Let Us Dispel This Estrogenic Cloud!

I read that some priggish Evangelicals are abandoning Trump after hearing the recording in which he talked about women with an abandon that was calculated to scandalize Sunday-school teachers and women’s studies majors (between whom it is often hard to distinguish).  These bloodless ingénues (of both sexes) need to get out more.  When Henry Kissinger said that, “power is the greatest aphrodisiac,” he was not speaking primarily about the effect that power has on powerful men.  Power also works its titillating magic on not-so-powerful women, and although they do not always yield to its charm, neither do they always resist.

To be shocked by the bawdy banter of a swaggering millionaire, who spent his life in post-sexual-revolution Babylon, and whose appetites were constrained by neither religious scruple, nor feminist fear, is simply to reveal a colossal stupidity about the world.  (Or, perhaps, brazen, opportunistic dishonesty.)  Read St. Augustine, Mrs. Grundy!  Though you are not “of the world,” there is no prize for being utterly clueless about the world.

Sexual purity is not aided by sexual priggery.  On the contrary, sound Christian sexual ethics are founded on unflinching realism about the nature of human sexuality in the absence of Christian sexual ethics.  And this most certainly includes unflinching realism about female sexuality.

Christianity has been very nearly asphyxiated by an estrogenic cloud of sexual stupidity.  This estrogenic cloud engenders a hallucination that living in Christ is no different than living in a Dudley Do-Right cartoon.  To those laboring under this delusion, let me break it to you gently.  There is a very good chance that Nell Fenwick got a tingle every time Snidely Whiplash tied her to the railroad tracks, and there is an absolute certainty that Sergeant Do-Right left her cold.

The Orthosphere does not make political endorsements.  Its readership is too catholic, and the weight of its opinion is too binding, for us to guide our readers through the petty fracas of electoral politics.  So prigs we leave free to indulge their priggery.  But I, for one, believe we must never miss an opportunity to take a nail-studded cudgel to the pallid milksops of epicene Christianity, or to throw open a window and dispel the fug of this estrogenic cloud.

89 thoughts on “Let Us Dispel This Estrogenic Cloud!

      • I think everyone already got that you are on the right side of all interesting divides. The only danger is that, if, being too right you fail to understand “their” point of view. And that would leave the “pushback” to the level of just another opinion in the midst of many.

      • I think one should always try to understand an opponent’s point of view, striving to avoid both a straw man and a charity so great that it ceases to be a view that one opposes. I think I do understand the distaste that feminized Christian men feel for the raunchy quality of contemporary sexuality, since I feel this distaste myself. But I also think that they too confuse Christianity and emasculation, and that this (among other things) renders the Church less and less attractive to men who are disinclined to emasculate themselves. This weakens the faith, encourages disobedience among our sisters, and drives young men out of the Church. This I find hard to forgive.

      • Tell me where you would like “if” inserted, and I’ll fix the first comment. I’ll also reply, if anything occurs to me.

      • JMSmith…

        In the Hegelian dialectic…

        “Feminized” Christianity + emasculated “Churchmen” = homodyke nature…

        The egalitarian assault ENDS at homodyke equals pro-creator.. Fagdyke as “pope.”.

      • Thordaddy, I can’t make head or tail out of what you are saying. If you are trying to communicate, or to participate in a conversation, you are simply failing.

      • Kristor…

        What does “universal equality” LOOK LIKE if you could make “it” concrete?

        I say it looks like the inversion of Patriarchy with a dyke “King” and submissive little faggots running about…

        At the Orthosphere, the corruption of the Church is authored as though a degenerate struggle between white women and white men where one gets a “feminized” Christianity and emasculated “Christians.”

        BUT REALLY…

        It’s all homodyke subterfuge relentlessly inpressinng the reality of “universal equality” THROUGH the mechanisms of the Church and the deracinated white churchmen fake fighting over the Faith with their white woman folk.

  1. Pingback: The bimbo that didn’t bark | Zippy Catholic

  2. Amen

    Although not so sure about Dudley Do Right. Cops and firefighters even have a term: “hero sex.”

    One of the best literary examples of purity without purity was the Red Horse by Eugenio Corti; although it’s only a small part of the book. The attitude was about right, sex is more of a private thing than a shameful thing. Purity is ironically an incredibly practical virtue as well.

  3. It’s amazing to me that people of your ilk can’t seem to tell the difference between sex and sexual assault. Well, not that amazing, if you have no concept of female agency, or a perverted concept like your posting suggests.

    At any rate, it appears 100% obvious to any normal observer that Trump embodies a large number of the classical seven deadly sins (lust, pride, and avarice being the most prominent). Perhaps these are found to some extent in all powerful men, but there is a difference between sinning in the privacy of your own soul and loudly displaying these qualities for all to see, to building a brand on them. Everyone lusts, not everyone is incapable of seeing a 10-year old girl without publicly fantasizing about her future fuckability.

    At some level I find it entertaining seeing religious Christians twist themselves up in knots to justify their supports for such a gross and despicable man who embodies everything Christianity is supposed to be against. However — the joke isn’t really that funny and I’d rather they came to their senses.

