The Duty of the Adult to the Child

How does homosexuality – so obviously lethal to reproductive success – keep propagating? It’s really quite simple.

When I read Moira Greyland’s horrifying account of her repeated sexual molestation as a child at the hands of her homosexual parents, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Walter Breen, everything suddenly clicked into place. It’s not so much that there’s a gay gene (although there might be); or a gay virus (ditto); or a preconscious nisus among gays to spread their perversion through predation upon the young, “waking up the natural homosexual feelings that all people have,” so that they themselves can feel that they are somewhat more normal and unobjectionable (seems not unlikely); or that homosexuality is a search for the approval of an absent or distant or mad parent (a reasonable theory, prima facie). All these factors might be at work. But they are not needed to secure the propagation of homosexual behavior down through the generations.

It’s much simpler than that: children imitate what they see adults doing. They grow up thinking that those doings are more usual than they would if they had never been exposed to them. It doesn’t work this way only with homosexuality, of course. Spousal abuse, divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, gambling – all the vices are easier to take on board if you saw your parents or relatives doing them, or members of the parish, or teachers, or priests, et al. And the same thing goes for the virtues. Children watch adults and learn from them how adults normally behave – how it would be normal for them to behave when they grow up.

From how adults treat them, children especially learn how it is normal for adults to treat children.

The bounden duty then of any adult who might regularly be observed by young children – which is to say, any adult at all, except hermits and cloistered religious – is so to live as to demonstrate to the young in his ambit how adults ought properly to live. We ought to live properly – we ought, at a minimum, to try our best to look as though we do, anyway – because youngsters are looking at us as models for themselves. How much heavier, then, is this duty laid upon famous, celebrated or prominent adults, who may be seen and imitated by thousands or even millions of youngsters? The public vice of a single movie star or athlete could ruin thousands of young lives (I do not of course deny that the moral and vital collapse of an authoritative adult under the weight of vice can serve as an object lesson to the young – but such collapses are usually hushed up, to keep the money flowing).

When my children were little, I would often end my corrections of their manners or diction or grammar with the ukase, “Fall of the West, my dear, Fall of the West.” Not that I was bloody minded about it – indeed I made rather a joke of it: how could a little child’s table manners affect the course of empires? Nevertheless I explained to them that it is in the very little things that civilization is maintained, or not. I told them the story of Richard III’s horseshoe nail. I emphasized that everything depended upon how well they learnt their lessons, and on how consistently they observed the proprieties, and on how well and beautifully they did things – even things that no one would ever see – because of little hidden humble things are our lives made, and by them great deeds enabled and stitched together, great battles of great kingdoms. I explained that it is in the end such little things that the great battles are ultimately for, and about. We fight and die so that a little girl and her stuffed animals may have their tea party in peace and quiet, and so that a troop of boys may ramble through the woods unmolested.

How not much more, then, likewise, for adults, from whom the children learn their lessons?

Nor does it end there. As we are bound to demonstrate to the young how one ought to live, so are we bound to protect the little girls at tea and the boys in their woods from those who would show them otherwise. It is our duty to shun improper adults, to shield children from the sight or sound of them, and to teach our young that their natural disgust at perversion is good, and right, and to be heeded.

None of this is much fun. It is a lot of work to mind your peas and queues all the time, without surcease; but, if you don’t, then no peas and no queues, nor woods nor teas, but rather only weeds and mobs.

114 thoughts on “The Duty of the Adult to the Child

  1. Pingback: The Duty of the Adult to the Child | Neoreactive

  2. Kristor… Where does the demonstration of fighting factor in this lesson? I think an obviously grave mistake is not teaching our sons to fight for their lives. In fact, I “see” many white fathers teaching their sons how to sacrifice their lives for others all under the auspices of service to a particularly vaunted institution nonetheless seemingly bound to annihilation due the sheer burden and demotivation caused by those who simply siphon from said institution.

    • Teaching your kids – not just your sons, I think – to fight is important. There are all sorts of things it would be good and important to teach them. But this post was more about how to behave, and in particular how to behave toward children – not just your own wards, but all of them. Nor furthermore is there room in a blog post to go into any greater detail about how to behave toward and in the presence of kids than to say, in effect, “don’t do wicked stuff.”

      • Kristor, excellent post. My father died when I was 13, and the first ephebophile priest hit on me when I was 15. I have usually taken Tyler Durden’s advice on dealing with such improprieties in my earlier life — The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club. However, I know I haven’t been abandoned by Heaven, but so many of the men I’ve known in my life don’t know this.

      • Nilakantha…

        The first rule of fight club was and apparently still is a very subversively effective meme. Tyler Durden was, in fact, the “homosexual” self to the Ed Norton white collar beta-nerd. There is a real desire amongst this high IQ nerd archetype for a de facto homo lifestyle… No wife, no children… Just pleasures and possessions and maximized autonomy ESPECIALLY in the sexual realm. But there is also clearly a real desire for pain amongst those perpetually desperate for pleasure. In fact, the reality is that an overdose of pleasure is excruciatingly painful and many times fatal. The Fight Club is all about HIDING this enteral battle from the outside world and seeking to perpetuate this self-annihilating ethos. Ed Norton was to become MORE LIKE his homosexual self. He was to embrace the pain of a hedonistic lifestyle in order to really enjoy it. The “fight club” is really only in the white man’s individual mind AND SO do not talk about it. Do not tell the world that “we” white males are locked in an existential crisis with clear solution.

        No my friend, we need to talk about white Christians and white Supremacists fighting for their faith in public realm. And not just fighting the enemy without, but fighting the enemy within.

  3. Pingback: The Duty of the Adult to the Child | Reaction Times

  4. 1) I was shocked and disgusted by the revelation as well. It’s a reminder that female ‘homosexuals’ who often go under the radar can be just as viciously destructive as their male counterparts.

    2) If indeed what you say is accurate, that a localized normalization of this pernicious behavior is what propagates it among young people, then my God what can we expect from the next three generations where this behavior is elevated in the public sphere ABOVE normal sexual relations, when such people are exalted, when such people are beyond criticism, when such people have a far higher average earning potential, when such people are in the schools and the government and on every television screen! We would expect an explosion of this behavior, and what then? It’s clear that it is a diseased and maladaptive trait. The culture that has ‘gay marriage’ will in time be completely eradicated by the culture which throws them from rooftops. The more we learn, the more likely it seems that Fjordman and his ilk were right about Islam and the west. It is set to take over and dismantle this dying culture, the remnants of Christianity forced to flee east to Russia and China.

    3) I like what you said about the smallest things contributing to the death of a culture. It is so true and often goes unheeded. Our primary duty to children is to give them our most valuable possession, our legacy. What do we hand them? Treasure or trash? In a sense, parents in this age have the greatest duty of all, because our ancestral garments are completely eaten away by Modernity. Can we shield them and ensure that our children do the same after we have passed from this world? Does our legacy die with us? Does it die with them? Or does it live on? Keep your children away from harmful influences, and if you can’t physically segregate them, then ensure that you bring them up with an intractable HATRED of the enemy. Muslims do this to great success as it pertains to propagating their tradition. Christians are floundering.

  5. I knew nothing until this post about Bradley’s character, but when I tried to read her as a teenager, I reacted to her stories with a sense of creepy revulsion. I collected and enjoyed Andre Norton, but I discarded the two “Darkover” novels that I bought and never patronized Bradley again.

  6. Kristor’s fourth paragraph reminded me of a passage in the Sixth Book (“The Russian Monk”) of The Brothers Karamazov.

    The Monk teaches:

    “Keep company with yourself and look to yourself every day and hour, every minute, that your image be ever gracious. See, here you have passed by a small child, passed by in anger, with a foul word, with a wrathful soul; you perhaps did not notice the child, but he saw you, and your unsightly and impious image has remained in his defenseless heart. You did not know it, but you may thereby have planted a bad seed in him, and it may grow, and all because you did not restrain yourself before the child, because you did not nurture in yourself a heedful, active love.”

  7. I met Walter Breen once back in 1963 at the Northern California Numismatic Association convention held at the Jack Tar Hotel in San Francisco. My father and I had a small coin business and had rented a bourse table at the show. Breen was THE go-to guy for authentication of rare coins. How he came to our table I don’t know – probably just walking the floor at the show though I had never seen him at any other shows and never saw him at subsequent shows. Probably he gave lectures or led seminars that I never attended.

