day basically distances itself from the Second Vatican Council, and it is now claimed in the Catholic Church that it no longer wants to have anything to do with that Vatican Council.

🤖 Religion and egregors

                    Religion works on egregors . The egregors of the Middle Ages are still present in the Catholic Church.
                    An egregore means a very strong collective energy field that people create themselves. Especially in religion, this egregore can be created very quickly. First, people put energy into it, and then it just starts to control them later. Those who give energy to the egregore themselves are also controlled by it later. And it completely deprives them of the freedom of free will .
                    I would compare these egregors to some kind of artificial intelligence . Imagine you have a computer with artificial intelligence at home. This artificial intelligence works in a really good and high-quality way. But now you plug a special cable into that computer with the artificial intelligence, and through this cable, the artificial intelligence will be manipulated to think only in a certain direction, only in a very limited direction. So that it only confirms and looks for arguments that confirm that religion. But it moved within very narrow limits, only what is in accordance with the Catholic faith, and could not really think freely. Whether it is Christianity or Islam. This is how I would metaphorically compare it.
                    It is de facto impossible to get rid of this religious egregore . However, religion is not the only evil. Of course, there are also very ugly political and media propagandas that completely fool and stupefy people to divide them unnecessarily.
                    It is also very difficult to talk about any reforms in the Catholic Church. Because when you automatically start talking about reforms within a civic initiative, it can be interpreted that you are not preaching the official teaching of the Catholic Church . And that is still very strictly punished in the Catholic Church today. If you do not preach the official teaching, you are declared a heretic .
                    But if you even want to discuss any possible reforms, then in principle you have to somehow talk about what the Catholic Church should change. That means it's a reform. It cannot be something that is in accordance with the current teaching of the Catholic Church. So it's quite a vicious circle.
                    This is actually another problem, that the Catholic Church has such a huge scope of influence that it is difficult to make any reform there at all.
                    Likewise, Pope Francis also had some quite good ideas, that he wanted to create a so-called synodal church . That he tried to listen to some opinions of the laity. The only problem is that these suggestions for change from the laity were again processed by the Episcopal offices themselves. This means that, in principle, it had to go through the bishops one way or another. No change is possible unless it goes through them. Because even if some suggestions come from ordinary believers, of course, those bishops will only choose what they like.
                    And what they don't like, they pretend not to have heard in front of the Pope.
                    I noticed that Father Michal Lajcha didn't fare very well. He currently works as an arborist . I was looking at his Facebook, where he also shared some political nonsense, such as posts from the most aggressive politician Alojz Hlina and similar nonsense, with which I cannot agree.
                    But he is also stubborn. If he were a truly liberal Christian, it would be much easier for him. They literally wanted to accept him into some Protestant churches . Other churches also contacted him. If he worked as a pastor in some Protestant churches, those churches would not even require additional education from him, because he has a degree in theology. In principle, in any Protestant church (they even offered themselves to him), he could have had a dignified social position and a dignified, well-paid job. Well, everyone is the architect of their own happiness, I will not interfere in his life.
                    But you can't even say that he was some kind of liberal priest. He just really wanted to make an absolutely microscopic change in the Catholic Church. Voluntary celibacy is such a tiny and insignificant change in the entire Catholic Church that you would have to use an electron microscope to see any change there. You can't even call it a reform. But you see, even in such a small, minor discussion, the bishops were not open at all. That's a completely different logic in the church world.
                    There, the bishops, especially those bishops… It's also strange that I asked some religious fundamentalists about this. I wouldn't say the absolute hardest fundamentalists, but rather the middle ones. Not some liberal believers, but not the absolute hardest core either. Even such a person told me, or rather claimed – and he is a truly educated person with a very good university education – that he had no understanding for Michal Lajcha at all. He rather just listed all the compromising things he knew about him.
                    Would you respect this person for trying to bring about at least some positive changes or some reforms? No.
                    It is probably very strongly encoded in those Catholics, that very strong egregore from the Middle Ages. Basically, bishops are always right. The stronger one is always right. The bishop is always right. If a bishop has criticized a Catholic priest, he must be unequivocally right. This kind of logic of a certain power hierarchy simply exists.
                    This man was a lay believer. He expressed himself to me in such a way that he just listed all the bad things he knew about him. Even those might have been of a rather dubious nature, perhaps what he had gathered as dubious gossip from some other Catholic priests. And even that might not have been true.
                    The same person described the same thing about Jan Rozek , an activist who deals with sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and fights against it. He had a big conflict with Cardinal Duka, because Cardinal Duka was known for defending, or rather covering up, sexual abuse. He himself had big scandals for covering up such pedophile priests. So it is logical that he had conflicts with this person.
                    This man (a lay believer) also told me that he had been in limited contact with Ján Rozek for a while and listed all the negative things about him. Also some dubious rumors. Who knows if it was even true. And he had no understanding at all that this man was basically doing a very good thing.
                    Paradoxically, it works in such a way that Ján Rozek has far greater understanding in secular society than in religious society. These religious fanatics do not appreciate at all that this man has done perhaps one hundred and thirty times more good for the Catholic Church than, I don't know, all the bishops combined. So such people, who try to bring at least a little light into the Catholic Church, are not understood by lay believers, nor by other priests, colleagues, and so on.
                    It's a very strange mentality that extremely strong anti-reform sentiments are mainly in the Slovak Catholic Church. Even the church hierarchy, the bishops, perceive it that way. There is a mentality there, like there was during totalitarianism, maybe during some monarchy: " Whoever is not with us is against us."
                    Really, imagine under the monarchy, if you criticized a ruler, a king or a prince, logically you would immediately be locked up in some dungeon, locked in some cage of shame, where all people would spit on you. They would lock you in some cage of shame for two weeks, then they would let you go. If you had a relapse, they might even hang you, with the death penalty. And they wouldn't mess with you anymore.
                    This is how it worked during the totalitarian regime, during the monarchy. In principle, the Catholic Church still has the same mentality as it did during the monarchy. The Catholic Church is a monarchist and totalitarian organization , where even the faithful have it very strongly encoded in their genes that their role is to be just blind, obedient sheep who just obey and have no critical thinking . The mentality there is still the same as it was during the monarchy: " Whoever is not with us is against us."
                    So, for example, the fact that Ján Rozek, who, apart from being approved by the bishop, is dedicated to pedophile priests, has already angered the bishop so much that…
                    In the Catholic Church, it works like this: if you want to start an initiative, you need the bishop's approval . This applies to laypeople and priests alike. Even priests themselves cannot gather for an initiative, for example, for a reform of the Catholic Church. Simply put, everything must be with the bishop's approval. But of course, bishops will not agree to any liberal reform.
                    They can't, even though it would be extremely useful, at least some liberal Catholic priests organize themselves into some organization within the Catholic Church and unite and give some lectures for themselves, as well as interpret the Catholic faith or Catholic theology as liberally as possible. But that's not possible. Even if those priests wanted to, the bishops wouldn't like it and they would really face some suspension or other punishments that I have already mentioned here.
                    Those believers are not so easily blackmailed by the bishop. It's a bit easier there. At least the bishop can't just punish those believers in any way. He can't, because they are not his employees. But even so, the mentality there is strange, that there is no understanding or mood for any reforms. Rather, there is an understanding for some kind of backwardness . That is what is in the Catholic Church, some kind of return to the Middle Ages, or even an open rejection of the Second Vatican Council, or some so-called traditionalism .