    • Mr. morphous, see my article “C.S. Lewis on the Trump Candidacy.” Money quote:

      It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

      Hillary will torment us, without end, for our own good.

    • Any sane person should vote for Trump simply to prevent the Clintons taking power…again. Why do Americans, who pride themselves in their egalitarianism and democracy fail to perceive the oligarchical risks of repeatedly electing the Clintons and their fellow Saudi puppets, the Bush family?

    • I seem to recall that you write to us from San Francisco. I fear that may not be fog rolling in from the Pacific, but rather a great estrogenic cloud!

      But seriously, contrary to what you say, my post acknowledges female agency by recognizing females as sexual beings. As it happens, they are sexual beings who normally feel drawn to powerful males; although (as the post notes) not all of them yield to this draw. To the extent that my post is about female sexuality, it simply asserts that females are not passive, but that they have agency. To the extent my post is about Trump, it is not offering him a high five, but simply saying that it is stupid to act surprised when one is told that a man like Trump acted in that way. The point of the post is to gripe about Christians who are supposed to believe the world is full of sin, and then faint on the couch when they hear that someone has sinned.

      We’re electing a president, not beatifying a saint. I’d suggest that Trump and Clinton are about equally eligible for sainthood, which is to say not at all.

      • Californians don’t call San Francisco “Babylon by the Bay” for nothing. The estrogenic cloud that besets and besots the City is emitted by its residents.

    • a.morphous…

      You’re not in the position to impose “damned if you do or damned if you don’t” on anyone let alone real white Christians. You do not believe in being “damned,” period. And so it is only the SPIRITUAL graciousness of those who do believe in the potential for damnation that gives rise to the fallacious perception that you come here to argue your belief with passion.

      Hypocrisy without Perfection is like chicken soup without water.

    • @ a.morphous

      I would argue that the hypocrisy is on the other side. Many from the religious right have raised their voices denouncing Mr. Trump’s behavior and attitudes, even while acknowledging that a Clinton presidency would be a serious threat to their freedoms, interests, and ability to participate in the public square.

      On the other hand, many on the irreligious left including prominent feminists were anxious to ignore, deny, defend, counterattack, and “move on” from the President Clinton’s predatory actions and attitudes towards women, even when a Gore presidency would not have threatened anything on the left’s agenda.

      None of this was or is funny or entertaining. It is very serious.

  4. Pingback: Let Us Dispel This Estrogenic Cloud! | Reaction Times

  5. I am no more worried about Trump’s sexual immorality than I would be over King David’s, were he up for the office of President. Somewhat less, actually. I cannot imagine Trump putting out a hit on a loyal lieutenant so as to gain free access to the fellow’s wife. Trump just doesn’t strike me as the sort of man who would be tempted to murder.

    I am less worried about Trump’s sexual immorality than I am about Hillary’s. Hillary furthermore *does* strike me as the sort of woman who would be tempted to murder – not for sex, but for reasons even more debased and corrupt.

    • It isn’t a question of “sexual immorality”, although that seems to be the straw that broke the christian camel’s back. Do you honestly not understand the difference between sex and sexual assault? Is it not obvious that the problem with Trump is not merely that he likes sex, but that he is a crude and ignorant narcissist, not to mention a scam artist?

      • Are you suggesting that rape and sexual assault are not immoral sex?
        Trump is a great sinner, to be sure. But not as great a sinner as David or Saint Augustine.

        Or – at the other end of the spectrum of worthiness – as Clinton.

      • When someone like you talks about “sexual immorality” it usually refers to unapproved but entirely voluntary use of human genitalia. I don’t have a problem with that, and consider it entirely different from rape or assault.

        I don’t believe that you actually think that Hillary Clinton is more immoral than Donald Trump. Because that is an idiotic proposition, and you aren’t an idiot.

      • Obviously, we expect you to have a humanist morality in which man is the measure of all things, and in which consent is, therefore, the supreme moral criterion. Just as obviously (one would hope), the bulk of the people one finds at a Christian traditionalist website believe there are acts to which no man can consent because they have been forbidden by divine decree, defy natural law, or are an offense against good taste. You espouse (and I presume live by) the sexual morality that has arisen in the aftermath of sexual liberation, or the so-called sexual revolution.

        In spite of these differences, I’d like to think that we can agree that rape and sexual assault (properly defined) are serious crimes, and that everyone should take them very seriously indeed. Part of taking them seriously is demanding that victims report them in a timely manner, and not wait until they have additional reasons (such as political advantage, notoriety, perhaps even payment). Part of taking them seriously is withholding judgment until there has been a proper investigation. Part of taking them seriously is very severely punishing those who make false allegations. None of these criteria are being met at present, which leads me to suspect that you are not all that serious.

        This is a signal weakness in your sexual morality. The whole apparatus is hopelessly subjective, since it is not so much about what was done as it is about the state of mind in which it was done. In fact, in your morality, any sexual act is legitimate, provided both partners were in the right state of mind. But this makes the whole damn thing exceedingly hard to enforce, since states of mind are hard to know, especially states of mind some thirty years ago. Not impossible to know, but very hard.