    He was a fairly young man which surprised me a bit as had expected a middle-aged scholarly type. He sported a large afro hair style (hair was rather frizzy for a white man) that was filled (that is the correct word) with very large flakes of dandruff. He also had a thick, unkempt beard and B.O. He wore dirty jeans and a nondescript long-sleeved shirt. He was accompanied by a very short individual covered with a large, brown overcoat that stretched to only a couple of inches above the floor and wearing some kind of brown knit cap that completely enclosed his/her hair exposing only the portion of the face from mid forehead to chin but covering the ears and most of the cheeks. This person also wore glasses. I could not tell you the sex of this person and he/she never spoke or did anything but stare rather intently at me. Breen also had his attention locked on me for just about the entire time he was at the table (about 5 minutes). I didn’t know he was homosexual and had a yen for boys but at the time I was 15 years old and, if I do say so myself, a pretty good looking kid which may explain why he chose to stop at the table. I don’t recall any of the brief chat that occurred.

    For some reason this brief encounter has stayed with me over the years. I do recall reading about his sex offenses and noted his death at the time it occurred. I have looked up Bradley on the net and from her photo it is possible she was the silent companion but I guess there is no way to know for sure.

    • This is another critical social experience missing from the general nerd archetype. Just as “race-realism” is the signal that nerds are late to party in racial matters, they are also rather inexperienced in the matter of homosexual targeting. Most were just not “strapping young lads” worthy of the perverse attention of the adult homosexual and thus their lingering tolerance even now that Liberalism has revealed itself as the homo-sexual “nature,” ie., the self-annihilating “nature.”

  8. “None of this is much fun. It’s a lot of work …”

    It’s not supposed to be fun, I think. Something my father used to say to me a lot when I was growing up: “anything worth having is worth working for.” And my own experience is that hard work and dedication pays big dividends at the end of the day. A wise son maketh a glad father!

    Adversity and struggle builds character and strength of will, I think. And any parent who is doing his job and raising his children right in this culture in this generation knows exceedingly well what he’s up against, not only in terms of the difficulty of shielding them from forming relationships with improper adults (and their children, I might add), but also of the suspicion and ire he will draw to himself from those quarters in so doing.

    Raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord these days is probably one of the most difficult ventures a parent can set out to accomplish. But here again, it’s duty. If it’s coming easy for you, you’re probably doing it wrong.

    • And yet Terry Morris, how much harder do “we” make it on ourselves when “we” won’t call a faggot a faggot, a nigger a nigger, an anti-Supremacist Jew an anti-white Supremacist Jew, a murderously self-annihilating jihadist a murderously self-annihilating jihadist, a man-hating, child-hating dyke a man-hating, child-hating dyke? And how perverse is it when instead “we” call these self-annihilators “gay man,” or “black man,” or “white man,” or “moderate Muslim,” or “lesbian woman?”

      • Well, Thordaddy, in my vocabulary the terms “dyke,” and “lesbian” are basically synonymous. I don’t really see the point in “man-hating, child-hating dyke.” Is there any other kind?

        In my view there is no such thing as an honest-to-goodness “moderate Muslim.” Thus, I never use the term. A so called moderate Muslim is a jihadist in waiting.

        I don’t have a problem with the term “faggot.” Why should I? It is a term meant to disparage homosexual degeneracy; homosexual degeneracy *should* be disparaged. So … a fag’s a fag, a dyke a dyke, a whore a whore, a slut a slut, a feak a freak and so forth.

        One thing, though: why should I refer to all blacks as niggers? What purpose would it serve?

      • Terry Morris…

        I know I said to call a nigger a nigger and not a black man AS THOUGH niggers did not exist.

        Lesbian and dyke are certainly not perceived the same. One masks the fundamental hatred for white humanity and the other unmasks it.

        But my point was that “we” make it harder on ourselves to separate our children from nefarious adults because “we” are so hard-pressed to call a spade a spade in this age of coercive equality. The sheer cognitive dissonance inherent to the coercive effect of forced equality resulting in the declaration of the spade being the anti-spade. The nefarious adult is now exactly who our children should tutelage under. It’s a madness that we both agree upon.

      • We make it a lot harder on ourselves by so speaking, and to no good purpose. There’s just no point to causing offense needlessly by crass speech, or by terms that are popularly considered insulting or boorish. It’s counterproductive, because it causes those who hear it used to write off them that use it as boors. It is ugly, ignoble, low, and undignified. Worse, it bewrays wrathful subjection of the passions to the insults of one’s cultural adversaries. It signifies a loss of self-control. Who talks this way is the conversational analogue of the swordsman who, having lost his head in the panic and frustration of an encounter with a superior adversary, foams and rages, thrashing bootlessly at the air.

        Let our adversaries behave – as they so often do – in that crude, intemperate, unattractive way.

        One of the most important of the little things we are obliged to pass on to children is the habit of modest, polite diction. It is crucial to rhetorical success. Precision, forthrightness, authenticity and clarity too are crucial, to be sure. But they do not contradict politesse. On the contrary, politesse enables them: civility is the forecondition of civilized discourse. The boor is rightly repudiated as such, regardless of his ideas. He cheats his ideas of a fair hearing when for his comportment he is ejected from polite company, as if he were mad. Who wants to dine with a man, however correct he be in his notions, who pisses in the corner rather than excusing himself to the lavatory?

        We want to be the rhetorical counterpart of the superbly masterful fencer who, with a wonderful economy of motion and effortless grace slips his blade precisely and softly deep between his opponent’s ribs, so quickly and delicately that no one is quite sure a wound has even been delivered, let alone quite how.

        In short, we want, and want our sons to want, to be men winsome and gentle, indeed noble.

      • Kristor…

        I said call a “spade a spade” which is exactly the type of adult behavior that our children need to “see.” I said nothing about being abusively gratuitous or bearing false witness. In fact, “our” side is very much into bearing false witness by way of “polite” euphemism. So “our” side calls a predatory fag a “gay man” or calls a rampaging nigger a “black youth” or calls a Jewish anti-Supremacist a “white man.” These are all LIES AND A SIGN OF REAL MORAL WEAKNESS and not some evidence of cultured thinking. In fact, there is a relentless effort to scrub “nigger” from our own vocabulary AS THOUGH such label didn’t represent a real entity who’s enmity for whites is its defining characteristic. So “our” side is LITERALLY on board in making invisible a “thing” that seethes with murderous hatred for the white man. “Our” side is facilitating in the radical autonomy of a violent, unpredictable and unapologetic killer of white people. It’s perverse in the extreme.

      • When we refer to niggers as “blacks” or “African-Americans”–when we speak euphemistically about faggots and call them “gays” or “homosexuals”–when we describe our culture as “Judeo-Christian” rather than Christian–then we have already lost, and our wicked and perverse enemies triumph over us.

        We can raise our sons to be “winsome”–perhaps we can even make them wear bow ties–but they will never be “noble” so long as their enemies triumph over them. To be noble is precisely not to be servile. To be victorious is precisely not to be defeated. If our sons are ever to be noble in anything other than a figurative, unrealized, and wishful sense, they will have to be the ones who christen their enemies.

        If we truly loved and cared for our sons, we would not be teaching them to honor the deceptive, euphemistic terminology of our foes–out of a timidity masquerading as urbanity–but rather fighting to deliver unto our sons a country where our enemies were their servants.

        So long as we insist on implying that our friends and allies are “boors” who ought to be “ejected from [the] polite company” of our niggerized, faggotized, Judaized compatriots–so long as we would rather “dine with a man” whose ideas seek our and our sons’ destruction, as long as he dare not pisseth against the wall–so long as we are afraid to derogate our enemies with “hate speech”–we are a defeated people, and no pretense of gentility will even come close to saving us.

      • Whose vocabulary is so impoverished as to render him unable to avoid servility and falsehood other than by antagonizing all the interlocutors he hopes to convert, thus ruining any chance that they might open their ears to his substantive arguments, is doomed to rhetorical failure, ergo political defeat. He is a loose cannon, less than useless to his colleagues, and indeed potentially fatal; especially those who sign their real names to their writings.

      • Amen to that, Mr. McKenzie. “We” can certainly command our language with absolute precision and violate no mutually understood linguistic etiquette.

      • Kristor…

        I’m sorry, but you have made no substantive rebuttal to the issue at hand. The BEHAVIOR of the “conservatives” (read: traditional and intellectual Christians) IS TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS. But in fact, it’s even worse than just bearing false witness. It’s calling the anti-spade a spade. AND ALLOWING the spade to be thought of as the anti-spade. Your deflection into a realm that assumes gratitous linguistics abuse where all blacks are “niggers” or all homosexuals are called “faggots” MERELY REFLECTS a submission to the sort of psychological subversiveness that has had “us” paralyzed and simply afraid to use these VERY REAL WORDS TO DESCRIBE VERY REAL INDIVIDUALS in our very real world.