                    And that is basically why Michal Lajcha, as a Catholic priest, was dismissed. Because here, too, the philosophy " Whoever is not with us is against us" applies. A well-known totalitarian communist slogan that is still applied literally in the Catholic Church today. Exactly as it works in every totalitarian dictatorship. Whether it is a monarchy, or whether it was a monarchy, or whether it was communists, or whether it was Stalinism, it doesn't matter at all.
                    Certainly, some Catholic believers should have the potential to have some civic initiative or to associate within the Catholic Church in some civic association that would call for some reforms. However, without any permission or approval from the Bishop's Office, they have very limited scope . They cannot have any lectures in churches, they cannot work in parishes and so on or in some church buildings if they do not have official approval from the Bishop's Office. Otherwise, even a Catholic priest who would allow them to do so would be afraid of big problems.
                    Even the ideological blindness of the Catholic faithful is so extremely strong, the resistance to these reforms is so extremely strong, so extremely strongly encoded in their genes, especially during the Reformation period. This egregore is still very strong, very alive in the genes of these Catholic faithful. And it simply does not exist there for even a single religious believer to even think of creating just some discussion platform about these reforms.
                    Another thing is that even Christian believers are afraid of it. Because the control in the Catholic Church is very strong. Of course, a Catholic priest would certainly dissuade them from it, saying that it is inappropriate to talk about any reforms in the Catholic Church. That belongs only to a bishop, only with some episcopal permission. It is perceived as some disobedience towards the church or some rebellion against some church authorities. It could be interpreted this way, although it may not be a rebellion against church authorities at all, but again, it can be misinterpreted this way.
                    It simply doesn't exist for such an initiative to arise. Perhaps somewhere in Germany , such initiatives really exist, they are real. And perhaps somewhere in Austria or in some such Western countries, there might be some initiatives where even Catholic priests themselves can join some more liberal organizations, or even laypeople. There, it is at least minimally tolerated. But certainly not in Slovakia. Really, it is very, very strongly encoded in Catholics, in their genes, that monarchy . That system of monarchy. That simply, my role is to obey and it is not my role to change anything in that system. Simply, my role is just to obey, to be a blind, dull sheep that obeys everything to that church hierarchy. And that's it.
                    Even under the monarchy, you wouldn't believe you could change anything. Simply put, there was no democratic system. It's the same in the church as in a monarchy, where the believer doesn't even believe they can change anything. If you had created some non-governmental organization or some civil sector under a monarchy, you would have been immediately shut down and banned. Something similar is happening in the Catholic Church today. That mentality is very, very strong, so much so that it doesn't even occur to you to do activism .
                    It is also very strange that even very hard-line Christian fundamentalists, whom I know (again, they are not as deranged as Kuffa himself, they are not completely retarded), really don't like Kuffa. Even most Catholic priests don't like Kuffa, saying he goes to such an extreme. On the one hand, but on the other hand, it doesn't even occur to them to take action for reform. That is very strange. There is such a strong mentality that it doesn't even occur to them to do any civic activity to have this priest removed, for his suspension. It doesn't even occur to them to demonstrate in front of the Bishop's Office to force the bishop to remove him. It doesn't exist. There is no initiative in this sense. Just a simple initiative to have this priest removed.
                    When it gets to an extreme, people just quietly say: "Yes, that Kuffa is such a crazy priest who gives us Catholics a bad name. I don't like it." But it doesn't occur to that person to write a letter to the bishop at the Bishop's Office: "I don't like it. Please, dismiss him." Maybe if a hundred such letters came to him daily, he might start to think a little about whether to dismiss him. But it doesn't happen. Not even on such a limited scale of civic activism. Those religious fanatics don't even think of it. On the one hand, they complain about Kuffa, but it doesn't even occur to them… It doesn't even occur to them to have enough self-reflection to realize that what Father Kuffa is doing is not good. That wherever he goes, he spreads hoaxes and hatred. That's already too strong even for those religious fanatics. The more moderate religious fanatics at least realize that it's not good. But it doesn't even occur to them to go with banners and protest in front of the Bishop's Office that this is not right, that they should dismiss him. It doesn't happen.
                    This is simply a complete, perfect slave. A Catholic Christian, a perfect Catholic Christian, is a perfect slave who does not think at all.
                    On the contrary, it works much better for Protestants. There, the bishops are elected by the pastors themselves for a predetermined period. There, it cannot happen that a Protestant bishop tends to abuse power. Because he is only a bishop for a limited time, it will not happen that he closes himself off in some Bishop's Office, closes himself into some bubble, and completely loses contact with reality. As happens with those bishops who are in office until they are seventy-five. Only then do they go into episcopal retirement. So, in principle, their function is irrevocable . They perform such a function for about fifteen to twenty years.
                    Furthermore, the Catholic Church officially prohibits, for example, masturbation or any interrupted sex . It is very undignified when, during the sacrament of reconciliation, i.e., during the so-called confession, the Catholic believer confesses such intimate matters to a Catholic priest and confesses to it. That is really undignified. Even if you watch some pornography, it is also very strictly forbidden.
                    And now imagine a young person who has a very high sexual appetite, which is completely natural, it's puberty. And now such a person has to confess such intimate things to the priest in a completely undignified and inhuman way. That is so, I would say, undignified. The Catholic Church can really no longer be called a religion. It is simply a sect that is meant to enslave people .
                    It is very positive that at least Protestant believers simply do not have confession. And it is very good, because it is a very powerful tool for controlling and manipulating the entire population , even through confession, where every believer must compulsorily confess to a Catholic priest in some way.
                    In this way, especially during the High Middle Ages or generally, when the church still had great power, it was able to replace spies in a very economical way. Every totalitarian dictatorial regime, that monarchy, simply needed spies to exist at all and to potentially eliminate people who in some way wanted to go against that regime in their infancy. This was a very important thing.
                    Although there was something like the seal of confession, rules are made to be broken. So, in principle, the Catholic priest was de facto a very low-cost spy. A very, very sophisticated system of controlling the entire population.
                    If someone wanted to rebel, to revolt in some way, either against the ruler or against the church hierarchy, they would probably first confess it to a Catholic priest. And the Catholic priest would very quickly and briefly explain to them that, simply, if you don't want the Lord God to fry you in hell, if you don't want to burn in hell, then you simply must obey. So, obey the ruler, obey the church hierarchy. Otherwise, you will not rebel. And so on, and so on.
                    In this way, I think that not even a current Muslim dictatorship, like in Afghanistan, where the Taliban operates, is as sophisticated as the ecclesiastical Christian dictatorship was during the peak of the church's power. I think that even Afghanistan with the Taliban is like paradise on earth compared to what it was like in the High Middle Ages.
                    In addition, the Catholic Church sold indulgences . Although the selling of indulgences was also strange. On the one hand, poor people cursed and hated the church for selling indulgences, but on the other hand, Catholic believers realized that even though they hated the church, they realized that perhaps only the church was the only intermediary between people and God. No one else has the right and power to forgive sin, only the Catholic priest. So, despite the fact that on the one hand they hated the Catholic priest for asking for money for indulgences, on the other hand they realized that they had no other way. Because those people really believed that only the Catholic Church would forgive their sins, because otherwise the Lord God would fry them in hell. They would burn, they would burn indefinitely in some hell, in some unbearable torment.
                    Currently, we also see that the Catholic Church has enormous power in politics. We see a strange renaissance, de facto, of that monarchy. I also see that perhaps even under some monarchy, the church did not have such enormous power as it has today. It is an incredible luxury, the enormous power and enormous money that the Catholic Church has at its disposal. Everything that the Catholic Church asks for, it gets from politicians. Any increase in further and further contributions to the church from the state. We also see such strange trading between politicians and the church.                      

