1P5 goes there: “The Infrastructure for the Immanent Reign of Antichrist”

(To my knowledge, this is their first time into the deep end… active discussion of Bergoglio as antipope, and worse. -nvp)

We know from René Girard, and personal and historical experience interpreted through an honest lens, that if one is not under complete obedience to Christ, one is under obedience to Satan in one idolatrous form or another, but with a common denominator of scapegoating, for the latter is the inexorable form that rejection of the Gospel takes. Scapegoating is the complete counterfeit and antithesis of Christianity: The scapegoater is “saved” by hating the evil in another and loving the good in himself (as evidenced by his righteous hatred), while the Christian is saved by hating the evil in himself and loving the good in another, namely, Christ and his neighbor. Socially and politically, scapegoating takes the form of trauma-based, ideological brainwashing (to produce the fear and hatred of the designated evil) and coordinated, ritual, sacrificial violence (to liturgically purify oneself and the world of the designated evil). Add to this the most advanced diabolical technology of power, a power serving the authority of a multitude of ideologies, which are all mere denominations of the meta-ideologies of Luciferian Freemasonry and Talmudic Kabbalah, and occult sorcerers, perfect psychopaths, with God-hating ideologues wielding this power at the very heart of the system and obeyed mindlessly by thousands of ruthless, self-serving, and virtue-signaling bureaucrats strategically placed, millions of lesser functionaries who have internalized the commands of their oppressors, and the billions rendered defenseless against and thus ineluctably swept up in the global scapegoating contagion. And what you have is the complete infrastructure for the immanent reign of Antichrist, who will rule the world with his demonically empowered accusing finger, which no merely human power will be able to resist.

What has allowed this Antichrist infrastructure to be built; this “return of the Strong Gods” of Moloch, Asmodeus, and Baal; this resurrection of the pagan occult system of sexual debauchery and human sacrificial scapegoating, the worship of power wielded on behalf of itself? In a word, the corrupted element of the Catholic Church has allowed it. Jesus Christ conquered Satan’s kingdom and the power of sin that had made it regnant and invincible, replacing it with the Holy Spirit, the power of Grace, and His Mystical Body, but it was up to the baptized to preserve, defend, and extend this Divine Kingdom throughout the world unto the end of time. Satan’s kingdom was definitively conquered, but the war was not over. The struggle to extend the Kingdom against Satan and his minions, both within and without the Church, culminated in medieval Christendom, which successfully repressed, marginalized, and disempowered the enemies of the Gospel through its universal and loyal recognition of the authority of the Church and the wielding of power in obedience to it, with the Popes serving as the ultimate katechons, restraining the power of Satan on earth.

Fast forward eight centuries to the year 2020, when the world witnessed the occupier of the papal throne authorizing the cessation of the Church’s Holy Sacrifice during Holy Week, the source and summit of all Reality and hence all Authority, in mindless obedience to the Great Lie and in obeisance to power with no authority. The whole world woke up one day and found itself imprisoned in a global totalitarianism the likes of which had never been seen. Instead of commanding the faithful to reject unequivocally this murderous hoax and psyop requiring the world to worship fear, reject truth, hate their neighbor, and deny the authority of reality, thereby serving its unique charge as the Katechon saving the world from itself, the Church committed treason against her Lord, her flock, and the unbaptized, who are now creating a Hell on earth in rebellion against the Logos. As Father Mawdsley urges us in his new book If You Believed Moses, we must pray especially for the conversion of the Jews.

And it’s the same treason of the evil, Christ-hating Bergoglio and all the antichurch bishops and priests and laity who now constitute the Body of the Devil hiding in the Church, who are causing, not only by not restraining but also by actively promoting, the abominable evils unleashed after the inauguration of the Great Scamdemic Lie…

(he is just getting warmed up… read the rest HERE)

43 thoughts on “1P5 goes there: “The Infrastructure for the Immanent Reign of Antichrist””

  1. Good content……..

    ….. yet still marred by that unreadable “High School Teacher’s Pet Contest Winner” style of writing, that 1P5 encourages in its contributors. (Overuse of adverbs, polysyllabics, sentences that not only run on but hardly end at all. Ugh.)