      • It is simply false that I have offered no substantive arguments.

        It is simply false that the only way to be honest and truthful is to use exactly the terms Thordaddy likes in just the way that Thordaddy likes.

        You are not going to get very far with private meanings for common terms. If you want to make yourself properly understood, it behooves you to use common terms as they are commonly used. If you need a special term, e.g., for black racists, it simply makes more sense to call them by some other, specific term – even a term you yourself invent for the purpose, that serves it well, and is not easily misinterpreted – than to use an old term commonly used to refer to blacks as such. The latter tactic will only confuse your readers, thus frustrating you in your rhetorical objectives.

        A palmary example is your use of “White supremacy.” You mean by it something subtly but importantly different than what everyone else means by it. This sort of thing cripples your writing.

      • Kristor…

        You’re making no sense. “Fag” and “nigger” are absolutely commonly understood words that the enemies of Christianity are SEEKING specifically to abolish from our communications FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of allowing these repulsive entities to operate invisibly and without accountability to the extreme detriment of normal folk. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that not employing these words when necessary (as dignified fighting behavior) has made our society one ounce more civilized. The issue at hand was calling a spade a spade. Furthermore, the issue of gratuitous slander has never applied to myself or my writing and to imply that I am endorsing this type of gratuitous language is simply false.

        Lastly, I do not create Truth. NO ONE as of yet has denied the following equation:

        White Christian = white Supremacist…

        Because to deny the equation is to declare yourself a liberal. That I was the first to catch on to this and make it known does not then mean I created “private meanings” for the phrase. IT ONLY MEANS that you REFUSE to understand the phrase in absolute terms.

        And so, when I say that “conservatives” are too scared to call the Jew qua Jew the archetype anti-Supremacist (and not “kike” as in a.morphous’ disingenuous fantasy) then this is Truth in both absolute and relativistic terms. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be able to make a connection. It doesn’t make any sense. You just are not granted the benefit of ignorance and neither is a mass of ignoramuses granted any benefit to dictate the language falsely.

      • Thordaddy, you have completely misunderstood what I wrote. That I suppose is why you think I am ignorant or not making sense. Go back and read more carefully.

        If I have not yet affirmed (or denied) the equation you draw between being a white Christian and being a White Supremacist, it is because while you have repeated this formula many, many times, you still have not clarified what exactly you mean by “White Supremacist.” Evidently you mean something quite different than what people ordinarily mean by the term, but I’m still not sure what it is that you do mean. I do not by any means refuse to see what you mean. On the contrary, I’m interested. You just have not yet clearly explained what you mean, at all.

        Once you have clarified your terms, it would also be good to know where in Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, or the Fathers you find support for your equation. You’ve stated a conclusion: what are the dogmatic premises?

      • “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that not employing these words when necessary has made our society one ounce more civilized.”

        Ah, here we have the crux of the issue. I’m sure Kristor understands that there is a correlation (how strong or how weak a correlation is up for debate) between the elimination of such terms from our vocabulary and our failure to maintain a functional civilization not bent on its own destruction.

        To Kristor’s way of thinking, the correlation is weak to the point that its impact is negligible at best, and therefore it is simply counterproductive to employ such terms in polite discourse; to your way of thinking, Thordaddy, quite the opposite is the case.

        I suppose I come down on all this somewhere in the middle. That is to say, I see the correlation as more than merely negligible and unimportant, yet less than fundamental. I doubt it gains any of us any points with the enemy to play nice and refer to homosexual degeneracy, for example, as “deviant sexual behavior,” but at the same time we don’t want to drive away potential converts via the use of language they find highly offensive and off-putting. Isn’t it just as accurate, and at the same time less offensive in common discourse, to refer to feral blacks and black savagery as such, rather than resort to using the term “nigger?”

      • … we don’t want to drive away potential converts via the use of language they find highly offensive and off-putting.

        Exactly. Accuracy and honesty do not require the use of fighting words. I don’t consider the latter-day taboo against ethnic epithets insignificant. I think this taboo does signify. It signifies a failure of confidence in and love for one’s own people over and above all others. Such epithets are common in healthy traditional cultures, which usually refer to themselves as “the human beings” and to all other peoples using terms that indicate some more or less contemptible, more or less risible defect of complete humanity: e.g., “the wogs begin at Calais.” That such terms indicate defective humanity is the reason they are fighting words, employed just prior to battle.

        But I don’t ascribe to the taboo against ethnic epithets any considerable causal power. I view it, i.e., as a symptom only, and a minor symptom at that, rather than itself the disease. I think that Thordaddy is wrong in suggesting that banishing such terms from polite discourse has somehow prevented people from understanding what is going on. On the contrary, as I have elsewhere written, no one who is not a compleat idiot is ever fooled by a euphemism into thinking that something other than what the euphemism indicates has in fact been indicated by the euphemism. No one, e.g., imagines that “feces” means anything other than shit. If these days you deploy the word “youths” in certain contexts, everyone knows likewise exactly what you mean.

        And the neat thing about this is, that such ironic usages of such terms has a double effect most advantageous: those who use them avoid being targeted as scapegoats, and their use increases cognitive dissonance in the minds of our modernist interlocutors (many of whom these days are separated from a conversion to reality, and to traditionalism, by diaphanous and direly attenuated intellectual veils, that might blow to rags at the very next increase in cognitive dissonance). The euphemisms allow us to notice the reality without violating the taboo against explicitly noticing the reality.

      • Mr. Morris…

        I suggest that the situation even more dire as there is a real concerted effort to simultaneously scrub these words from “our” communications and have these words “owned” by the degenerates themselves. Think about what this really means when “good” conservatives acquiesce to this psychological scam? There is a deliberate effort to render these degenerates INVISIBLE so as to unimpede their degeneracy while at the very same time a parallel effort to convince these degenerates to take pride in their degeneracy. So now, “we” have invisible niggers and faggots, PROUD of their niggerism and faggotry, ABLE TO OPERATE with impunity with unremarked gratitude for their supposed “conservative” enemy. So “we” are up to three levels of wrong! The “good conservative” doesn’t even demand a “thank you” for providing such distasteful cover for out and out proud degenerates.

      • And this really does cut very close to the “cuckservative” smear launched by the odious alt-rite. Of course, their critique of a self-annihilating “conservative” is spot on. YET, they still operate as anti-white Supremacists. So in reality, theirs is a truthful critique motivated by pure pettiness and triviality. After all, one should NOT need a conservative or a Christian to tell one to fight for one’s life when the predator is upon thee.

      • Thordaddy, yes, that fact (the simultaneous removal of these terms from our vocabulary, and the declaration of ownership to them by our mortal enemies) has occurred to me, believe it or not, several times since this disussion first kicked off. However, I haven’t addressed it *because* I’m not quite sure how to address it. I’m not sure how to address it because I’m not satisfied I quite understand the dynamics of it. But I’m listening. …

      • Mr. Morris…

        I would say at this stage that there is no such thing as the moderate liberal. This 1-2 punch should be seen as nothing more than the smiley faces releasing the hounds to violently attack with impunity whether it be their own or their enemy, ie., us.

      • Agreed – no such animal as a “moderate liberal.” Closest thing to her is what we now refer to as a “conservative.”

      • Kristor…

        A white Supremacist is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy, ie., strives towards Perfection. And as a matter of theosis this striving is initially oriented towards The Perfect Man — defined empirically as He who wills all right — and runs right through to the Perfect Creator God (in contrast to a radically autonomous god who will do anything).

        What is taboo and what is the only taboo is the white man with a will to do all right, ie., be perfect. Such a white man, if he so exists in actuality or mere conception, is a white Supremacist. And of course, because the white Supremacist believes in the Christian Assertion… The white Supremacist believes that The Perfect Man walked earth and worships said Perfectiom then the white Supremacist is the white Christian.

        And so the meta-game as “we” reach Final Liberation (total annihilation) is for the smartest and most traditional white Christians to deny they are white Supremacists and thus EXPLICITLY deny being Christians. This ^^^ is what “victory” looks like for the “intellectual” left… A bloodless concession.