⏳ The role of time and egregores

                    It actually stems from the fact that from the perspective of people who have the ability of astral travel, or rather from the perspective of quantum physics – it's not just people with this ability who know and see this – even from the perspective of quantum physics, time is something relative. Time is, to a certain extent, an illusion. This means that the energies of the past constantly break through into the present. The very dark past constantly returns in a spiral and keeps bothering us.
                    Now we see that de facto the church has the same power as it had under some monarchy. Indeed, the church is not weaker. We really see how it can literally manipulate and move those politicians. The secular state is something completely alien to politicians.

🚫 Obstacles to reforms (Conclusion)

                    Even if they wanted to create some kind of civic sector within the Catholic Church itself, at least among some Catholic believers, for the benefit of reform, they would encounter some Catholic priests who would dissuade them. The bishops would find out, the bishops would put pressure on the Catholic priests, and the Catholic priests would, in turn, start putting pressure on those lay believers.
                    Those Catholic priests can quite effectively and efficiently blackmail even the ordinary believers who would like to undertake some civic initiative in favor of reforms. Because the Catholic priest can also blackmail the believer: " I will not give you absolution unless you confess and promise me that you will do penance, that you will never again engage in civic activism in favor of church reform."
                    Or, even if he doesn't say it directly during confession, which is the crudest form of manipulation, but also outside of confession, that Catholic priest… The hierarchy is very clear in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests are there for the faithful to obey them. Certainly, if a Catholic priest discourages them, saying he doesn't like it, that it's simply a rebellion against the church. If you try, albeit very gently and diplomatically, to create some kind of discussion platform in favor of reform, then that's simply not appropriate . It's not good to simply talk or discuss or engage in any civic activism on the topic of reform. That's simply not appropriate.
                    It's a vicious circle , and it's secured on I don't know how many levels to prevent any reforms of the Catholic Church. And even if some reforms are made, they are made with a delay of five hundred years. Maybe in five hundred years the Catholic Church will have some reforms that perhaps some more liberal churches already have. Somewhere in the United States there are liberal churches, the Presbyterian Church and the Episcopal Church . These two churches are more liberal. The believers in the United States, at least in some larger cities, have it easier when they want religion.
                    I personally always consider the church to be something very dangerous, toxic, and evil. But if it has to be, then at least in some of the more liberal churches, they at least have some alternative.
                    In Slovakia, people have no alternative to joining a more liberal church. There simply isn't one.

💡 What possible reforms could there be?