    1. P.S. To be positive, at least this bit was well-stated – also deep:

      “The scapegoater is ‘saved’ by hating the evil in another and loving the good in himself (as evidenced by his righteous hatred), while the Christian is saved by hating the evil in himself and loving the good in another, namely, Christ and his neighbor.”

      Rene Girard’s ideas rock.

    2. Jeff, I love this comment. One way to avoid run-on sentences is to never let them exceed 30 words. I also put my writing through software that tracks the adverb usage. Granted, today’s English teachers are often illiterate “chicky babes,” who would lose the writing contest against most of their students, but that’s neither here nor there.

    3. I’m not going to nitpick the prose too much. This is, hands down, the best, most brutally honest content 1P5 has ever presented.

      1. It’s an incredible article.

        It’s good to point out the problems in the prose, though, because the message will get lost if people stop reading an author because it means slogging through a word salad to get to the point.

        This happens in comboxes as well. One in particular I just ignore anytime I see him post.

        1. Not to quibble, but the prose was clear. It’s not compiled of the usual choppy sentences modern “Writers’ Workshops” prescribe, but complex thoughts carry better through intricate sentences.

          Yes, I admit I have a degree in Latin and prefer to glide through intricate lengthy prose as long as the meaning is clear. De gustibus….

          1. BTW, this is not just a good article, an important article … it’s a paradigm shift. Specifically –

            “Instead of commanding the faithful to reject unequivocally this murderous hoax and psyop requiring the world to worship fear, reject truth, hate their neighbor, and deny the authority of reality, thereby serving its unique charge as the Katechon saving the world from itself, the Church committed treason against her Lord, her flock, and the unbaptized, who are now creating a Hell on earth in rebellion against the Logos.”

            We have been trying to make sense of the inexplicable using the old. This is new.

            Pope Leo XIII saw something that compelled him to pen the St. Michael exorcism prayer, after he returned from his swoon. Our Lady warned us, multiple times, time grows short. It’s here, what they warned us about. This article is important. It answers intractable questions.

          2. If you’re gonna go all straw man on us then at least try to put something in our mouths that’s reasonably close to what we said.

          3. “Instead of commanding the faithful to reject unequivocally this murderous hoax and psyop requiring the world to worship fear, reject truth, hate their neighbor, and deny the authority of reality, thereby serving its unique charge as the Katechon saving the world from itself, the Church committed treason against her Lord, her flock, and the unbaptized, who are now creating a Hell on earth in rebellion against the Logos.”

            THE Church committed treason against her Lord?

            THE Church?

            The spotless Bride of Christ?

            I don’t think so.

            The NO “Church’ IS the antiChurch. All of it. And all of her “popes”.

          4. MikeB-“slogging through a word salad”; “Overuse of adverbs, polysyllabics, sentences that not only run on but hardly end at all.”; “unreadable “High School Teacher’s Pet Contest Winner” style of writing”.

            From his Amazon author info (which I went to in search of more by this author I found interesting): THADDEUS KOZINSKI taught philosophy and humanities for ten years at Wyoming Catholic College, where he also served as Academic Dean. (From his author thumbnail on Amazon).

            He wrote a book on “Words, Concepts, Reality – Aristotelian Logic for Teenagers. Another one I intend to read – “Modernity as Apocalypse: Sacred Nihilism and the Counterfeits of Logos”. He knows how to write. The price is a bit high, but this book looks like dynamite: “The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can’t Solve It” – referencing three philosophers “John Rawls, Jacques Maritain, and Alasdair MacIntyre”.

            He knows how to write.

            I loved the 1P5 article and then found his Substack. Love his writing and his mode of thinking. I think this was a really important article, and as has been noted here, a big step in the right direction for this to be published ~ mainstream … (exactly 27 words, the last sentence).