      • There are a lot of complete idiots out there who are otherwise good, decent, wholesome people, Kristor, just take my word on this. I have personally explained to such people some of things homosexual degenerates do, and that they had been completely oblivious to these disturbing facts is written all over their faces as I’m describing it. It is unbelievable to them. “Can that be true?!”; “Are you sure about that?!” is the kind of questions they almost invariably ask.
        Forget about racial epithets for a moment, you and I pretty well agree in what you’re saying there. But I don’t think your rule, as it applies to homosexual degenerates, is nearly so universally applicable as you seem to make it out to be. You guys lost in San Francisco and the coastal areas decades ago; whereas we haven’t lost yet here in flyover country, and we’re not about to just lay down and hand over our children to these perverts without putting up a fight so long as we still have fight left in us.

  9. Kristor: “There’s just no point to causing offense needlessly by crass speech”

    Others: “nigger nigger faggot dyke kike nigger”

    Do I detect some cracks in your coalition?

    Kristor, you strike me as well-intentioned at least; you might want to reconsider allying yourself with people who are twisted with hatred to the point of near-psychosis.

    • Hey a.morpohous, what neighborhood do you live in? Where do you work, where did you go to college, did your kids go to private school, and which shopping malls do you favor?

      I’d like to look it all up on

      I like to see which neighborhoods, schools, and shopping malls people drive past on their way to the ones they favor. Especially people who don’t like “mean words” us working class proles throw around in our diverse, working class bars, job sites, locker rooms, etc.

      • “Hey a.morphous, … where did you go to college? ”

        Uh, that’s a little place called F-U.

        Sorry, that line (Walter Matthau, Out To Sea) always cracks me up.

        Seriously though, Earl, you raise important and relevant points.

      • He’s from San Fran. Answers ALL my questions. I know SF very well. Whitopia. It’s the place white, Asian, and Jewish liberals go so that they don’t have to drive around certain neighborhoods anymore, on their way to work or the mall. It’s where the “good schools” are always right there in the district they happen to live in. Every once in a while though, they have to venture into Oakland. Maybe to figure out some way to remove a tenant from amorphous’ property and get around the communist rental housing laws established there. Oakland is what amorphous wants for America, San Fran is what he wants for him.

    • >>allying yourself with people who are twisted with hatred to the point of near-psychosis.

      Would love to see this list of twisted allies who are filled with so much hatred that they are near psychosis.

      Just five sites or people.

    • a.morphous…

      This line of attack just doesn’t fly anymore because the general consensus is descent, degradation and self-annihilation. In other words, NO ONE AGREES that America is getting better ESPECIALLY your kind. So what “we” observe here with your projected exaggeration is the mechanism by which YOU FACILITATE the degenerate in maximizing his autonomy. “YOU” are the mob of blob that allows the degenerate to operate invisibly and thus unimpeded and then provides the appropriate psychological pressure to hush up any individual that spots the rabid degenerate and calls it out by name!!!

      Now, I will ask you a few simple questions to which you will be forced to answer or your omission will have just as equally spoken.

      Do niggers exist? If so, should “we” call them niggers?

      Do faggots exist? If so, should “we” call them faggots?

      Do Jewish anti-Supremacists exist? If so, should “we” call them Jewish anti-Supremacists?

      Do dykes exist? If so, should “we” call them dykes?

      • Better still, a.morphous, what do you see in these images?:

        You consider this sort of behavior in any way “normal,” or to be treated with indifference in any case; you think the society that promotes and endorses this kind of behavior, or otherwise turns a blind eye to it, is “sane” and not hell-bent on its own destruction?! You’re out of your mind!

      • Doesn’t bother me in the slightest, I’m from San Francisco where this stuff is routine, and frankly kind of boring unless you are into it (are you? Apparently you feel the need to introduce it into a discussion where it is of marginal relevance).

        There’s plenty of real evil in the world; kinky sex is pretty harmless.

        I think for both you and to some extent for the participants in these orgiastic rituals, sexuality somehow is supposed to reflect the order of the cosmos. Different ideas about what kind of order is desirable to be sure, but still that presumptuous notion that the universe cares a great deal about what humans do with their genitals.

        For better or worse, that’s not the case. Sex is very important to other humans, both in getting it and (as evidenced here) policing the sexual activity of others, but god couldn’t care less.

      • It’s not of marginal relevance; terms which call it out by name were introduced into the discussion, and I and others responded to them. You felt the need to interject, and typical wise-ass liberal you are, you can’t even offer up a genuine compliment without patronizing its recipient. But that’s beside the point.

        I know where you’re from, you’ve mentioned it before. It explains a lot in your particular case, namely that by all appearances your mind is reprobate. But I didn’t ask whether it bothered you or not, I asked what you *see* in those images. Try to pay attention next time, to borrow one of your wise-ass refrains, and stop evading the question or stay out of the damn duscussion.

      • So let me ask, since you brought it up, is it for better or for worse that the universe, according to you, doesn’t care a great deal about what people do with their genitals? And how do you know?

      • a.morphous…

        Clearly, you faced the Gordian Knot and chose to answer by omission. It’s an odd predicament to know that one could not answer the above questions either as a “yes” or as a “no,” BUT still be absolutely certain of his position. So one cannot affirm the existence of the aforementioned degenerates and one cannot deny the existence of said degenerates either., But this IN NO WAY suggests that you are actually uncertain of the existence of the degenerates. You know the liberated degenerate exists (you root him on to own the “slanderous” label) and you know that the way to maximize its degeneracy is to play this simultaneousl-enacted psychological game of “do not speak thy name” and “let them hear your roar.”

        So it’s very simple… If you roar then you get called a ravenous lion. And if you keep it in the closet then you are imvisible and truly free to maximize your degeneracy.

      • Deleted as a violation of the Orthosphere comments policy.

        Svar, watch it if you don’t want to be banned from the site.

    • A.morphous, doctors don’t hate tumors, they just remove them. Same goes for you and your type, you will be cut out of our ranks when the day comes. Right now you are to be tolerated until the day we no longer have to. But you always knew that.

      You also knew that this site has always been no fan of faggots and dykes (interesting how you don’t have a leg to stand on so you do the typical fallback, complain about hate. Pathetic. You really thought that would work here?) but has some minor understanding towards blacks and elements of philosemitism.

  10. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/08/09) | The Reactivity Place

  11. I have always maintained that sodomy was the least disgusting thing that homosexuals did. Only A.morphous would write off the full gamut of homosexual behaviors as just “kinky sex”.

    A.morphous: “Oh mah Gawd, butthex and AIDS is just thoooo kink-kay.”

  12. Also here’s the life story of Dawn Stefanowicz whose dirty perv of a father exposed her to disgusting things, diseases, used her as a sort of bait to attract gay men (apparently fags still appreciate pretty women) and apparently attempt to prey upon straight men, as well as sexual ly assaulting her as an infant (so kinky omg!!) before finally dying from AIDS at 51.

    There is no room for compassion and mercy for these obvious perverts. These so-called “people” are life unworthy of life.
    I, at one point, used to believe that homosexuals were like people with Down’s or other psychological or physical diseases; a group of people to be pitied for the pain afforded them due to their unnatural passions (which I naively thought meant only man-on-man sodomy).

    Now we know that they are the worst of the worst, the absolute scum of the earth. Their love is a lie, they don’t love anything except for their own self-destruction. And they will bring down everyone involved with them.

      • It is not mere coincidence that the men of Sodom rejected Lot’s offer of his two virgin daughters and demanded instead that they should have the angelic beings he had taken in as his guests. …

      • Svar, you’re a grown man and quite capable of making these decisions for yourself; as am I. I can respect a Christianity that teaches:

        “Woman is the root of all evil.” – St Jerome (c. 320-420)

        “Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.” – St Jerome (c. 320-420)

        “And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married.” – St Jerome (c. 320-420)

        “We Christians marry only to produce children.” – Justin Martyr (c. 100–165)

        “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your dessert even the Son of God had to die.” – Tertullian (150-230)

        “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman. I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” – St Augustine (c. 430)

        But I can’t respect a Christianity that teaches that the way to Heaven is the Broad Way:

        Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
        — Matthew 7:13-14

      • Nilakantha, have you ever even met a woman? What are you, an MRA?

        Tell me why the Church allows sterile people to marry and then considers those marriages to be completely valid marriages?

        If women are so evil, including mothers, then why do we and Christ make such a big deal about His Mother, Holy Mary?

        This is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Matrimony:

        Also, I noticed you dodged my question on your faith. The fact that the Church has spent all of this time pandering to non-Christians is the biggest part of why the Church has gone downhill.

        But I have made my decision. It’s not whatever decision you want me to make, that’s for sure.