                    To put it a bit more optimistically, what possible reforms could exist in the Catholic Church?
                    Of course, there is reform from below and reform from above . Even the Vatican can come up with something positive. Or if only there were some believers who would do some civic activism for the benefit of some reforms. And if they overcame all those obstacles, which would not be easy or small at all. And if there were such conscious believers. But I only know slaves , perfect slaves of Catholic believers, who are absolutely perfect slaves, who do not even think that even with such an extreme as Marián Kuffa, they would have any reason to do any civic activism. It does not even occur to them. The big problem there is that first of all those believers have to change. And they don't want to. They don't want to not be slaves. That's the problem.
                    Furthermore, if even among those Catholic priests, if at least those bishops changed a little and were at least tolerant, and if, in addition, there were also conscious priests who would create some initiatives, some organizations, even if they risked it, but it can be done in such a way as not to unnecessarily provoke those bishops. And if the Catholic priests themselves had some civic initiative, even though it is extremely unconventional and extremely unusual to do such a thing within the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops perceive it as a betrayal, or as some kind of dirty trick, if the Catholic priests themselves created some initiative in favor of reform. But if the bishops were at least conscious, at least to the extent that they are at least tolerant of it, even if they did not agree with it.
                    And another thing, which would probably be the most realistic , is if at least some influential Christian Catholic media were aware enough that the owners of these media would give more space to more liberal theologians . That would also certainly be a huge step forward, which could also inspire Catholic priests themselves.
                    All these Christian media are not directly owned by the church hierarchy, but by the laity themselves. If any of these media owners were more aware and gave space to some more liberal theologians, that would be good. In Slovakia, as far as Christian media are concerned, we have Radio Lumen, Television Lux . They are all private owners, they own it. Bishops can't interfere with it. So there could theoretically be some space there that could really have an influence.
                    All Catholic believers and Catholic priests actually follow such media. And therefore, there would be some chance, at least through the media, to spread the idea that the Catholic faith can be interpreted into something at least a little bit tolerable . At least some theology, such as the one spread by Tomáš Halík – a more moderate theology that, while strictly adhering to the official Catholic teaching of the Church, tries to bring the more positive aspects to the forefront in the Catholic Church. That's what's really possible.
                    It would also be very good if the Catholic priests themselves, individually, reflected on themselves and started to think a little differently and tried to find at least the more positive aspects in the Catholic Church. Not that furious religious fundamentalism, but at least a little bit of humanity and at least a little bit of rationality .
                    Of course, it is possible. It is also possible within the Catholic Church, within its teachings. There is not much room for maneuver, but it is possible. In accordance with the official teachings of the Catholic Church, it is possible to put more energy into the more positive things and to give as little energy and attention as possible to the negative. It is possible. Everything is possible. But the Catholic priests themselves must really change.
                    It cannot work in such a way that the majority of Catholic priests (perhaps 95% of Catholic priests) operate in a mode where the sole mission of the Catholic Church is to fight against sex, sexuality, premarital sex, masturbation , and I don't know what else. That is the most important thing, to fight against liberals, to fight against homosexual people, to fight against queer people. That the church should be limited to only such things. Most Catholic priests perceive it this way. That the mission of the Catholic Church is actually to fight in some trench wars against some liberals. Unfortunately, this is how most Catholic priests imagine it. Unless something like this really changes, that the Catholic Church should really be about something completely different, then in that case, it will probably be very, very difficult for anything to change for the better.
                    It is not absolutely necessary to change the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It is enough to put a little more energy into the positive and not into the negative. The Bible can also be interpreted in many ways. You can look for all sorts of bad things there and support some bad ideas. On the contrary, you can also find something positive there. So, there is some room for maneuver. Even a Catholic priest has some room for maneuver. It is really possible. The only question is whether there is even an effort to look for that room for maneuver .
                    Then, the Catholic newspaper is also privately owned, and neither a Bishop's Office nor a bishop has any business interfering with it. Similarly, the daily Postoj is relatively well-followed by many Catholics. But even with Postoj, things are going downhill more and more. In the past, Imrich Kazda, a church theologian and analyst who initially seemed a bit more liberal, worked for Postoj. I still remember about five, six, seven years ago, Imrich Kazda very openly said that he supported Pope Francis. By the standards of the Catholic Church, in those liberal statements on the topic of queer people, he was very much so. He strongly supported that there is indeed a path, even in accordance with the official teaching of the Catholic Church, for something like registered partnerships… that it would not be in conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Imrich Kazda even told the daily Aktuality that there is a possibility of greater openness.
                    And now Imrich Kazda has completely changed his tune. Suddenly, he is presenting himself as a very tough, uncompromising, conservative theologian. He even went to the extreme of inviting a Catholic priest named Anton Ziolkowski to his own show for an interview, who is a completely crazy extremist even by Catholic standards. It's too much. He is basically a person who became famous for very controversial statements, very similar to the priest Marián Kuffa. He is like a version of Marián Kuffa.
                    So I've really noticed that this person has definitely changed in some way. In the past, he was a bit of a more liberal theologian, and now he's a huge conservative again. So this person has really changed a lot.
                    I realized how much it had changed over the years. So, even if there were some more liberal theologians in the Postoj newspaper who, at one time, for example, criticized Marian Kuffa, now they have completely changed. Now they no longer criticize him; suddenly, they have become great conservatives.
                    I had some hopes for the Postoj daily, that they would bring at least a tiny light into the Catholic Church. But the media has a huge influence, and it really could, if at least slightly more liberal theologians – and especially, they don't even have to be Catholic priests, they can also be lay believers – presented some more liberal theology. So there are very furious religious conservatives, but no one who would preach at least a slightly more liberal theology.
                    Even some imbecile working for the Postoj daily – some cretin editor – even defended Charlie Kirk , a very well-known hardline Christian nationalist, who is a very hardline extreme right-winger in the United States. He has very controversial statements that not only bordered on racism but were already openly racist towards black people, for example. Such an imbecile appeared there. Or there was some monk who highly praised the new constitution because, according to him, liberals threaten conservatives, so it is necessary to fight against those bad liberals. He said something in this context.
                    Also, Anton Ziolkovsky, who was speaking there (I didn't watch everything, just small parts), basically just praised and claimed that it is very right that bishops interfere in politics. He expressed himself in such a context.
                    I know that, for example, in the Czech Republic the situation is a little different. There is a Catholic portal there that is quite popular, I don't remember the exact domain now, but I know that it is explicitly liberal and really tries to find a more liberal interpretation in Catholic theology. This can also have a very positive impact if at least some of these Catholic priests follow such media. It can really influence them to try to interpret Christian theology, and religion, with a human face . So that it is not just a furious religious fanaticism without a hint of moderation, but that the theology is at least a little bit like that which has a head and a tail.
                    Personally, I don't think that any major changes directly from the Vatican are needed in the Catholic Church. Perhaps it is much more important for the church to change from the bottom up . So that at least the Catholic priests, or even ordinary believers, interpret the faith completely differently. Not as some religious fundamentalism, that we must feel we have some Christian persecution complex, that the basis of Christianity is to fight from some trenches against some liberals, or to create some fictional enemies. I don't think that's the right way. Simply, Christians themselves must change. And they are not very keen on that.

⚔️ Liberal theology as a threat to conservatives

                    Furthermore, we actually see that Marián Kuffa himself, who is a very harsh, extremist far-right figure in the Catholic Church, claimed that he doesn't hate secular liberals that much, but he very, very much hates liberal Christians . They bother him the most.
                    And that is really true. There is a real justification for this concern of Marián Kuffa. Because some secular people basically have no weight for radical Christians. Some argumentation of secular society…
                    Even I, as a former Christian, realize that some secular people absolutely do not understand Christianity, Christian churches. They absolutely do not know how it works. And they also do not realize the danger of religious fundamentalism, how very, very dangerous it is. And on the contrary, those liberal theologians have very, very strong arguments that can completely destroy this conservative Christianity, this religious fanaticism, religious fundamentalism.
                    That's why Marián Kuffa is so afraid of them. He knows very well why he is afraid of them. Because the arguments of those liberal theologians are on a completely different level than some misguided secular liberals. That's nothing, such people are completely laughable. But the arguments of those liberal theologians are brutally strong. It literally crushes the entire conservative Christian scene to dust with various theological and other arguments. It makes those conservative Christians completely tear themselves apart with anger.
                    This is a completely different level. I certainly appreciate every single liberal theologian. And perhaps this is also very good and positive, that this is perhaps at least the only hope that can reform the church a little. It is that if at least some Catholic priest hears a liberal theologian, for example, on Denník N or on Aktuality, then that Catholic priest can reflect on himself a little, but also the ordinary Catholic believer can reflect on himself. This is probably the only hope, although I really don't have any positive opinions about Aktuality or Denník N. I had the opportunity to see very deeply into the kitchen. I know that they do their bad job very badly and that they don't even stand for what they preach. They play a very dirty game with the public in the field of politics. But this is perhaps the only positive aspect of these newspapers, that they at least give space, quite a lot of space, to liberal theologians.
                    But one should not imagine that this captures Christianity. These liberal theologians are absolutely in a small minority. It's perhaps one percent . They are not even Catholics, but from some other churches. For example, on Aktualitky, there was such a liberal theologian and pastor of the Brethren Church, Daniel Pastirčák . I really respect this man very much, because someone who said the same thing as him does not exist in the Catholic Church. I perceived it very positively that he expressed himself very critically about it. And he really said that he was sincerely very sorry that Catholics and Protestants had huge wars between them.
                    I have never heard a Catholic bishop or a Catholic priest, on their own initiative (not when asked a question, but on their own initiative), speak very sincerely and frankly, and very sharply criticize the fact that Catholics and Protestants fought among themselves. He even said, very ironically, how can we Christians be a role model for secular people when we, as a church, have fought so dirty among ourselves in the past, Catholics and Protestants. That is something completely different. These liberal theologians know how to sprinkle ashes on their heads and admit a mistake .
                    The Catholic Church has never admitted its fault. I know that there was some superficial apology by John Paul II for some crimes of the Catholic Church. Some very, very, very superficial. But you know how… When you murder a third of the people in Europe, how can just one apology be enough? It should be part of the liturgy. Every single liturgy celebrated in the Catholic Church should include: " We ask for your forgiveness in the name of the Catholic Church for all the crimes we have committed." Then it might be sufficiently justifiable if every Catholic priest had the duty to read out, at every single Catholic mass, a list of all the crimes of the Catholic Church and at the same time ask God for forgiveness and pardon for all the war crimes committed by the Catholic Church.