    4. After reading Kozinski’s commentary twice, I still could not trace a run on sentence. There should be a period at the end of the first bullet point, but that was the only grammar flaw I found, if you overlook split infinitives. Complex Latinate sentences give a symphonic effect and add to the breathless overwrought feel of the piece as much as its terrible message. Each paragraph starts with a long sentence, followed by several simpler ones, almost giving the feel of a person having run a long way to blurt out awful news, and then pausing to catch a breath. Is that typical for this 1P5 blog? I have never read it before. Interesting comment about the author’s style.

      Style and grammar aside, the message is succinct and sobering. The scapegoater v. Christian contrast caused me to do some real soul searching.

    5. My thoughts exactly. Some good ideas but the introduction is barely comprehensible. College professor? PhD? Yikes.

  2. I’ll add a few more evil groups to look into: Theosophical Society, Lucis Trust, Share International. It’s a conspiracy so massive that when you see it you think you’ve lost your mind.

  3. I’ve been following Dr Kozinski during this whole pandemic thing. Not sure how I originally came across his writings/videos. He never bought into the farce. He too saw it as diabolical. He also has a Substack.
    Just shocked that One Peter featured him.

    1. Great interview with Dr Kosinski from Vendee Radio.


      Might be a good idea to make this a daily prayer:

      Act Of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart Of Jesus
      by Pope Leo XIII

      Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us, humbly prostrate before Thine altar.
      We are Thine and Thine we wish to be; but to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy Most Sacred Heart.
      Many, indeed, have never known Thee; many, too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee.
      Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.
      Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee, grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house, lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.
      Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof and call them back to the harbour of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one shepherd.
      Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islam, and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom. Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race, which was for so long a time Thy chosen people; and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance, now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life.
      Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church, assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation: to it be glory and honour forever. Amen.

    2. Not long ago, Dr. Kozinski would have been banned from the 1P5 combox and ridiculed as a “conspiracy theorist” for writing any of this. Flanders deserves a lot of credit. It was a gutsy decision.

  4. I’m glad more people are acknowledging the times we live in. My grandmother died in October of 2019. That was the same month Antipope Bergoglio consecrated Pachamama. Last week we had a family gathering and I said “Ever since grandma died things have” and my aunt said “Gone crazy”. And she was right.

    I have struggled mentally the past 4 years. If you look at people everyone is just going through the motions. Shutting down the Church at Easter in 2020 did irreparable harm. And ever since Trump danced to the tune of the WEF in 2020 our government has lost it.

    There is a spirit of oppression in the world right now. And it brought to us by the AntiChurch.

  5. I think our host’s top blurb sums it up: a much-read blog ‘went there’, with an excellent article.

    Our stylistic discussion is important as well, because it deals with getting that message out to
    as many people as possible. We can criticize the “Tl,dr” folk all we want, but that won’t change
    the fact that different temperaments/intellects respond, by nature, to different modes of communication.
    Let’s not think of this as “catering to the snowflakes”, but as tempering the wind to the shorn lamb.

    There are a lot of right ways to do this.

    1. sbb13: “getting that message out to as many people as possible… tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. There are a lot of right ways to do this.”

      Exactly. Thanks, you understood.

      For me…. I can’t read 1P5. They’re unreadable. There. I said it.

      You know who did *not at all* write/talk like 1P5? …..Our Lord.

      Neither did Aquinas. Aquinas knew that long wordy writing is great when it’s *logically necessary* as opposed to redundant, showy or wandering.

      My earlier comment was to slag 1P5 more than Kozinski. I had a minor ‘vision’ of a 1P5 editor telling Kozinski “Now fit in with our brand! Bigger sentences! Bigger words! More adverbs!” 😉

      Mozart can NEVER be accused of “too many notes” because he was still being economical; in other words, it’s impossible to subtract a note, phrase or passage from Mozart without diminishing the work.

      You can subtract a lot from 1P5 writing, though, and not only would the meaning stay intact, it would even improve. ‘Nuff said. God bless!

      1. And I have friends who can’t read Barnhardt. So I am thankful for the many different writers
        who tackle the same subjects in varying ways.

  6. This is a sermon from St. John Chrysostom (+407) on the parable of the wheat and the tares that speaks directly to this topic on the entry of antichrist into our midst: how can this happen?