      • Svar, I’m a Buddhist and not a Hindu. I am merely interested in the pragmatic areas of moral agreement to see how I may work honestly and fruitfully with men of various philosophical and religious commitments against the barbarism engulfing our world. I quoted a group of your saints, not mine, to see if their teachings still had currency; I guess they don’t. Still, I have and can continue to work with Pro-Life Christians and Anti-Pornography Christians because we both believe that these practices must stop, though we would explain our opposition differently.

        “It’s not whatever decision you want me to make, that’s for sure.” If you’ve made your decisions as a faithful Catholic in accord with the teaching of the Magisterium, I wouldn’t want you to make any other decision. But I also will make my decisions in accord with the revealed teaching of Buddha, and when it comes to the attitude I take to the body, this is basically it:

        “Grown in the fields of karma and born from the water of suffering, we call it the transitory body.
        This body is moist from tears, sweat, and mucus, and filled with urine and blood.
        It is full of all kinds of filth, fat, pus, and brains;
        It constantly leaks excrement and it stinks.

        “It is made of bones, teeth, and hair, and is covered by a hairy skin;
        Packed with intestines, liver, spleen, lymph, and saliva, it is weak.
        It is like a machine held together by bones and sinew and adorned with flesh;
        It is filled with diseases, subject to pain, and always afflicted by hunger and thirst.

        “The body of beings has many cavities and transforms into old age and death.
        Seeing the body, what wise person would not think of it as an enemy?”

      • Yeah, sorry Nilakantha, but I have no interest in the quasi-gnostic and nihilistic Buddhist faith (beyond a historical and anthropological interest) do I have any interest in your opinion on marital love.

        However that doesn’t mean that I would never be friends or allies with a Buddhist including you. It’s just your worldview is so alien even from an old pagan or secular rightist viewpoint.

    • (apparently fags still appreciate pretty women)

      What they “appreciate” and want to pollute with their filth is innocence and purity. So, yes, they appreciate attractive young women in the sense that they desire to pollute their innocence by having anal and other unspeakable forms of inordinate sex with them.

      • Mr. Morris, I have heard that so-called gay males occasionally have sex with women, in fact, many women get AIDS via this (there has not been a single case of a straight man getting AIDS from a woman).

        Another problematic is the newfound porn induced love for sodomy (man on women) by straight men. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that my friends show surprise when I mention that for me anal sex with a woman is off the table.

        It’s obvious that the greatest breakthrough of the Sexual Revolution was to get heterosexuals to act like homosexuals.

      • I have told the story many times of when I was in the AF back in the early 90s: a conversation broke out between some of us Airmen in which we were divided concerning homosexuality. At some point we began to discuss homosexuality in terms of what it *really* is. One of my married “Christian” compatriots objected to my rejection of sodomy as such on the basis that “it feels so good.” “it” being anal sex with his wife.

        What you’re describing is not a new phenomenon. It *has to be* put down, because it pollutes the whole of civilization.

      • Well I mean sodomy with women became common in the American working and middle class with the (Jewish-caused) ’60’s Sexual Revolution. Before then it was only prominent in decadent French elites.

        Lots of these things are infiltrating mainstream society via porn. Apparently beating the shit out of women during sex is a fairly new trend. Lots of straight men are sexual deviants (not as bad as homosexuals, but similar in certain ways).

        The worst part is that way too many women are on board with being sodomized and smacked around (A.morphous: thoo kinky!). Fortunately there are a good number of women who find that disturbing/degrading.

      • Or choking them and other sorts of demonic activities during sex. Yes, I know. The bottom line, I guess, is that deviant, perverted minds can never be satisfied; there is always the “next level” of degeneracy over the horizon.

      • By the way, this stuff is only “new” in the sense that it has become, and is becoming, more mainstream. That is what we’re both essentially saying, I guess.

      • This is why it is best to equate Liberalism to the homosexual “nature,” ie., the self-annihilating “nature.” If Patriarchy is inherent in the nature of things then homosexuals are the arch enemy of Patriarchs. Western “white” males have embraced homo-sexuality where homo=same=EXACT SAME=self… “We” are beyond degrading sexual acts done with females giving impressions of heterosexuality, but in fact, representing homo-sexuality and now in the territory of dismissing sexual relations with females altogether given other less oppressive variants of homo-sexuality. But the European and American white male ARE REALLY THE LAST in the modern era to reject any sort of sexual morality. Liberalism as homo-sexuality not only rids “us” of the false pretense of spiritual or intellectual origin for Liberalism, but reframed, the notion that America and Europe export homo-sexuality abroad is absurd. The radical sexual autonomy that one finds in Asia, Africa and South America simply has nothing to do with American and European infiltration. In fact, it is more truthful to say actual Americans and Europeans went to these places to condemn radical sexual autonomy, ie., homo-sexuality, and instead imposed a Christian sexual morality that unfortunately only resulted in the “and multiply” aspect of the message.

      • Sodomy just is sodomy, yes. (My reply, thordaddy, is meant to elicit a response because your formulations are confusing to me, and I should like to understand them better.)

      • Oh yes, I neglected to mention choking. This has gotten so common, this sort of extreme dominance. On the other hand, some men (usually Low-T liberals) prefer to be super submissive (I’m implying something that I really don’t want to say here).

        When sex is about union, these things aren’t needed. But when your goal is trying to get more intense orgasms and dopamine rushes, than it’s fair game. That is what happens when you try to divorce sex from love.

      • TD, homosexuality is common in dying societies. I’m not sure what the sexual habits of pre-Columbian Amerindians were but Africans definitely are prone to promiscuity and low investment in mates and children. The problem with Asia (from the pre-Christian Levant to Japan) is the transactional nature of relationships. The Roman and Greek pagans had a similar mindset but fortunately due to Christian influence, marriage based in love is the norm in Europe and other Christianized societies.

      • Marriage for love is a new phenomenon even in the West and a profoundly unhealthy one. Henry II didn’t marry Eleanor out of romantic love, but out of rational considerations of property and progeny. Insofar as a man has sworn fidelity to his spiritual Lord, the only relevant consideration when choosing a spouse, or anything else, in the pleasure of his Lord.

      • Nilakantha, from your name I assume that you are Hindu, right?

        Look, it’s going to be hard to convince me that arranged marriages and transactional relationships are a good thing. It almost seems like a spergy libertarian view of the world. The smallest unit of society is not the individual but the relationship between two people (romantic, familial, or philial) and a family is a micro society. The love of a marital union extends outwards into society. If Christain marriage and sex was just about procreation than how come Christians are not allowed to take on second wives if the first is barren like many pagan cultures (who valued procreation far more) allow? Why is it not a sin to have sex with a spouse if either or both of you are infertile?

      • Mr. Morris…

        There is the act and then there is the ad hoc belief presented as a “spiritual” or “intellectual” origin to the act. But our enemies ARE CONFINED to a strictly material paradigm (per their own anti-metaphysics) AND THUS all phenomena — including Liberalism — MUST HAVE a physical origin, ie., an “act” NOT spiritual or intellectual in origin.

        One of the great deceits of our time is the idea of homosexual = love of same. But the equation doesn’t lie. Homo-sexuality is “love” of self where same = exact same = self. There is nothing confusing in this equation. It is unassailable. A great deception has been unmasked. Liberalism is the homo-sexual “nature.” Liberalism is desire for radical sexual autonomy. In its “purist” form it translates to “sex with self,” ie., instant gratification… Ergo, self-annihilating. This is the pathology of Western “white” male… A real desire to pleasure himself to death… De facto homo.

  13. No normal man would ever lower himself to engage in sexually perverse activities, i.e. oral, anal, manual sex; sex involving contraception or during his wife’s menstruation, homosexual sex; sex with a woman to whom he is not married; marrying a woman who is not a virgin. We obviously have fallen a long way from normality. The abnormal must be destroyed both in the soul and in society if there is to be any hope of resurrecting civilization.

    • No man whose “purity” has not been polluted would ever engage himself in such activities, absolutely! This is why civilized society prohibits and discourages such things. It’s also a good barometer for determining a society’s level of civilization.

    • Damn, no wonder you people are in such a crap mood all the time.

      “The abnormal must be destroyed” — I guess that pretty much sums up the local belief system. I can’t really imagine that frame of mind; everything in biology, every creative act of the human spirit, has its roots in abnormality. It is at the core of what we are. It’s you guys who are the self-annihilators.

      • Not really. “The abnormal must not become the norm (to the extent that debased homosexual behaviors as in the images above are considered mere representations of “kinky sex”)” would be a better way of summing it up.