      • Rape is not the same thing as adultery, of course; but they are both immoral sexual acts. With this you can hardly disagree.

        I do indeed think Hillary is less moral than Trump, albeit not, apparently, so much along the sexual dimension. Her besetting sin seems rather to be bearing false witness. And in that department, her offenses dwarf all of the sexual sins Trump is accused of. From the commodities trading scandal and the Rose Law billing records scandal of early days, to 30,000 deleted email messages and the cooked up narrative about Benghazi, of late, her lies are epic.

        You’re a bright guy, a.morphous, and I think you are honest and ethical, too. How do you get around Hillary’s manifest and gargantuan lies?

      • Demonology is an interesting subject, and not at all superannuated in the modern age. We describe the malign spirits differently, and mock the old representations (as in this lighthearted WP article), but we really haven’t changed all that much. To their enemies, Clinton and Trump are hateful because each is “inspired” by a malign idea, which in Hegelian philosophy is known as a spirit. When a progressive says that someone is on the “wrong side of history,” they means opposed to the “spirit of the age.” To oppose the “spirit of the age,” one must be possessed by a malign spirit, a false idea.

        This over-the-top accusation is interesting (regardless of the side it comes from) because it is never altogether wrong.

      • @ a.morphous: I didn’t suggest that Hillary is demonic. Just that she is prone to egregious lying. That she is a liar is a matter of public record.

        I repeat the question: how does a smart guy like you get around the commodities trading scandal, the Rose Law billing records scandal, the Benghazi scandal, and the deleted emails scandal (not to mention the many other scandals)? How do you handle the cognitive dissonance between these very public – indeed, infamous – betrayals of the public trust, and the notion that Hillary merits the trust of the nation?

      • Most of the so-called Clinton scandals are noise propagated by an immense right-wing hate machine. That’s not to say she’s as pure as the driven snow, only that the picture of her as some kind of monster of corruption is completely ridiculous, especially in comparison to Trump. The fact that there have been multiple congressional investigations into her affairs without coming up with anything very damning is pretty good evidence that it is all a lot of noise and fud. (See here for a putatively objective take on the whitewater affair).

        I don’t expect to convince you and this discussion is probably a waste of time.

        I have to say that I never was a big Clinton fan, I was more of a Bernie Sanders person. But seeing her next to Trump and the way she has weathered his nonsense and the mammoth stream of attacks she has endured over decades makes her seem much more human and likable and normal. So, keep up the good work.

      • Right. And Bill was impeached but not convicted, so he’s pretty OK, too. And that rapist that Hillary got off, who nailed the 12 year old? He wasn’t convicted either, so you’d feel fine about leaving him with your daughter.

      • a.morphous…

        The real Hillary Clinton scandal is her phony heterosexuality and “traditional” marriage to Billy. And it is this scandal that’d be a “war on women” as it represent a dyke’s means to stunting the female’s end, ie., real and true WOMANHOOD.

    • [This comment was posted by someone labeling himself Kristor Lawson. To clear up confusion in the minds of readers, we have changed his moniker. – Ed.]

      “I am no more worried about Trump’s sexual immorality than I would be over King David’s”

      Maybe you should rather say: I am no more worried about Trump’s sexual immorality than I would be over my own?

      Only the same kind would defend each other.

      • If it were true that I would be no more worried over Trump’s sexual immorality than I would be over my own, then I might say it. But it’s not true. Not that I’m morally perfect, of course. But I would worry less about my own sexual immorality in a Lawson administration than I do about Trump’s in a Trump administration.

        What is more, I was not defending Trump. His sins are not blameless. Nor am I arguing that he did not commit any of the sins he is accused of committing. I sought only to provide context for them. The sexual sins of Trump pale in comparison to those of, say, Bill Clinton.

      • Once one transcends radical sexual autonomy, he takes so much rivalry out of his mundane existence. What the “coward” doesn’t recognize is that for Kristor, Trump does not pull him back into the rivalry of radical sexual autonomy where Hillary’s dyke ethos wills to do so perpetually if now only through his children.

      • Where Trump really fails is in allowing the media to transform this rival sexual degeneracy into what is leading towards a broken sexual regeneracy amongst white boys and white girls going into manhood and womanhood, respectively. The mutually beneficial spin amongst Clinton, Trump and all media shifts to focus on the hypocrisy of white Christians supporting one radical sexual autonomist over another. But the “hypocrisy” is the smokescreen needed to obscure which candidate will lead us deeper into this sexually degenerate rivalry.

    • [We have, once again, changed the name of this commenter, to avoid confusion. – Ed.]

      “Just that she is prone to egregious lying. That she is a liar is a matter of public record.”

      Are you talking about yourself and your own kind?

    • Kristor,

      I am no more worried about Trump’s sexual immorality than I would be over King David’s, were he up for the office of President.

      I’m not sure I follow your meaning: Are you suggesting that you would not be worried about King David’s sexual immorality, were he up for the office of President? King David’s sexual immorality had disastrous consequences for his nation.

      Trump just doesn’t strike me as the sort of man who would be tempted to murder.