    “And He signifies also that the error comes after the truth, which the actual event testifies. For so after the prophets, were the false prophets; and after the apostles, the false apostles; and after Christ, Antichrist For unless the devil see what to imitate, or against whom to plot, he neither attempts, nor knows how.”

    It’s very good. He compares this parable (Matthew 13:24-30) with the previous parable (Matthew 13:3-23) and draws this conclusion,

    “The former parable then means their not receiving Him; this, their receiving corrupters. For indeed this also is a part of the devil’s craft, by the side of the truth always to bring in error, painting thereon many resemblances, so as easily to cheat the deceivable. Therefore He calls it not any other seed, but tares; which in appearance are somewhat like wheat.”

    Error entered as we slept.

    To me, it helps to know this trial is predicted not just by St. Chrysostom in his commentary, but by Our Lord in His parable.

    “… so that there is need of continual watchfulness. Wherefore He also said, “He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.”

  7. “Corrupted element of the Church”…a blasphemous statement if I ever read one. The Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of the Savior, is unspotted, chaste, and pure, like Her Spouse.

    The ” corrupted ” element is the conciliar anti church, with it’s emphasis on human “fraternity, equality, and liberty”. Indeed, it is the ” revolution in tiara and cope”.

      1. Mark, words and phrases matter.

        Because the Church is perfectly pure and undefiled, She cannot have any corruption. Thus, any “corrupt element” excises itself from the Church, and is outside Her. That does not mean that people cannot be corrupt, or that said corrupt people have “de jure” positions in the hierarchy. Their corruption, however is not part of the Church.

        1. Aaron, when Benedict IX sold the papacy, was he not pope, not part of the Church, or was the papacy not part of the Church? Was St. Cyprian in error vs. Pope Stephen? Which one of them wasn’t part of the Church? Was Pope Liberius not part of the Church when he signed the Arian formula and Excommunicated St. Athanasius?

          1. Saying that the Church was never corrupted because the Church is perfect is like saying the body of Our Lord never received any wounds during His Passion because Our Lord is perfect.

            It’s literally the exact. same. argument.

          2. If sedevacantism could so easily be refuted, it would have died out long ago. The Pope Liberius signed onto Arianism and excommed St. Athanasius argument has been addressed. Below is just one article with additional links for a more indepth study.

            Have there been corrupt men in the Church, even popes? Absolutely. But the true Church and Her popes cannot teach error to the faithful. The “,proof” the VII religion is not the Catholic religion is the existence of the SSPX who have set themselves up as Pope and magisterium of the Church. Try finding that in the history of the Church.


          3. The argument was that there is an element, a part of the Church that was corrupt, which was condemned by numerous popes and Councils (one specifically is Gregory XVI, who cites Trent). That certain individuals can err and make mistakes has never been a question.

            Individuals can most certainly act in ways that harm the faithful, but to equate that with “an element of the Church” would be erroneous. It is the Church that is preserved from any error whatsoever (Pius XI, Quas Primas), not individual Christians.

  8. Uriel, Sacred Scripture clearly tells us that Our Blessed Lord received scourgings and wounds from others, OUTSIDE His Body. His Passion was not self-inflicted. Prior, He was spotless and without blemish, unless the Pascal lamb was not a type and prefigure of Our Lord (and thus all the Fathers are wrong). Thus, we can say with absolute assurance that Our Lord was without spot or blemish.

    If Our Lord’s Passion was inflicted from Outside His Body, so too are Holy Church’s wounds and oppression from outside Her Body. Trent and all the popes are quite clear on the perfect unity of the Church, to the point that Gregory XVI identifies calls for “restorations” and “reforms” as blasphemous.

    1. So the Church was never in need of reforms, because all blemishes are really on the outside? So let’s say, the Pornocracy, was that outside of the Church?

      1. Perfect example of how the papacy works Mark…..supernatural protection from TEACHING error to the faithful, even though they may be immoral scoundrels.

        JPII and BXVI are probably the best example of the opposite. Outwardly moral and decent “popes” who taught by word and deed modernist, false gospels. Far more dangerous than anything in the history of the Church. Therefore we can say, “an enemy hath done this”.