🩸 The Crusades and the Crimes of the Church

                    If we also consider the Crusades , the way they were carried out… Probably only one percent of Catholic believers don't even know what the Crusades actually were. There, it was resolved by the Crusaders completely slaughtering entire cities . Even women and children. They slaughtered civilians, not soldiers. They slaughtered civilians. They slaughtered them completely. Historians describe it as the blood flowing up to the Crusaders' ankles. Literally rivers of blood flowed. They even had blood up to their ankles from the mass slaughter of civilians. They probably had some reasons there, I think the Crusaders probably didn't want to risk any saboteurs from the civilian population who could theoretically attack them in some way. They didn't even really distinguish who was a Christian and who wasn't. They just completely slaughtered those civilians there.
                    This means that Adolf Hitler was a wonderful good guy, a wonderful humanist , compared to what the Catholic Church did. War crimes. So this was the Catholic Church. These are real things that you can really find and really read about. So the Catholic Church was probably the biggest criminal organization that ever existed.
                    It is really very strange that Nazism is illegal, but Christianity is not, although Christians were the biggest criminals. Or rather, the Catholic Church. And we see that to this day the Catholic Church has not dealt with its dark history. That the totalitarian way of thinking is still present in the Catholic Church to this day.
                    I also really like the blogs of Vladimír Bojničan . I disagree with some things, but I really agree with the vast majority. He also explains it very well in several articles that the basis of the Catholic faith is totalitarianism . Catholic believers argue a lot about freedom when it comes to the freedom of Christians, but when it comes to the freedom of some other faiths, or the freedom of some atheists, then on the contrary, that freedom does not apply. There, they would really want to establish some totalitarianism for atheists, or non-believers, or agnostics, or non-Catholics, and take away their rights . He has written very, very, very high-quality arguments or articles in this sense.

🔗 Sophisticated Enslavement and Control

                    Another such thing is that the Catholic Church was the most sophisticated system of enslavement and control of people that has ever existed in the history of the entire planet. Never has religion been used so successfully for enslavement and manipulation, never in the history of planet Earth, as the Catholic Church was.
                    Although we see that Roman religion itself was closely linked to politics, because the Roman emperor himself was worshipped as a god and de facto headed that religion. The Roman emperor himself dictated which deities were to be worshipped, which gods were to be offered sacrifices, and so on. To a certain extent, manipulation was already taking place during this Roman era in favor of the ruler, in favor of some policy. On the one hand, on the other hand, it was never as elaborate and sophisticatedly manipulative as the Catholic Church.
                    Another very important thing is that the Roman emperors always accepted religious freedom , which, on the contrary, was absolutely alien to the Catholic Church. To accept religious freedom. For example, there was freedom for the Jews. The Roman emperors issued special regulations for freedom of religion for the Jews. Which was an amazing thing for that time. Religious tolerance even existed. Although the Romans themselves governed the territory of Palestine, they really respected the fact that Judaism was recognized or professed there. And they really respected it. There are even some official documents, official regulations, that guarantee freedom to the Jews on the part of the Roman emperors. Even in the time when Jesus lived, freedom of religion was also guaranteed to the Jews. That they did not have to worship the Roman gods.
                    There was also a very significant Jewish minority in the territory of present-day Greece, where later apostles, such as St. Paul, spread Christianity among them, because the Jewish minority was already very significant there. And even these people were guaranteed freedom of religion.
                    And now take Christianity, when it came to power, what was the freedom of religion. They exterminated and murdered all the Gnostics , who were probably the largest religious group at the time. They exterminated and murdered all the Jews . I know they forced them into some kind of conversion. They exterminated and murdered all the pagans , because not all people wanted to voluntarily renounce paganism and convert to Christianity. There were very harsh repressions, very harsh violence. These are historically very well proven. The peak of that Christian violence was in some sixth or seventh century, when mainstream Christianity had definitively dealt with the pagans and Gnostics.
                    Also, at the peak of its influence, the Catholic Church owned approximately 30% of the land in Europe . This gave the church immense power. The church conducted business with these lands and cultivated crops. In addition, there was a law that mandated a 10% tax on agricultural yields for the church . This gave the church enormous power.
                    It never happened that Roman pagan priests owned such huge estates under the Roman religion. That a third of the land would belong to some pagan Roman priests. That they would have such enormous wealth, power, and money at their disposal.
                    And also, in Roman religion, there was no such enormous manipulation as there is in Christianity to this day. Christianity is as if it were an existentially important religion. Because if you don't have your child baptized, according to Christian teaching, your child will burn in hell. So the manipulation with that fear was not so enormous. Until now, Christianity has been existentially important from birth (baptism shortly after birth) until death, when the anointing of the sick is administered so that the person who is dying simply gets to heaven and is not fried in hell for all eternity. So it's an existential matter.
                    It was and still is Christianity for many people, according to that faith, of course. Never even the Roman religion was able to manipulate to such an extent that it would be so existentially important for those people. That the Roman religion would be able to manipulate its members in such a way that they would literally be so afraid of hell. That those people would be so loyal to a religion as it was under the Catholic Church, which really enslaved the whole of Europe . This really never happened in paganism, what happened in Christianity.

🇸🇰 Church and Power in Slovakia

                    I also realize what an amazing time it is today. What amazing and beautiful times we still live in today compared to some very dark Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church had the absolute peak of its influence. Even today, we can be very glad that we still have some freedom of religion, at least formally, although the Catholic Church is still favored by the state. We still see a certain renaissance here, again and again, and such a great renewal of the influence and power of the Catholic Church. And the politicians themselves voluntarily give that enormous power to the church . Nowhere is it written that a politician must obey the church in everything. But our stupid politicians literally and completely obey the Catholic Church. Whatever a Catholic bishop orders, the politician obeys it all. So the power of the Catholic Church is really unbearable and it is a very dangerous and bad situation.