      I’m not so sure. It wouldn’t exactly surprise me to learn that he had procured an abortion for a woman he impregnated.

      And didn’t Trump say he would be willing to kill the families of terrorists or something like that?

      • Sorry; I can see how that confusion might have arisen from the way I expressed myself. No. I did not mean that I would not be worried about King David’s sexual immorality, were he a candidate for President. I meant that I would be *more* worried about David’s sexual immorality than I am about Trump’s.

        Re murder, what I meant was that I can’t envision Trump contracting a hit on a man who was inconvenient to him, as Hillary was reportedly ready to consider doing to Assange. He just doesn’t seem like that kind of guy.

        I’d be stunned to learn that Trump had never procured an abortion. But then, maybe he hasn’t. After all, he doesn’t drink, right?

        Nevertheless, abortion is indeed murder, and it seems in keeping with Trump’s character to have procured a few. It would have been clearer if I had said instead that Trump doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would be tempted to order an *assassination* of a political inconvenience. Hillary does.

        I don’t think the families of terrorists fall into the same category as political opponents. Killing families is a pretty routine aspect of modern war. Consider Dresden.

        Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Trump is as pure as the driven snow. All I’m suggesting is that he is somewhat more righteous and scrupulous than Hillary (and, up until he learned the errors of his ways, King David). That’s not saying much.

      • Kristor…

        If abortion is murder FIRST AND TO THE EXCLUSION of, in fact, being an act of female self-annihilation THEN the verdict is mass guilt and general death penalty. In other words… To NOW SERVE JUSTICE for the crime of mass murder IS NOW, for all practical purposes, a calling for literal annihilation of the white race.

        Universal pro-life IS A belief of the radical liberationist… Dogmatic insistence of “abortion” as murder (what of a baby jihadist?) to the absolute exclusion of abortion as WHITE female self-annihilation is as I state above…


        As in a small, INNOCENT minority of whites PROSECUTING JUSTICE FOR MASS MURDER which can only result in mass death penalty… Or, mass incarceration… Or, no punishment at all?

        What else DEMANDS the insistence that leads “us” nowhere?

      • Thordaddy, if you are saying what I think you are saying – it is very hard to be sure – then you may be on to something here. I think you are saying that if we take abortion to be murder, period full stop, then it would seem that, in treating it as no big deal and proceeding to murder more than 50 million people, the West has earned the death penalty. The West knows this, deep down, and that is why Westerners (who have not repented) are failing to reproduce. The West is imposing the death penalty on itself. Germany is now doing the same to itself, on account of the Holocaust.

        It is an interesting idea. No one after all is really fooled by pro-abortion arguments. The order of being cries out to Heaven against abortion, as it does against every injustice, every sin. Everyone knows in his guts that abortion is wrong, and to be avoided. If they didn’t, people would seek it out, and take pleasure in it for its own sake. Ditto for all the other sexual sins. No one really thinks they are OK. To convince oneself that they are OK is to engage in massive bad faith. And that’s both sickening, and vitiating; and, also, unpleasant, vile. People hate bad faith: it’s cognitive dissonance, enacted bodily and suffered bodily. That’s why the defenders of sexual sin are so stridently angry, so defensive, so easily triggered, so fearful, so unhappy.

        But, again, I’m not sure that’s what you meant.

      • Kristor, thanks for the clarification.

        Re murder, what I meant was that I can’t envision Trump contracting a hit on a man who was inconvenient to him, as Hillary was reportedly ready to consider doing to Assange.

        Speaking of Assange, I find it bizarre that everyone seems just to have accepted and treated as normal that an enemy of the United States is stealing government secrets and publishing them. And the media is happy to publish them without any apparent pangs of conscience (not that that’s surprising). It seems to me that the U.S. would be perfectly within her rights to capture him and execute him. (Of course, Hillary’s motive for killing him would be entirely different from that of seeking justice, and I don’t condone her qua Hillary rather than qua an agent of the government putting out a hit on him).

        I don’t think the families of terrorists fall into the same category as political opponents. Killing families is a pretty routine aspect of modern war. Consider Dresden.

        Sure, but it is still evil and still murder if done intentionally. I am not too keen on a candidate who openly speaks of murdering civilians (if that is, indeed, what Trump did). Better would be a hypocrite who at least paid lip service to the idea that we ought to avoid intentionally killing civilians, which would at least still reinforce it as a norm in people’s minds.

        At least with WWII, we were fighting a highly capable enemy, so giving into the pressures and temptations to murder civilians is somewhat more understandable, although still evil. Now we have candidates threatening to murder civilians even before we are facing an enemy that is anywhere close to being an imminent threat, and even before said candidate is in the position of being responsible for the well-being of the nation, with all the pressures that entails.

      • @ Ian: Your comment at least obliquely acknowledges that we are, today, more lawless than we once were. There is little outrage over Assange’s actions because his lawless behavior simply exposed more (and arguably more serious) lawlessness. The compact of trust that binds government and citizens is founded on mutual loyalty. Now, as more and more citizens feel betrayed by their government, more and more citizens are willing to conspire in betrayal against their government. In military conflicts it has long been known that many on the left were rooting for the other side, but this disloyalty has now spread to the right, and none dare call it treason. We say that we “support the troops,” as these are, after all, our sons and daughters. But how many say they support the wars? How many believe they are our wars, fought to defend our interests?