        Still waiting for anyone to answer when in the history of the Church has there been a Society in some half-baked “irregular canonical” status sifting what is or is not safe to follow from “The Church”? Look there and see that Sede Vacante is the hard truth. Both Bp. Williamson and Abp. Lefebvre hinted at it, but couldn’t get over the hump. Whether their reasons are genuine or nefarious, we leave up to God.

    2. Look, I’m banging my head up against this insistence. I’m sure you feel you’re banging your head against the brick wall that is my thick skull.

      In what manner is the Church perfect?

      Is the Church Triumphant perfect? Certainly.

      Is the Church Suffering perfect? Well, given that the Church Suffering is… suffering… precisely because it’s not perfect, it must therefore not be part of the Church! Great news, friend, we’ve successfully eliminated the doctrine of Purgatory! The Protestants will be so happy to hear this obstacle to ecumenical reunion has been removed!

      Is the Church Militant Perfect? Well, according to you, it is perfect, practically perfect in every respect. So therefore, that must mean the Church Militant is sinless – since sin is imperfection! Oh dear… that would seem to mean one of two things – either there are exactly two members of the Church, Our Lord and His Blessed Mother – or else that the elect are sinless. I’ve heard something like this before… hm… something about works amounting to nothing… a white blanket of grace covering up a pile of sin… Well, beats me, but I’m sure it will come to me eventually!

      But perhaps that’s not the perfection you mean. Perhaps you mean the Church – in all of her members – is perfect in doctrine; inerrant in every respect. Well, that means that I must not be a part of the Church – I failed to receive my mental download of the Summa Theologica upon my baptism. Wait a minute, that means that St. Thomas Aquinas must not have been a part of the Church! After all, he denies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception! Clearly, this MUST be the true meaning of “Perfect”!

      …Look, this is the clearest example of RAA I have seen practically since my days in Philosophy courses. If we are to accept that the Church is Perfect, we must conclude that means something about Her holistically, not necessarily that it is true of every member. We can say She offers a perfect sacrifice, we can say Her heavenly host is perfect, we can say she is perfect in Her doctrine and tradition – in the sense of being inerrant in what She has declared doctrinally – but we cannot say that Her doctrine is “perfect”, historically, in the sense of being both complete and completely defined, since the Church has found it necessary to define certain doctrines – like transubstantiation or the Assumption.

      What it all comes down to – to hold your definition of “perfect”, it seems to me we would have to deny the existence of mortal sin – since obviously no one who was perfect could cut himself off from the Body of Christ – nor could anyone who had cut himself off from the body of Christ ever have been “perfect”!

      1. Seems to me you do not believe in the supernatural protection of the Church urielangeli. The Catholic Church is called the Spotless Bride of Christ for a reason. She is spotless in Her doctrines, liturgies and disciplines…..not in Her members on earth. What exactly would be the purpose of a pope who could teach the faithful error? That IS the Protestant mindset.

        There is no room for a “canonically irregular” Society to sift what is safe or unsafe to believe coming from the true Church and Her popes. None. The existence of the SSPX is proof of the truth of SVism.

        1. What was the purpose of the definition of papal infallibility if the pope could never err? Seems kind of redundant to say the pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra when really he can’t err at all, no matter what he says or does.

          That the pope cannot become a formal heretic does not mean he cannot err. Not all error is heresy. John XXII was not a heretic.

          1. Cardinal Manning addresses this pretty thoroughly in his book “The True Story of the Vatican Council”. The Church had basically operated on the assumption of papal infallibility. The definition was in response to growing attacks on Catholic doctrine. It was for the rest of the world.

        2. Thank you for clarifying on “perfection”.

          I am not a VII or Paul VI expert. But it seems to me while there is a case to be made for your position, there is also a case to be made for a meaningful distinction between a “pope” theoretically teaching heresy (violating the Petrine Promise), a Pope teaching meaninglesness (openness to heresy, e.g. Honorious), and lastly a Pope issuing illegal/voided orders men are not bound to obey in any respect.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.