🕊️ Evangelization of Priests and University Centers

                    Now I would like to return to the reform of the Catholic Church and add something to this matter. Of course, it is a good dream, it is my beautiful dream, but it is far from reality.
                    But it would be very, very good if some liberal Christians, some liberal Catholics, for example, went to parishes as part of an initiative or a civic association and tried to evangelize Catholic priests themselves , to get them to adopt a more moderate Christianity. To try to persuade them towards a more humane Christianity, towards a liberal Christianity, instead of that very stupid religious fanaticism.
                    The ones who need evangelization the most are the priests themselves. So that these priests themselves change. So that they do not spread some toxic form of faith, some religious fanaticism, but that they moderate a little and spread Christianity with a human face. I think this is very important. But this is, of course, my good dream, but it is very, very far from reality.
                    I don't see any at all… I haven't met a single Catholic, nor do I know anyone who has even the slightest sense for any possible reforms in the Catholic Church. If someone doesn't like the church, they simply leave . That's also one of the solutions. In fact , that's what's happening, that the Catholic Church is really losing believers, which is completely normal. And it's no wonder when the Catholic Church itself doesn't want to reform in any way. So an ordinary person can do about it is to not be an active believer.
                    The Catholic Church has unlimited power, even in the school environment. For example, in Slovakia, there are so-called university pastoral centers . Which I consider to be extremely outrageous. It is completely contrary to any secular state. What is a university pastoral center? Religious fanatics, or the Catholic Church itself, are very well aware that faith spreads best and young people are easiest to manipulate. Even if those young people are of university age, something like a worldview is really created there. And indeed, those university students really think about some philosophical meaning of life and similar things. And it is precisely during this period that it is best to indoctrinate young people with religion.
                    So the Catholic Church – probably also stemming from the Vatican Treaty – that the university itself is obliged to provide (and a truly secular university, not some university belonging to the church, like I think in Ružomberok, which is perfectly fine, we have democracy) even purely state schools, universities, are simply obliged to provide special spaces for evangelization, for some religious church program. There can be some masses, some other religious program, some religious lectures. Such things actually happen and every university probably has to provide such spaces. Where some Catholic priests specifically operate. And in this way, they indoctrinate young people.
                    And even one author at Denník N says that in the vast majority of these university pastoral centers, only Pentecostal Christians are active. Because the Catholic Church also has its own Pentecostal Christians. And supposedly, those who are most active there are really those Pentecostal Christians, that is the most manipulative form of Christianity , the most disgusting form of Christianity. I understand that for some people, some Pentecostal Christianity can be very exciting, because there are some altered states of consciousness. But what is attributed to the Holy Spirit are ordinary altered states of consciousness . It is not the Holy Spirit. When people there somehow undignifiedly wiggle and roll on the ground like retards. These are really altered states of consciousness. It is not the Holy Spirit, nor any similar nonsense.

💰 Financing of sects and registered partnership

                    Furthermore, I'll just mention a small interesting fact about the immense power of the Catholic Church. Even the most disgusting and repulsive Pentecostal Christian sects are directly funded by the state . This specifically concerns ZKSM , the Association of Christian Youth Communities. This organization receives funding. Godzone also receives subsidies from this ZKSM, and ZKSM receives subsidies from the state based on the Vatican treaty from the state school organization, which falls under the Ministry of Education, from the Iuventa organization. So that's quite sad.
                    Unfortunately, we live in a completely twisted time where everything is upside down. And really, some churchmen can just laugh in the faces of us decent people. And even such truly disgusting, twisted sects can fully laugh in the faces of us decent people. It's really very sad. We live in a time when evil really has the upper hand over good.

👨‍❤️‍👨 Registered partnership and conservative values

                    Furthermore, I would like to comment on the Christian teaching on the topic of registered partnership . A registered partnership is also a conservative value . So it's really strange that even various politicians who claim to be conservatives don't want to open up registered partnerships. Which is quite strange and what contradictions exist. Well, there are many, many contradictions.
                    The most conservative politicians are those who live with various mistresses, such as Boris Kollár, and pretend to be conservatives. Or Zoroslav Kollár, who also sleeps with all sorts of mistresses and also claims to be some kind of conservative and so on. It's all upside down, this endless contradiction.
                    But even from the perspective of the Catholic Church, very staunch conservatives should not have a problem with registered partnerships, or voting for them. Because simply, if they have such strong objections to homosexuality, then the sexuality that the Catholic Church probably objects to the most, is precisely limited by the registered partnership, which actually ensures a long-term relationship . So it really at least limits the sexuality that bothers them so much.
                    And not to mention that the registered partnership itself is not about sex. The registered partnership itself is a registered partnership. And a registered partnership is not equal to sex . That's what bothers those conservative Christians so much. Personally, I think there's no problem for some conservative Christians to vote for such a law. On the one hand, on the other hand, we see that rationality in politics is probably the biggest problem. It's such an endless contradiction of those religious fundamentalists in politics. It's all upside down. I absolutely don't understand it.
                    So be it. Christianity is based on fear. The basis of Christianity is the fear of hell. But even a furious conservative Catholic Christian does not have to be afraid to vote in parliament for registered partnership. God will certainly not fry him in hell for such a thing when he votes for it. Because registered partnership is a conservative Christian value that is in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church . So you, as a Christian MP, do not have to be afraid to vote for registered partnership. And you do not have to confess to the priest after the vote. Because it is not a sin to vote for registered partnership. But many Catholic MPs do not understand this.

📖 Homosexuality and the Revision of the Bible

                    Now I will talk about the topic of homosexuality and the Bible . Even liberal theologians have fallen for the trap of conservative theologians. It is very strange that it did not occur to even the liberal theologians to revise the translation of the Bible , as far as the Old Testament is concerned. Because there is no mention of homosexuality there. But here we actually see that the Christian egregore is very strong. It has very strong protective mechanisms, so that even the liberal theologian is de facto somewhat manipulated by this egregore.
                    On the other hand, the statement about homosexuality in the Old Testament does not have much theological significance. Because, if we take it, the whole Bible is full of violence and the death penalty in the Bible is mentioned even for absolute nonsense. And some other nonsense. For example, the Bible tells the story of Onan , whom the Lord punished and gave him the death penalty. And Onan died because he practiced so-called coitus interruptus . Likewise, in the Bible, we find the death penalty for some completely different nonsense. So this statement is not taken as very relevant from the Old Testament. That is why the statements in the New Testament are argued more.
                    But even the interpretation of those statements in the New Testament by those liberal theologians, in my opinion, the argumentation is not correct. They fell for the conservatives' trap a bit. Those liberal theologians mostly explain it in such a way that homosexuality is forbidden only in the sense that the original author of the Bible, probably Saint Paul, meant it in such a way that homosexuality was forbidden only in the form of slave abuse . And it is really true that at that time slaves were sometimes abused in the form of some homosexual satisfaction. Yes, it is true that this is what was meant. And it is certainly possible to interpret that statement in the Bible in a moderate way, even in this way. That if you want to, you can really interpret the Bible differently. Where there's a will, there's a way.
                    On the one hand, on the other hand, I see it a little differently. This word is actually derived from the Greek words for man and bed. And for example, the Kralice Bible translates it quite faithfully, translating it as "same-bedder ". But I personally am convinced that even the original author (whoever he was) did not necessarily mean homosexuality by this, because the word "same-bedder" can also mean that it is an ordinary promiscuous man . Or a man who is simply a womanizer, or just an ordinary promiscuous man. That it does not necessarily mean homosexuality. Here we see that the Christian egregore has enormous power and enormous strength. That even the liberal theologian does not have the energy to interpret some things in a more acceptable way. Personally, I don't think that homosexuality should be sought behind it at all costs. That it really captures it quite responsibly.