        Lawlessness does not necessarily mean unlawful behavior, since many are law-abiding simply out of fear. Lawlessness is the absence of respect for the law, and a consequent indifference to its being broken. In other words, lawlessness is what occurs when the law looses its authority, and this happens in two basic ways. The first is a proliferation of “stupid laws,” which encourages disrespect for laws in general. The second is knowledge that the legislators are themselves lawless.

        I posted a brief comment on assassination a few weeks ago, noting that Americans had become much more cynical about this dirty business, and were no longer shocked by the idea that assassination is part of politics–international politics, certainly, domestic, perhaps. This is part of the same drift into lawlessness.

        It’s very hard to stop the spread of lawlessness, since it is an attitude and a set of assumptions rather than a behavior. The reputation of the law is, like the reputation of a man, very hard to recover once it has been lost.

      • Kristor…

        The Hegelian dialectic is “murder” + “fundamental right” = female self-annihilation…

        And so the true purpose of one side claiming “murder” full stop and the other side claiming “fundamental right” unequivocally IS THE JOINT DESIRE to PERPETUATE (white) female self-annihilation…

        For the universal “pro-life” position IS A RADICAL LIBERATIONIST position suffering the pathology of deracination… AND THE INSISTENCE that “abortion” is “murder” TO THE EXCLUSION OF FIRST BEING an act of female self-annihilation INDICATIVE OF THAT pathology of deracination.

        Fifty million abortions EQUALS how many guilty? How many individuals are guilty in the conspiracy to murder through abortion?

        100 million?
        150 million?
        200 million?

        What’s the punishment for premeditated murder?

        The INSISTENCE of a universal “pro-life” position IS NOW no more than another aspect of mass white self-annihilation,

        The PENALTY for mass murder is death…

        So abortion as “murder” full stop JUST IS A CALL FOR MORE (white) female annihilation (along with all her conspirators).

        “We” want to stop this mass white self-annihilation and not justify more of it.

        Deracinated “pro-life Christians” CANNOT DO THIS.

      • I can’t see the sense of your argument. If abortion is murder, and if the penalty for murder is death, then women who procure abortions – and their accomplices – are punishable by death. Once make and keep that law, and abortions will quickly and almost completely stop. No genocide will then ensue. Where’s the problem?

      • Kristor…

        Will there be a statue of limitation on the murderous crime of abortion? Will justice demand retroactive execution?

        Abortion is female self-annihilation UNDOUBTEDLY…

        Universal “pro-life” is the denial of evil within man…

        Death penalty for the crime of abortion means MASS ANNIHILATION of the white race…

        Something “we” are trying to reverse.

        Deracinated “Christians” CANNOT CONCEIVE of any dilemma…

        Mainstream “Christianity” IS FOR “white” self-annihilation.

        Mainstream “Christianity” is EQUAL TO the radical left.

        Deracinated “Christianity” is pathological.

        I cannot write this any more clearer.

      • Saying that the West has “earned” the death penalty for the crime of mass abortion JUST IS A CALL FOR THE EFFECTUAL ANNIHILATION of the white race… A white race ALREADY self-annihilating… So practically speaking, “abortion” as “murder” ONLY is liberated-speak for MORE “white” self-annihilation. Meaning, one set of “righteous whites” will be tasked with executing a vast swath of guilty “whites” JUST AS a radical leftist wouid want things.

      • Everyone knows in his guts that abortion is wrong, and to be avoided. If they didn’t, people would seek it out, and take pleasure in it for its own sake.

        That is an extremely dumb argument. There are lots of things that are morally good or neutral but not particularly pleasurable and not sought after for their own sakes (like, say, getting an appendectomy).

      • When their appendices are infected, men seek appendectomies, and take pleasure in the relief they afford. But no one seeks to infect his appendix, *so that* he can have an appendectomy. In the absence of appendicitis, an appendectomy would be an insane undertaking.

        Try harder.

      • I don’t have to try harder, you haven’t produced anything like a valid argument.

        Leaving aside the morality of abortion, it is exactly like an appendectomy — an unpleasant thing one endures to produce a state of being more to one’s liking. So you can’t use the fact that people don’t seek out abortions as an argument for its immorality, since that would make appendectomies immoral as well.

        This is pretty basic. Not even sure why you would choose such an obviously flawed argument either, since there are much better ones against abortion.

        I guess it’s because you aren’t arguing against abortion but for a particular structure of the minds of people who get one — that they are somehow knowingly doing wrong. But it fails there for the same reason.

      • No act is morally neutral. This is no more than to say that every act has aesthetic and hedonic consequences.

        The pain entailed in cutting living human flesh – whether for an abortion, or for an appendectomy, or to suture a wound, or for cosmetic surgery or tattooing – is intrinsically evil. No sane person suffers pain for mere fun. They rather have always some other end in view. People who submit to the cutting of their flesh do so in order to avert or correct an even more painful evil. That an incision is suffered in order to correct an evil greater than itself does not change the fact that the incision itself is intrinsically evil. The intrinsic evil of the pain that comes with cutting living human flesh is the reason that no sane person undertakes such cutting for its own sake.