      • A.morphous, can you even follow basic logic? If you are the defective and someone removes defectives how is the defective-remover a self-annihilator? That’s like calling a doctor “cancer” for removing a tumor.

        Creative acts in the human world and beneficial mutations in biological world are referred in the lay culture as “extraordinary” not abnormal. Some diseased queer is not the same sort of abnormal as Wagner or Django Reinhardt. Tumors are also abnormal but harmful while certain mutations like colored eyes and double eyelashes are great.

        Your silly lawgic traps won’t work here.

      • a.morphous….

        “We” are really beyond the debate of differing conceptions of “degeneracy” where your side claims Supremacy = degeneracy and our side claims anti-Supremacy = degeneracy. “We” are at the point of enFORCED INTEGRATION with what “we” consider degenerates and a revealing of single coherent taboo against any sort of Supremacist separation. The parasite will not allow the host a “divorce” and neither will he curb his insatiable parasitic appetite where he now calls a three course dinner mere “crumbs.”

      • You don’t seem to understand how evolution works (big surprise there). It works by generating abnormalities (variation) that confer differential reproduction (selection). Nature doesn’t know ahead of time which mutations are going to be beneficial; so beneficial or not every new trait begins as an abnormality.

        The analog for cultural evolution is imperfect, but it will serve. A healthy evolving culture permits experimentation (abnormality) and the abnormalities that have the ability to reproduce themselves will do so, those that don’t, won’t. But every established practice was once something new.

        To put it in the local language, abnormality is at the very core of Being. The static universe of rigidly enforced norms that you seem to long for is anti-being and anti-life. You folks seem determined to rub out the abnormality in your own souls, that is the sense in which you are would-be self-annihilators. Like it or not, we’re all weirdos.

      • Thanks to a.morphous for another valuable contribution to the discussion. He overlooks two crucial facts:

        1. Almost all abnormalities are lethal to organisms that express them. The universe rubs them out ruthlessly. So abnormality is extremely dangerous, and almost always a complete waste of resources. This is a way of saying that abnormlities are not morally neutral. A very few of them are good, almost all are bad. Traditions – notions of normality – are records of variations that work.
        2. Traditional societies are themselves instruments of the general cosmic trend that deletes lethal abnormalities. Instrumentally, the traditionalist who abhors homosexuality is like the dire medical sequelae of enacted homosexual perversion. He is a medium by which the order of being feeds back correction to error.

        Provided that it proceeds within a solution space tightly constrained by tradition – by, that is to say, specifications of the sorts of solutions that can actually work – variation can be tremendously fecund and beneficial. Jettison those constraints, and the search will err catastrophically.

      • So according to you, A.morphous, faggotry is a genetically fit abnormality? Do you even know how evolution works? I assume you suscribe to the sociological and Boasian model of “Evolution” as opposed to the hard science of Darwin, Jensen, or Cochran.

        Once again, you’re trying to divert attention away from the main argument about how fags are destructive to society by laying out red herrings. I know how evolution works, I just thought it would be best if I were to dumb it down for you because I didn’t think you would go get “Wikipedia smart” on me.

        Regardless, now that we are on evolution, explain to me how homosexuals are not evolutionary mistakes. Explain to me how all abnormalities are equal.

        As for all of us being weird, I suppose if that were true, it would make you feel better, huh? That is really the root of all Cultural Marxist Leftism, freaks wanting to ruin normal society so they feel less like freaks.

        I can smell your ressentiment from here.

      • Kristor, at the same time, there is something to be said about Toynbee’s theme of civilization dynamism as well as the stagnation of ultra-traditional societies such as China. There is always a place for palingenesis, but one based in the First Principles.

        Of course, A.morphous isn’t trying to say something intelligent like Mr. Toynbee. He’s just trying to justify certain lifestyle choices which involve fecal matter, blood, and semen intermingling (yay you guuuys, kinky thex!) and the rampant spread of dangerous diseases. That, to A.morphous, is “evolution”.

      • To be sure. You can’t constrain the solution space so tightly that search cannot proceed. We see this happening with PC right now, wherein trigger warnings begin to rule out almost all speech. Even trigger warnings now require trigger warnings.

      • a.morphous, if I’ve said it once I’ve said it at least a thousand times: we’re all goofed up to one extent or the other. I take this to be a self-evident truth. But that we’re all goofed up (to one extent or the other) doesn’t mean that we’re all “weirdos” or freaks, or that we all behave like weirdos or freaks. If we were all weirdos, we’d have a different term for weirdos signifying the same thing – extreme, often dangerous, abnormality.

      • “We” are still missing the salient point. The enemy is relentlessly assimilationist. Coercively integrationist. Forcefully enveloping all things. A parasitic-like “nature” with an insatiable appetite. Having dispensed with a concept of free will that can transcend both genes and memes, the enemy’s predetermined fate as incorrigible parasite DEMANDS eradication. These are the real stakes. The a.morphous’ of the world WILL NOT ALLOW “us” to separate from their extreme abnormality and degeneracy. In addition, they “work” overtime to stunt “our” desire to strive towards Supremacy. This desire to feed feverishly equal to the most rapacious parasite is a declaration of a war to total annihilation.

      • a.morphous fails to realize that we try to conform ourselves to a pole of spiritual alignment the best we can. This pole is the perfect eternal God. In our own souls, and in the souls of the nation, the closer we reflect this Divine reality, the closer we are to true purpose, beauty, and potential. The statement “we’re all weirdos” is simply another non-statement. It’s just to say that no two people are alike.

        A more meaningful statement is to say we are all occupying different levels of dislocation from God, both on a vertical and a horizontal. Your statement implies equality. My statement more accurately encapsulates reality, that some are indeed better than others (both individuals and societies through time). Those closer to the pole of order, the Divine Realm, are objectively superior to those that exist at a more distant point. The martyred saint is not seated beside the cretins you have promoted to the exalted classes of Modern society!

        While you see the change of man’s existence over time as a random and chaotic branching of trials and errors, without a Divine center and entirely predicated on the neutral vectors of what it takes to survive and propagate, we see an objective plane of better and worse. And yes, sometimes the worse outcomes predominate. When man has debased himself, his most maladaptive traits will become mainstream and snake their way into every aspect of the human life. This is entropy, the worsening of condition over time which defies the simplistic and hubristic model of evolutionary progress. Man is not evolving for the better, he is evolving for the worse! When is something objectively freakish and ugly? When God considers it so!

      • Oh, he believes in objective reality and its implications to better and worse. That is what makes him so interesting; that he obviously believes it, but denies it at the very same time. If it were not so, he could not call us “hate-filled to the point of near psychosis (worse)”, as opposed to “not hate-filled (better).” If it were not so he couldn’t even pay disingenuous, patronizing “compliments” to his betters as with Kristor above. That he unable to see this is his own undoing.

      • Mark, Terry, I think we’re losing sight of the main issue here. Queers are ridiculous, they have no place in mainstream society due to their silly histrionics.

        I remember the Phil Robertson incident where a bunch of queers were freaking out about some guy whose show they don’t watch and threatened to boycott lol. I mean how can you stop buying the Robertson’s duck calls when you never bought them and never were a part of the demographic that would?

        Fags are mental basket cases. They’re making the Left look ridiculous (as are blacks).

        We will see if the spineless majority will awaken in due time.

      • Just a little support for Mark Citadel’s truly excellent response to a.morphous. It’s from the introduction to Dominic O’Meara’s Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, a work I would highly recommend to any Traditionalist Conservative, if only because it contains a wonderful title heading — Divinization and Politics: Two Functions.

        [In his essay Was Plato Non-Political, Wayne A. R.] Leys can say that Plato has no interest in `politics’ because he stipulates what he takes to be a modern meaning of the term `politics’: `politics’ has to do with the treatment of irreducible disagreements and conflicts over `goals and policies’ within a community. Conflicts between organized groups or factions are a given of politics, which has to do with the disposition of such conflicts, if the groups are to continue to relate to each other in a community. To the extent that Plato does not recognize this `given’ of politics and has no theory of conflict management, he is no political philosopher.