🗣️ Jesus and Eunuchism

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
                    Translation by Jozef Roháček – authorized version by Dušan Seberíni
                    Matthew, chapter 19
                     10 Then his disciples said to him, "If this is the situation of a man with his wife, it is not good to marry." 11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone who can accept this, accept it."
                    In the Bible, Jesus speaks about eunuchs . He mentions them quite often and repeatedly. And it is quite possible that homosexuals could have been meant in this context. That the eunuch could have been metaphorically understood in this way. These are really quite controversial parts in the Bible that are translated differently. The Catholic Bible translates it as " those who have no children" . The Kralice Bible translates it as " virgin" . Of course, neither can be seen as necessarily incorrect, nor the virgin. However, on the other hand, if we take a certain historical context, it cannot be ruled out that it could have been meant as the word homosexual. The eunuch, of course, in a metaphorical sense. Because the entire New Testament uses metaphorical language very often.
                    Of course, nowadays it would be extremely controversial to say, as it is written in the Bible, that someone became a eunuch voluntarily. Or rather, if it were to be translated as homosexual, it would be very controversial nowadays.
                    On the other hand, we must realize what the times were like back then. That even the Jewish culture that existed at that time was actually extremely tolerant of homosexuality. In the Old Testament, we do not have even a negative mention of homosexuality. On the contrary, the Bible even speaks positively about David and Jonathan, how they had a successful homosexual relationship. The incorrect translations of the statement about homosexuality in the Old Testament arose only later. We must perceive it in this context.
                    We also have to perceive the context that such a statement would not have been controversial at all at that time. That for the Kingdom of God, to become or to live a homosexual lifestyle would not have been controversial at all at that time, because at that time there was really something like a bisexual culture on the whole planet, which very strongly supported such a lifestyle.
                    Another thing is that when the Bible says that someone became a eunuch (or homosexual) " for the kingdom of God" , it should be realized that it is quite meaningful and practical. If someone wants to devote themselves fully to that spirituality, to the kingdom of God, it is logical that it is not very advantageous to have a relationship with a woman, because you then have to take care of the children. That is not very advantageous for the kingdom of God if you want to devote yourself to that spirituality. If you have that homosexual relationship, you don't have children, and therefore you can fully devote yourself to that spirituality. So that would be practical.
                    We also have to realize that it was a completely different time, there was no contraception. This means that homosexuality as a form of contraception was a relatively popular practice at that time. There was a completely different context then. Nowadays, such a statement would be very controversial, but not at that time.
                    These are also controversial statements in the Bible, but they can be interpreted in this way. Yes, it can certainly be translated as " panic" . Certainly, even at that time, the word eunuch was associated with some sexual restraint, and it certainly had such symbolism, but perhaps the author used the word eunuch ambiguously so that it could be interpreted both ways. The unknown author of the Bible – although it is attributed to some apostles, even today the Catholic Church admits that the Bible was written after the death of the apostles.
                    My opinion is that the original author who wrote it, you can't say that someone has a patent on the truth. Just as it is possible to translate it as virgin , as the Catholic Church translates it, so too can the word homosexual be a correct translation. It can also be interpreted correctly this way.
                     Another argument in favor of the eunuch symbolizing a homosexual is that both the eunuch and the homosexual share the same attribute: weakened masculinity. While a eunuch has no testosterone production, one of the homosexual partners takes on a female role.

📰 The controversial 360 portal and transparency

                    I will also comment on the current political situation and the media. A very strange portal called 360 has emerged. It is a very, very controversial portal. When you look at their economic indicators in Finstate, you can see that some strange oligarchs have poured incredible, unimaginable money into this internet television, which really raises great suspicions.
                    On the one hand, this certainly won't make those journalists or this portal significant, because it's not all about money. They employ, with all due respect, five people there, but they claim to have a turnover, or rather revenues, of around €700,000 just for 2024. Financially, this seems extremely controversial. This portal doesn't even know what to do with its money, so they even commission public opinion polls .
                    This whole medium seems extremely suspicious. On the one hand, they pretend to be investigative journalists, checking politicians, and on the other hand, they themselves are not transparent enough. They have not disclosed all their sponsors who poured incredible money into them, considering they have five employees, to have almost a million euros in strange income and still not know what to do with the money. Really, only the biggest TV stations regularly order public opinion polls, not some insignificant portal that only has a few employees. The whole thing really seems extremely dubious.
                    It really seems to me that the very primitive and stupid mass of ordinary people, who consume and believe and trust those media, which have much weaker credibility, are being manipulated in a very ugly way.
                    Also, the 360 portal itself states that the ultimate beneficial owner of this media is Michal Kovačič . Michal Kovačič, who pretends to be so objective and anti-corruption, is himself up to his ears in various dubious financial machinations. It's quite strange that even journalists drink water and preach wine.
                    It's also so strange how the whole thing works in society. Politicians go through a lot of scrutiny from society, through a lot of scrutiny from the media. Just a tiny financial discrepancy and it's a huge media frenzy. On the other hand, journalists can be involved in I don't know what kind of corruption and they are untouchable, nobody criticizes them.

📉 Hoaxes and government communication

                    Furthermore, very important things that happened in politics, at least two hoaxes have been spread by the media recently.
                    On the one hand, it was claimed that the government and MPs had approved some terrible, disgusting law that would promote gambling in some way. In the end, the truth turned out to be that the law essentially only concerned the state-owned company TIPOS , where people only bet on sports results. Yes, this is also a form of gambling, but not as harsh as casinos. But we see that both the opposition and the media really spread a disgusting thing.
                    It is also strange that the journalist does not even bother to actually read the law or to get some real information from the ministry. Of course, Minister Huliak himself also made a mistake by not communicating this matter more with the media. He should have explained how it is. He only communicated with the media after the president vetoed the law, which is a bit late to communicate in this way. So, in the end, nothing terrible happened, no gambling will be promoted or supported in Slovakia in any way, as, for example, the opposition or the media themselves claimed.
                    Another significant hoax that was spread by the media is that police officers will be checking the walking speed of pedestrians , which eventually turned out to be a hoax. It turned out that the law only concerned cyclists and scooter riders who ride on pedestrian sidewalks, and it does not concern pedestrians as such at all. So again, nonsense was spread through social networks and the media. We see that lying is the basic working method of the media, unfortunately, this is how it works, unfortunately, this is how it is.

📈 Growth of Zoroslava Kollár's preferences

                    I have also noticed a huge dissatisfaction with the current government lately, whether from former coalition or opposition voters. They feel great anger towards the current government. This current government is also taking many unpopular measures, such as the consolidation of public finances and similar things. But people are very stupid. People are an endlessly stupid mass, people do not realize that if the opposition came to power, whether it would be a lesser evil or an alternative. Not at all.
                     Zoroslav Kollár is also benefiting from this dissatisfaction with the current government. Zoroslav Kollár and his party are already reporting 3% in preferences. This means that, most likely, those percentages will grow, and this political party will most likely enter parliament.
                    Personally, I don't have a very precise opinion on Zoroslava Kollára. Personally, I think he is still a lesser evil than some movement like Republika. On the one hand, on the other hand, this person is not very trustworthy.
                    This man is not some mobster, as some media have labelled him. At the time he was convicted, Slovakia was ruled by the so-called " Čurilovci" , who were famous for ordering various false accusations or being able to imprison absolutely anyone they wanted. At that time, the trials were not fair. Also, judges and other very important legal authorities pointed out that when someone is legally convicted, it does not mean that they are actually guilty, because simply, if a prosecutor forces you to confess in some way, then it is not a fair trial. Such things really happened.
                    So, it certainly cannot be said that this person, because he was legally convicted, is some kind of "mafioso" in quotation marks. So, on the one hand, even this exaggerated criticism of him is not true. But on the other hand, this person is not trustworthy from the political party he founded literally in a hurry. He just gathers some people literally from the street, some dubious speculators, literally some garbage from the street, Zoroslav Kollár gathered them, threw them into the party. And I don't have a good feeling about it. If such a person were to actually rule, he probably wouldn't even have sufficient control over his own political party if he throws all sorts of fools from the street into his party.