        People don’t seek out abortions for the sake of having an abortion. Likewise, they don’t seek out appendectomies for the sake of having an appendectomy.

        Now, whether an abortion is exactly like an appendectomy is precisely the nub of the issue between those who advocate abortion and those who oppose it. The difference at issue is of course that in excising an appendix one is not ending a life, but prolonging it; whereas in aborting a foetus one is committing murder. The two procedures are alike in that they both involve cutting living human flesh. In that respect alone, they are equivalently evil. Otherwise, they are quite different. The evil of abortion is far, far greater.

        In likening abortion to appendectomy, you presuppose what you propose to show. You see the problem with this rhetorical procedure, I’m sure.

      • @ a.morphous: One way to strengthen this argument would be to say that those who advocate liberal abortion laws cannot simultaneously opine that we should do all that we can to ensure that the procedure is “rare.” Call this the “safe but rare” fallacy. If the procedure were perfectly “safe” (including safe from discomfort), why should we wish that it be rare? If it is morally neutral, perfectly “safe,” and makes possible the great goods of spontaneous sexual activity and female sexual impunity, why on earth should one not wish that it were more common than it already is. It is, in this case, a low-cost, morally neutral means to increase human happiness.

      • a.morphous is weak…

        And simply unable to state his desire for self-annihilation…

        It is now the high IQ, “intelligently-sane” worldview of the “white” male liberationist to possess an inherent right to self-annihilate AND that those who oppose ALL acts of self-annihilation in order to avoid the LAST act of self-annihilation are the “primitives.”

        This NARRATIVE is authored by the “intellectual” class of the left and “right.”

      • The appendectomy and the abortion are BOTH acts of self-annihilation, ie., a literal killing of a part of one’s self.

        But NO act of self-annihilation is truly equal to another act of self-annihilation because all persons are unique in their degeneracy.

      • Now, whether an abortion is exactly like an appendectomy is precisely the nub of the issue between those who advocate abortion and those who oppose it.

        No, it is not. Nobody is asserting that.

        In likening abortion to appendectomy, you presuppose what you propose to show. You see the problem with this rhetorical procedure, I’m sure.

        I did not liken abortion to an appendectomy, I merely used appendectomy as an example to defeat your (absurd) assertion that failure to seek things out implies they are morally wrong. I’m sure you smart enough to understand the difference.

      • I did not suggest that failure to seek things out implies their moral wrongness. I suggested that failure to seek things out *only for their own sake* implies their moral wrongness. You’ve yet to touch this argument. You’ve rather touched only the argument that I did not make.

        Now, whether an abortion is exactly like an appendectomy is precisely the nub of the issue between those who advocate abortion and those who oppose it.

        No, it is not. Nobody is asserting that.

        Oh, give me a break. Please. Abortion advocates make this argument all the time. “Clump of tissue.”

      • @thordaddy, your monomania is annoying but your obsession with self-annihilation is worrisome. Really, and I’m not trying to be snarky or hostile: get yourself some help.

      • a.morphous…

        Is abortion an act of female self-annihilation or not?

        Is abortion not a “mother” killing a part of herself or not (and a part of another, too)?

        Your anti-objective Supremacy… Or, what cuckservatives submissively call “equality,” “will” eventually turn an “abortion” into the equivalent of an appendectomy…

        And it all starts with YOUR DENIAL of abortion AS female self-annihilation.

        Is this ^^^ the “help” you were referencing?

      • But why stop there?

        A female… Or a male for this matter… Each can kill a part of themselves to SERVE A BETTER END. And because a male can have an appendectomy and LITERALLY kill a part of himself under the belief of attaining a greater good, so it is with abortion and THE GOOD in aborting high IQ, “white” males AT CONCEPTION as evidence of a female’s “fundamental right” to self-annihilate.

        The Nerds of the West MUST BE put back in the “closets.”

        That’s what jew believe.

  6. Being monarchists means we don’t have to choose one.

    Recall the three categories: correct/incorrect, moral/immoral, friend/enemy. Both nationalist and internationalist liberalism are false. Trump may well be more personally immoral–I don’t know either of them personally well enough to tell. Clinton, though, is a member of the Left-anticlerical party and is therefore an enemy in a way that the candidate of the other, unprincipled party isn’t. Recognizing this carries no personal enmity. No doubt Mrs. Clinton simply accepts the same principles taught in all our schools and newsrooms as self-evident truth, and she acts for what everyone she knows would say is the good. She is being chosen to preside over a system whose character is already fixed, one that can operate without her input by a thousand zealots and career civil servants, that will giver her orders rather than vice versa. If Mrs. Clinton were to die tomorrow and continue to be carried around by her handlers, “Weekend at Bernie’s” style, she would be the perfect liberal president. The nationalists, on the other hand, have put there hopes on Trump actually ruling and not only presiding, ruling against the wishes of the state’s current agents, as if such a thing were done any more, as if any mortal could possibly be up to such a task.