        We are also free to stipulate another meaning for `political’, which we can declare to be ancient and/or modern as we like, but which comes nearer to what Aristotle, for example, means by `political science’ and which seems to be of most interest to Plato in the Republic and in the Laws. Let us say that the philosopher may wish to subject the diverging `goals and policies’ of groups or individuals to scrutiny, in an attempt to determine more clearly what the best, most desirable, satisfactory, fulfilled life for humans might be: their ultimate goal or `good’. On the assumption and to the degree that human groupings, forms of social organization, are essential to attaining this goal, this will be a `political’ enquiry. `Political philosophy’ will then have to do with the study of social structures, the principles of human social organization, and their realization (in constitutional order, legislation, and jurisdiction) to the extent required for achieving, in part at least, the human good. In this sense, Plato is as much a political philosopher as Aristotle, and it is in this sense that I will speak in the following chapters of the `political philosophy’ of Neoplatonism.

      • Queers are ridiculous, they have no place in mainstream society due to their silly histrionics.

        I don’t know (or care) what you consider mainstream, but the contribution of “queers” to culture and civilization is incalculable, from Michelangelo to Alan Turing. You owe a lot to queers.

        As for all of us being weird, I suppose if that were true, it would make you feel better, huh? That is really the root of all Cultural Marxist Leftism, freaks wanting to ruin normal society so they feel less like freaks.

        Why would it make me feel better? You are the one who longs for normality, I’m opposed or indifferent to it.

        But of course you folks are weird, or you wouldn’t be congregating on this obscure site railing against the mainstream. I wouldn’t bother with you if you were boringly normal.

      • You have no proof that Michelangelo was gay beyond wishful thinking.

        Ultimately, non-queer faggots have done far more for society and yet queers still have a higher likelihood of pathological behavior like child molesting than normals.

        Quit moving the goal posts, having different political and social views doesn’t put people on the same level as child-fiddling, anus-licking (this is what they really do, thoo kink-kay omg), rectum-ripping, bug-chasing, disease-spreading, man-fisting (once again, they really do this) deviant subhuman scum.

        We tried to save the poor homothexthualzz by giving them medication to mitigate the effects of AIDS and what do they do? Go back to bare-backing and breed new strains of HIV. Also, San Francisco is responsible for new strains of drug-resistant gonorrhea and syphilis. Thanks fags! We owe you guys so much!

        Btw, if fags are so great and brilliant, how come they can’t figure out a cure for AIDS without hounding the rest of us for so much tax money? How come they can’t figure out how to wear condoms so they don’t get their little fag diseases? Why do they cry like such histrionic little pansies when they do get the AIDS when they do everything that would get them to that point?

        Regardless, from now on, I will address every one of your ridiculous points with this thread:
        Really everyone here should read the thread because it’s basically full of mainstream (i.e left-leaning) news sites disproving (unintentionally lol) the whole “just like us!!” propaganda that the queers love to push. With some delightful commentary as well.

      • “I wouldn’t bother with you if you were boringly normal.”


        Really, a.morphous, you should be more careful about bearing false witness against your neighbor, even one who has been dead for several centuries. Next thing you’ll tell us is that Lincoln was a flaming homosexual because he loved certain men. That’s how twisted your mind is; you think a man can’t love another man without having or desiring sex with him. But I warn you again, God absolutely does care, not only about what people do or don’t do with their genitals, but also the rest of that list of things in Proverbs that I cited. The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. He adds wisdom with it.

      • The Turing fetishism is getting a little stale, especially considering nobody knew who the hell he was until sodomites began pimping his ‘legacy’ in the last ten years.

        And I don’t consider him to have contributed ANYTHING to civilization. Again, a.morphous, you blunder in not even knowing the perspective of the Reactionary. We despise Modern ‘civilization’ and so how in God’s name could somebody who aided in its last big military victory (note, he was essentially a military figure NOT a cultural figure), be viewed in any way positive?
        I dislike the National Socialist regime of Adolf Hitler, but I don’t actually view your society as any better, in fact in raw numbers, its several times worse! So Alan Turing was a cretin. Another fraudulent martyr who took his own life like a coward. He was trash.

      • @Mark Citadel, you are using your own ignorance as evidence for some kind of conspiracty.

        The Turing fetishism is getting a little stale

        A strange sort of criticism from a reactionary.

        especially considering nobody knew who the hell he was until sodomites began pimping his ‘legacy’ in the last ten years.

        Turing has been recognized as one of the major mathematicians of the 20th century long before that. The Turing award, the most prestigious honor in computer science (Nobel prize equivalent), was established in 1966.

        he was essentially a military figure NOT a cultural figure

        See above. You obviously don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.

        Again, a.morphous, you blunder in not even knowing the perspective of the Reactionary. We despise Modern ‘civilization’

        Yet you don՚t feel any qualms about using the Internet to parade your worldview. Shouldn՚t you be using hand-copied parchment and carrier pigeons? Well, no, that would be inconvenient, and clearly convenience is more important to you than keeping yourself free of these tainted modern inventions that have all kind of gay in them.

      • A – Turing is only a well-known figure due to his cryptography, used for MILITARY applications. He would be unknown if not for this, except for inside circles of mathematics related to computing. To claim otherwise is to engage in yet more legacy pimping to establish him as some kind of important cultural figure, pushed by the sexual revolutionaries desperate to find their own pathetic version of martyrs. He’s Miltiades, except Miltiades didn’t kill himself or have sex with teenagers (actually, with the climate at the time, Miltiades may have engaged in that last part)

        B – Guilty again of more stupidity, failing to realize that Modernity is viewed through the lens of socio-political disintegration, NOT through technological change. This seems to act as proof that you either refuse to read what people are actually writing, or you don’t understand it. Technological change, in most cases, is at base neutral. There is very little commentary on it within the Reactosphere, although its effects are discussed. This is what we call a ‘straw man’.

      • Modernity is viewed through the lens of socio-political disintegration, NOT through technological change.

        Why would I care what lens you use? The reality is that technological change and social change are inseparable. Technology made the modern era, it is the main factor in the disruption of old orders and the creation of new ones. So to pretend to be feudal reactionaries on the internet is just another form of cosplay, rather like those furries you seem to be obsessed with. Roleplaying is fun but you can’t escape your real nature, which is shaped by the environment you grew up in and the tools you use.

      • A.morphous, remind us, are you straight or “gay?” My own recollection is that you have said before in this forum that your “preference” is normal sexual relations as opposed to homosexual deviancy. But my recollections are sometimes mistaken. One gets the strong impression from your unrelenting, unnerving defense of homosexual degeneracy that you’re attempting to establish your own lasting legacy as an (gay) internet troll whose invaluable contribution to the advancement of civilization was his uncanny ability to “outwit” his interlocutors and impugn the character of the giants of history, having queer written all over it. The thick irony in all of this, I guess, is that it seems it’s almost always in an environment where homosexual deviancy is considered just that and roundly discouraged that the great and enduring achievements of homosexuals are ever given place to germinate.

      • “Roleplaying is fun” – says the internet social justice warrior white-knighting for faggots.

        The funny thing about leftists and the online right is that they often will decry what they view as futile rage essays on the internet, dismissing it as a roleplaying exercise (which they did with online anti-Islam sentiments), but they are the first to start crying when Breivik shoots 69 leftists on a Norwegian island. Perhaps they ought to make up their mind before opening their mouths. Then again, atheists have a history of trouble in that department.

        You haven’t responded to Svar’s point because you have no refutation. You humiliate yourself over and over again, convincing nobody, and abandoning arguments that are making you look foolish. And with regards to your white-knighting, a pathetic man white-knights for feminists, but I don’t know what depths one has to sink to to white knight for sodomites. Probably only one step above a pedophile defense lawyer.

      • a.morphous…

        It would be more truthful to state that technological advance is motivated by visions of Perfection, ie., objective Supremacy, AND desire for total annihilation through “advanced” technological means is desire for radical sexual autonomy… Ergo, a de facto homo lifestyle, socially engineered from head to toe.

      • Is technology neutral? I don’t think so. Industrialization allowed for mass production, capitalist economy and international trade. It destroyed the country and people poured into cities. Cars allow to travel far and often which is not very helpful for social cohesion. Then there is the pill, phones, social networks and internet in general etc. etc. I think a.morphous has a point here.

      • crha…

        He may have a point, but he is not revealing the full implications of what he is trying to state. Faggots have created and used “technology” to annihilate its enemies.


        This should not be confused with how man advances his technological prowess. For that, he conjures up visions of Perfection with his sexual predilections notwithstanding.