⚖️ Vagovič's confession and § 363

                    Ultimately, even one of the biggest advocates of the "Čurilovci", journalist Vagovič , who probably fights the most for the Čurilovci, even this journalist in the daily Postoj admitted that the Čurilovci really committed a great crime, and that crime was the so-called technical files . Even he admitted that such things existed and were not right. This means that he admitted that these criminals are really guilty and they were not some honest policemen. I was also surprised that this man at least partially admitted that it was not right.
                    Even a person like Vagovič admitted it, although he tried to downplay the seriousness of this offense by the Čurilovci in that interview, but still, this person has even admitted these things, that it wasn't entirely by the book. And not to mention that this is a very serious violation of the law. The Criminal Code states that abuse of power by a public official carries, I believe, a penalty of up to 12 years in prison or at least eight years in prison. These are not things that can be simply downplayed, as if it's not a serious matter. It is a very serious matter.
                    And not to mention it from an ethical point of view. Those technical files, although some Vagovič tried to diminish the seriousness of this matter, it is still a very serious matter that greatly hinders a fair process in an investigation. This cannot be, this is literally a very serious offense. This cannot be diminished in any way. But at least, although Vagovič tried to diminish this crime of the Čurilovci, he still acknowledged that it was not right.
                    It's just a contradiction of that journalist Vagovič, that on the one hand he admits, yes, it wasn't good, it wasn't right, but then he listed I don't know how many arguments, which actually diminished the seriousness of such an accusation.
                    We also see the double standards of the media. When they used paragraph 363 and succeeded with it, they criticized it heavily, saying that paragraph 363 should be abolished. But now, when the Čurilovci succeeded with some paragraph 363, Maroš Žilinka is suddenly adored, how amazing he is, he's a champ. And how wonderful the Čurilovci are, people who are allegedly unjustly prosecuted. Although it's not entirely true that the prosecution stops when paragraph 363 is used. We see the superficiality of the media, whose propaganda constantly contradicts itself.

👩‍👦 Šimečka's corruption affair and the media's silence

                    Another very serious corruption affair involving Michal Šimečka has come to light, related to his mother. She, along with her colleague, falsified articles in the daily Sme, and for this reason, they were even dismissed or fired as journalists. Without copyright permission and without the editor-in-chief's knowledge, they pretended to create their own articles, when in fact they were taken from other foreign portals and they only translated them. We see that if someone is a fraudster, they will be a fraudster forever. First, these two women cheated with journalistic articles, then they cheated with subsidies. And it's a very serious matter.
                    Well, on the one hand, someone might say, "Okay, some people try to downplay these corruption scandals. 'It's not Michal Šimečka directly, it's Šimečková, his mother. She's not directly in politics, so why are they meddling in his family? She may have stolen a lot, but it's not that serious, she's not directly a politician, and Michal Šimečka is just her son. It's not that serious.'"
                    No, but in reality, even that is very dangerous. Even if Michal Šimečka were a truly effective politician, his mother could still exert some political or psychological pressure on him. Like, " steal for us as a family , so that we as a family can be rich." It's a very serious problem. Even if Michal Šimečka were an ethical person, he is under immense pressure from his own mother, who has lived her whole life by fraud. So it's quite a serious problem when a person is under pressure from such relatives. It's not right, it's not good.
                    I'm telling you, it's a very serious problem. This is just one, maybe out of a hundred, very serious affairs that I know about regarding the Progressive Slovakia party, but the media is silent . I'm telling you, if the media told the whole truth about Progressive Slovakia, their preferences would drop by half within a month. Now, I don't know, they have about 24%, so their preferences would very quickly drop to 12%. Because I know such things about them, and journalists know them very well too. If journalists said everything they know about them…
                    There are also very extremist tendencies in the field of ecology, and the media do not draw attention to them at all. How serious, dangerous, and very extremist are the tendencies in the field of opinions on ecology. If you take probably the craziest person who works in the field of ecology in the Progressive Slovakia party, Michal Wiezik . That's pure psychiatry. And the media don't tell the voters this at all. People really think they are voting for some decent political party, which is some dignified alternative to the current government. Not at all. What I know… If I were to list for you all the controversial statements, absolutely insane opinions, literally psychiatric statements on the topic of ecology that Michal Wiezik has made, for example. And he is the craziest person who works in the field of ecology there. And this is a very serious matter, and we would give power to absolute madmen if such people actually came to power. These are not jokes.
                    The media are committing a huge crime by remaining silent and not talking about these things. Just in the field of ecology, if only Michal Wiezik's ecological fanaticism were analyzed… If only that were analyzed, I swear, within a month, if the media were as strict with the Progressive Slovakia party as they are with the Smer party, their preferences would drop by half. If only the statements of Michal Wiezik, who literally heads the entire ecological agenda of this political party, were analyzed, their preferences would drop by half. And I'm not even talking about if the whole truth about the political party were revealed.

⚖️ Final assessment of the policy

                    So these are serious things. I personally think that we currently have a very good government , when the media and the opposition really can't find anything else, they just spread hoaxes. Lately, there have been a lot of these hoaxes. The opposition and the media invent some nonsense. A hoax about the amendment to the Road Traffic Act, about police officers having to measure the speed of pedestrians, which turned out to be a hoax. Another very significant hoax was the alleged support for gambling, that there was supposed to be some amendment to the law that would significantly support gambling, and in the end, it turned out that it wasn't like that. So that says something.
                    But then again, to be really honest, I'd probably like to throw all the political parties out of this parliament . And it doesn't matter if they're coalition or opposition. Not only coalition and opposition, but even some extra-parliamentary parties, such as Democrats, Zoroslav Kollár, and of course, Republika. And these political parties should really be replaced by some normal, decent political parties. Also, I would be glad if a decent liberal political party really emerged , and not such a mockery as the Progressive Slovakia party. I have to be ashamed that I am a liberal when this is how liberalism is presented by these so-called liberal media and also so-called liberal political parties. That really makes me very sad.
                    To be honest, I would kick them all out, preferably to the Moon, or even better, to Mars. And space should be given to normal and decent political parties, not this mockery. All these political parties really belong either to the extreme right or the extreme left . And I don't want any extremes. I really just want one normal, decent political party that will truly represent some decent interests and not some extremism.
                    Personally, I don't see any difference between the Republic movement and the Progressive Slovakia movement . Both are extremes, just with a tiny label saying this is the extreme right, this is the extreme left. I don't see much difference in that. Really, lunatics on one side, lunatics on the other.
                    I also don't see any difference between Milan Mazurek and Alojz Hlina . Both are the same pub hooligans who really don't need a comment.