    • I have had much to say about this election, despite being a Canadian Tory monarchist rather than an American republican. I hate to be so presumptive as to tell Americans whom they ought to support in their election but unfortunately this one affects us all. As I observed in my recent essay “Scandals” (http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.ca/2016/10/scandals.html): “Western civilization is presently facing the existential crisis Jean Raspail predicted in The Camp of the Saints and to meet that crisis needs a Donald Trump at the helm of the United States and not a Hillary Clinton.” Anyone who has been listening to what Trump has been saying this week, both in the debate and the stellar speeches he gave on Tuesday and Thursday will realize, that he not only understands the nature of the crisis but has come out openly, all guns blazing, on our side. To paraphrase the slogan used by liberal Democrats in Louisiana to relect Edwin Edwards when he ran against David Duke in 1991, vote for the foul-mouthed lech – its important.

      • I don’t see how this election is particularly more important than any of the other recent ones. In fact, if our main concern is to promote Christian patriarchy, I can think of no previous slate of candidates who have offered us less. Anyway, if I’m going to participate in a lost cause, it might as well be the one I actually believe in.

      • “I don’t see how this election is particularly more important than any of the other recent ones.”

        –I don’t see how the old “most important election of our lifetime” cliché can NOT be true under present circumstances. As Gerry T. Neal succinctly urges, we are in the midst of the violent flooding of Europe, America, and the Commonwealth by hostile alien hordes who will be–nay, ARE– given virtual free reign to target everything real or budding Christian patriarchalists hold dear (the sanctity and lives of their children being uppermost). If Trump’s candidacy is repudiated at the ballot box, history will afford no further opportunity of peaceful redress for this. Pres. Putin will be left isolated and targeted for coup d’état. US military provocations against Russia and China will escalate, with a woman at the helm who has had twenty-five years to marinate in her sense of thwarted ambition. Globalist forces checked by the BREXIT vote will reassert themselves and submerge Europe in further violence as they attempt to force deracination (intrinsically anti-Christian) upon the historic White populations. Horrible catastrophes of a “biblical” or indeed Apocalyptic level will unfold. In light of this, the opportunity to secure a leader who has consistently, in plain language, and for the duration of a brutally tough campaign pledged to back off from expanding hostilities in the Middle East or against Russia, promised concrete (!) moves to halt illegal immigration and return the aliens, halt Islamic immigration, and spoken encouragement for Europe to do likewise, simply cannot be missed.

        Donald Trump isn’t going to call anyone a “Nazi evil white supreemist” for locking their daughters away from him, if it comes to that. So lock them away, but vote Trump! One has literally much worse to fear from either Clinton personally, to say nothing of what they collectively would unleash upon us all.

  7. To the extent that women are openly using their physical appearance to better their lot in life, as is the case for most of those gravitating around beauty contests and such shows, they are practicing a kind of “soft prostitution”. To be referred to and be treated as a whore is part and parcel of the trade.

    Instead of showing their displeasure with women acting immodestly, the critics have chosen to act outraged with the man who speaks about them as if those women don’t have decorum.

    I’d like to know how many of the critics might agree to let his daughter close to Mr. Trump. I suspect that, as long as it’s not called like it is, i.e., trading sex, they will be just fine with the fact. What a coup it would be to get a Mr. Trump to marry her!

    • I wouldn’t like Trump anywhere near my daughters, but I would still be happier for him to be president rather than Clinton.

    • This is ^^^ not moral clarity.

      Moral clarity would be informing your readers that the “paper” cannot vote for either Trump or Clinton as both are sexual degenerates with Hillary’s overt support for a female’s “right” to self-annihilation, ie., abortion, being an extremely dark mark against her… And including minor females’ “right” to self-annihilate, she only goes darker.

      • I sympathize with anyone who cannot bring themselves to vote for Secretary Clinton. I cannot vote for her for multiple reasons.

        I therefore understand why someone might thus decide vote for Mr. Trump. But I cannot do so. He does not meet the minimum standard to get my vote or my support.

        Bishop James Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska has stated that “No Catholic should feel obliged to vote for one candidate just to prevent the election of another.”


        See also



      • Leo…

        There is no moral obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils as though Evil itself had forced you to vote for one lesser evil or the other.

        The paper SHOULD REFUSE to vote for either candidate and remain true to its supposed impartiality. As it stands, it is making the claim that Trump’s sexual degeneracy is so egregious as to provoke this “paper” into partisan mode all the while slimultaneously pretending it has not kicked into partisan mode.



        Is a Hillary Clinton as deeply sexually degenerate as any billionaire cad… She is DYKE deep down inside.

        Only… A dull “white” mass can make nothing of it. The dull “white” mass simply cannot conceive Hillary’s Dyke War On Woman STARTING with her advocacy of female self-annihilation, ie., abortion. The dull “white” mass is too sexually degenerate itself to make any edifying distinctions.

        PS. Abortion is a self-annihilating act where a expectant female “mother” LITERALLY KILLS a part of herself… Abortion is an act of female self-annihilation.