      • crha – Neutrality is meant here as a statement of zero necessity or lack of primary causality. That is to say that technologies do not necessitate ideological changes, though they may facilitate other forces contributory thereto. To say that technology necessitates liberalism for example is demonstrably false. One only need look at China and Singapore. Technology is always regulated by the state authority, but the degree to which it is regulated may alter the societal effects of such technologies. If technology were more loosely regulated in the United States (i.e – zero regulation) a different society would likely emerge, even if the technology itself remained the same. Adolf Hitler’s regime benefited tremendously from technological advances, but it was an entirely different system to that of the United States which also benefited from such technologies in the last century.
        The claim isn’t that technology does not affect how people work within a society, nor that it isn’t a concern of any government, but that this is not a big concern of broad Reactionary political theory because it isn’t seen as the primary cause for man’s degeneration. Some industrialization may have facilitated events like the French Revolution, on the ground, but this was a neutral change with regards to the ideological undercurrents which destroyed the monarchical ideal. Facilitation and cause are different. A caveat that I should mention, since Evola did, is the mechanization of war which likely was in fact the primary cause of the destruction of the warrior ethic, but this is going wildly off-topic from the original post. Another example of the rabbit holes a.morphous loves to send everyone down. Where the heck did this topic come from? Oh, wait, I remember.

        a.morphous’ point was that those who favor the political systems of the Traditional World must NECESSARILY favor the communication technology present 500 years ago. This is a stupid statement. It’s a straw man.

      • You haven’t responded to Svar’s point because you have no refutation.

        Sorry, what point are you referring to? I don’t respond to 4/5 of the spittle-flecked ranting you guys emit, because most of it is not even wrong and certainly not very interesting. But I’m open to requests.

      • And I’d also point out that a.morphous’ argument would effectively silence Classical Libertarians who wanted a return to the originalist Constitutional interpretations. After all, no telephones in 1787.
        And if a transition to a totalitarian regime today heralded the introduction of some new communication paradigm, his own argument would silence him! He would either have to support the regime, or be resigned to communication methods that would be uselessly obsolete.

      • You had stated that we “owe a lot to queers” and he provided a refutation of this, pointing out the realities of current sexually transmitted diseases in particular, which are the largest ‘gay’ contribution to humanity.

      • The only thing there that remotely approaches “refutation” is his assertion that Michelangelo wasn’t gay. I suppose there is some historical controversy about that, but it doesn’t really matter for the larger point, since it is unquestionably the case that gays contribute to arts, sciences, and culture out of proportion to their numbers.

      • TD, Citadel, and Morris, I see too many words and effort-posts on your part. I personally would love to flame A.morphous to the point of bullycide, but that is against the more genteel rules of this site.

        Just post this link:

        78 pages of mainstream articles revealing fags for what they truly are. A.morphous’s tactics involves whining and numerous logical flaws (while arrogantly pretending to be thuper logical omg), ignoring people who humiliate him, and then whining again about “tone” and “hurtful” words. Wahhhh. Oh and don’t forget about hate! Fags may rape and fiddle kids but whatever you do, don’t hate them!

        Citadel, you’re wasting your time with this obviously limp-wristed and noodle-armed SJW. His mental abilities are not much better than his physical ones.

      • @ Mark

        I don’t say that technology necessitates liberalism or any other modern ideology but it is an important part of modernity. Without it modernity wouldn’t have the appeal and tremendous success it has. Perhaps I could say modern technology (as well as liberalism) is a child of modern philosophy. Technology is one of the practical applications of the absolute rule of human reason which is main principle of liberalism.

        It might have affected us in ways we do not yet fully understand. Dr. Charlton had some thoughts on negative influence of decline in child mortality and following population growth on our genetic fitness. So perhaps advancement in science and technology deserves a place in reactionary theory.

        Apparently, a.morphous is just having fun. He turns the light on and we react with serious responses as Pavlov’s dogs. I think Kristor takes the best route when he patiently explains his stuff without being too “heavy”. The second best option is to let him be.

      • When dealing with the Traditionalist relationship to science and technology, no better start can be had than Guénon’s The Superstition of Science from his East and West. I post the opening paragraph especially for a.morphous. Coomaraswamy and Guénon were the beginning of my salvation thirty years ago, and I can only pray that this snippet may encourage him to look into these men more closely.


        THE CIVILIZATION OF THE MODERN WEST HAS, among other pretensions, that of being eminently ‘scientific’; it would be as well to make it a little clearer how this term is to be understood, but that is not what is usually done, for it is one of those words to which our contemporaries seem to attach a sort of mysterious power, independent of its meaning. ‘Science’, with a capital letter, like ‘Progress’ and ‘Civilization’, like ‘Right’, ‘Justice’, and ‘Liberty’, is another of those entities that are better left undefined, and that run the risk of losing all their prestige as soon as they are inspected a little too closely. In this way all the so-called ‘conquests’ which the modern world is so proud of amount to high-sounding words behind which there is nothing, or else something insignificant: we have called it collective suggestion, and the illusion which it leads to, kept up as it is and shared by so many people, cannot possibly be spontaneous. Perhaps one day we will try to throw a little light on this side of the question. But for the moment that is not what we are directly concerned with. We simply note that the modern West believes in the ideas which we have just mentioned, if indeed they may be called ideas, however this belief may have come to it. They are not really ideas, because many of those who pronounce these words with the greatest conviction have in mind nothing very clear that corresponds to them; actually there is nothing there in most cases but the expression—one might even say the personification—of more or less vague sentimental aspirations. These are veritable idols, the divinities of a sort of ‘lay religion’, which is not dearly defined, no doubt, and which cannot be, but which has nonetheless a very real existence: it is not religion in the proper sense of the word, but it is what pretends to take its place, and what better deserves to be called ‘counter-religion’. The origin of this state of things can be traced back to the very beginning of the modern epoch, where the anti- traditional spirit showed itself at once by the proclaiming of ‘free inquiry’, or in other words, the absence in the doctrinal order of any principle higher than individual opinions. The inevitable result was intellectual anarchy; hence the indefinite multiplicity of religious and pseudo-religious sects, philosophic systems aiming above all at originality, and scientific theories as pretentious as they are ephemeral, in short, unbelievable chaos which is, however, dominated by a certain unity, there being beyond doubt a specifically modern outlook which is the source of it all, though this unity is altogether negative since it is nothing more or less than an absence of principle, expressed by that indifference with regard to truth and error which ever since the eighteenth century has been called ‘tolerance’. Let our meaning be quite clear: we have no intention of blaming practical tolerance as applied to individuals, but only theoretic tolerance, which claims to be applied to ideas as well and to recognize the same rights for them all, which if taken logically can only imply a rooted skepticism. Moreover we cannot help noticing that, like all propagandists, the apostles of tolerance, truth to tell, are very often the most intolerant of men. This is what has in fact happened, and it is strangely ironical: those who wished to overthrow all dogma have created for their own use, we will not say a new dogma, but a caricature of dogma, which they have succeeded in imposing on the Western world in general; in this way there have been established, under the pretext of ‘freedom of thought’, the most chimerical beliefs that have ever been seen at any time, under the form of these different idols, of which we have just singled out some of the more important.

      • A.morphous, when I lived in Anchorage back in the early 90s the homosexuals and lesbians got together and started defacing all the paper money that circulated in and out of their insignificant “community” with stamps that read “Gay Money.” This was a pathetic attempt to convince the normal population that the “gay” population produced weath disproportionate to their numbers. But all that “gay money” floating around didn’t change a single fact. Their most significant contribution to art and culture is the polluting thereof.

        Svar, I suppose you’re right; what’s the point in wasting effort on the “formless one” and his polluted SF mind? That link you posted reminds me of a book I read 25 years ago by Dr. Lorraine Day (AIDS, What the Government Isn’t Telling You), which went into graphic detail about what homosexuals actually do. Until reading that book I had no idea. We don’t have terms to describe such levels of depravity. But the Bible calls it reprobate. And that’s what I call it.

  14. The unfortunate increase in toleration of deviancy (to the extent of lauding it, at this point) is really just a symptom of underlying evil. This evil is the holding that the human individual is an end unto himself, whether this end is determined affirmatively or by default.
    Contrary to this position is the position of Life, which admits of a Telos of all being. This Telos need not be a function of conscience, but it is implicated here. Humans have no right to do just what they want with their genitals, because those genitals are not theirs so to do. Sex is a public activity, not a private one.

    • Rob, as I’ve said so many times in the past, worldview is everything! We could never convince the likes of a.morphous that our perspective has any merit whatsoever because his worldview is the polar opposite of our own. By the same token he could never convince us, so we’re just talking around one another. In any event, though, homosexuality in all its manifestations is nothing less than evil committed by reprobates. Worse, still, is that element of society who not only engage in the same, but take pleasure in those that commit such unspeakable acts, as Paul says in Romans.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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