    • Should the people who foisted Mitt Romney on the country last time around be lecturing anyone else about morality?

      Who had more moral clarity when it came to the Iraq war? Trump or LDS leaders? We now know for a fact that at least some LDS political leaders were in favor of the war because they saw it as an opportunity to prostleyize in the Middle East. Well, Christianity is now virtually extinct in many parts of the Middle East as a direct result of our actions there. I for one find this a lot worse than Trump’s locker room talk.

      • “PS. Abortion is a self-annihilating act where a expectant female “mother” LITERALLY KILLS a part of herself… Abortion is an act of female self-annihilation.”

        Leo, I would go further and say that abortion is also an act of spiritual suicide, one of many poison pills offered up to children early. Abortion is self-evidently murder, especially to the murderer in question. But the consensus, all the best experts, all the professors, all the smart people, all the celebrities, all cool parents tell us it’s a fundamental human right, an act that symbolizes holy political choice, an expression of female empowerment, a mere medical procedure. This induces the spiritual suicide, since the body, soul, and spirit all know the truth of the murder. The intellect, then, is forced in turn to commit a suicide, in that all that is known must be also be sacrificed for the sake of one’s sanity, since holding the cognitive dissonance is not an option and impossible without building great internal firewalls of denial and self-deception. Once one starts down this path, one is obligated to fanatically defend the situation at risk of insanity, though clearly the situation is untenable and insanity ensues nonetheless. The choice reverberates. Now consensus takes a position above reason, senses, and gnosis. The heart, I don’t think can ever succumb and so remains broken and inaccessible. The firewalls grow taller. Since consensus is now Judge, how can one doubt any consensus? I don’t think those doing the social engineering are unaware of these sad observations. Consensus now tells us that gender is a fluid construct, that marriage is a celebration of narcissism, that any and all consensus by professional technocrats is science, that television images are reality because everyone sees them. There are many deaths when a mother kills her child.

      • In passing, I have to say that Jeremy’s essay on abortion presents a staggering wealth of insights which ring horrifically true. Abortion, not only as murder, but as a CultMarx satanic baptism, a vampiric “making” of the young woman over to their matrix of lies, a paper mill of fiat rationalizations. “Dark Satanic mills” and the “youthful Harlot’s curse”.

        (Of course, I throw in a tip of the hat to thordaddy for his stinging aphorisms, which provided the jumping-point for Jeremy’s penetrating elaboration!)

  8. If I say I’m not voting for anybody because I don’t believe in the democratic process, that’s a congruent position with my NRx convictions and perfectly acceptable.

    If I say I’m not voting for one or the other because some high-ranking religious figure says I’m not morally obligated to do so, I’d first see what that same person has done to oppose the destruction of our Church by the sacrilegious Bergoglio and his enablers. Is he a trustworthy man? What is his position regarding Amoris Laetitia, for example? What are his opinions about the infiltration and subversion of the Roman curia by Soros?

    Finally, I’d ask myself who of them could be less damaging to the religious liberties of the country, as phony as they are right now?

  9. Sheesh. Clinton is an actual war agitator, athletic supporter of abortion, more or less provably bribable, an enemy of Christians and religious freedom, actual blood on her hands with Benghazi alone, squasher of rape allegations, notorious fraudster and thief. Notoriously short tempered and abusive with Secret Service agents as well as apparently having some health problems that could leave us with President Kaine.

    Trump is a bit of an ass. And that’s it really. He also said women who break the law to have an abortion should probably be prosecuted. He’s immediately more consistent than many bishops on that issue even if he did back down later. No credible rape or murder allegations, some sharp dealings in business, more or less within the law, and on the bribing side rather than the bribee.

    This Manichaen purity fetish is insane. Daniel served a heathen king, so did Joseph and David. Paul used his Roman citizenship to his own advantage. The idea that both candidates are evil enough choices to justify not voting is crazy to me when one is clearly the worser choice for Christians and one will leave us alone. Even if you’re a monarchist, until the day comes when that’s a live option, be here now. The ruler is the ruler and right now that’s USG.

    • They call it “toxic masculinity,” as if masculinity itself were a sort of poison. Masculinity is, rather, a force, like flowing water or blowing wind. When properly ordered to the good, and properly harnessed to its work, masculinity sustains civilization. When ignored, denounced, denied, reviled, and lampooned, it either attacks civilization or shrugs its shoulders when things fall apart.

  10. @ Kristor: “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you” is a double-edged sword. If I take a life unjustly, I cry out to the universe that I wish to have my life unjustly taken. If I steal or slander, the same is true. I think this is actually how the world often works, and a major part of the economy that pays the “wages of sin.”

    • For sure. The world will do unto you as you do unto it. GIGO. Emerson’s Compensation. Karma. This principle is one of the basics: there is conservation of value.

  11. Pingback: Reminder: why you shouldn’t vote | Throne and Altar

  12. Pingback: Cherchez la Femme is a Hatefact – The Orthosphere

  13. Pingback: Dog bites man, women and children hardest hit | Zippy Catholic

  14. Pingback: I guess every girl wants to be swept off her feet – The Orthosphere


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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.