More Republican drift: Trump leading the charge to surrender

In response to Pope Francis’ attack, Donald Trump replied

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President.

which is ironic considering Trump himself supports attacking and weakening Christianity in the interests of his own sodomitical ideology.  Laura Wood finds

DONALD Trump, who once attended a same-sex “marriage” and called it “beautiful,” is relatively good for the LGBT cause. He personally supports free marriage and he has been a vocal supporter of “gay rights.” According to Jonathan Jacob Allen:

Trump has advocated for banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. He criticized a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses after the U.S. Supreme Court found, earlier this year, that the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry. He is also one of only two Republican candidates — along with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie — that the Human Rights Campaign deems to have even a “mixed” record on gay rights.

“He is one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency,” said Gregory T. Angelo, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, an advocacy group for LGBT Republicans. Trump would do no harm on same-sex marriage, Angelo said, and has a “stand-out position” on non-discrimination legislation.

I don’t need to remind readers of the zero-sum game here:  workplace discrimination ban means protection from hostile work environment means employers must fire anyone found to disagree with the gay rights agenda means Donald Trump wants the ruin of every faithful American Christian.

This “boo-hoo-hoo, don’t question my faith” routine is pathetic.  The man has made public his repudiation of the Christian faith and his intention to do its followers legal harm.  He is not a Christian.  He’s not even a virtuous pagan.

It is frightening indeed that the Republican frontrunner should be unambiguously siding with the enemy on the most important issue of our time.  It is a sign that we will soon have two openly anti-Christian parties.  Some might say that this is better than having one openly anti-Christian party and one covertly anti-Christian one, but I don’t agree.  The Republican Party’s hypocritical defense of the faith has provided some real protection to the extent that it has made the Democrats cautious.

28 Responses

  1. lol @ the irony of a gigantic faggot such as yourself claiming to oppose God Emperor Trump because of his alleged support for gay rights. Stay salty, queer.

  2. I doubt we would see anything good on this issue if Trump didn’t get in.
    Have you noticed how all the governors just rolled over on the gmarriage issue? It is doubtful anyone will protect us- especially not the ones who proclaim they will the loudest.

    Meanwhile, Trump seems to notice who treats him badly and who doesn’t. A lot of the media is gay. There’s some slight potential he will take offense at their cheap shots and maybe even display loyalty to those who vote for him, which will be a true novelty in modern politics.

  3. Cry moar fashfag

  4. @August,

    Yeah, if a politician wants to lead the Republican charge to surrender, he’s got to HUSTLE.

  5. Right liberals gonna right liberal. Somebody has to take on the task of conserving the leftist triumphs of last week.

  6. 1) “WALLACE: But — but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?

    TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes.”

    (As an aside, I have noted with some interest that same-sex marriage hasn’t been a significant part of the anti-Trump rhetoric up to this point (that is, along with ‘sexist’, ‘racist’, ‘bigot’ etc), either from the left (‘homophobe!’) or from the right (‘compromiser!’ etc). Whatever the cause for the delay, I suppose it’s coming to an end.)

    2) Trump’s response to the Pope was a splendid rhetorical counterattack that forced a hasty backpeddle because it directly hit at Francis’ general posture of being non-judgmental about matters of faith.

  7. Trump’s appeal is easy to analyse.

    With universal suffrage and the rise of mass political parties, the bourgeoisie were simply not numerous enough to obtain electoral success on their own; the bourgeois parties had to co-opt a substantial section of the lumpenproletariat, with their lack of class-consciousness.

    To do this, they needed to focus their attention on any issue that did not impact the only freedom the bourgeoisie really cares about: the freedom to exploit the labour of others for profit. The “culture wars” are a prime example of this strategy.

    Trump is not the first demagogue to seek power by detaching the lumpenproletariat from the party élite; this usually happens in periods of struggle and social breakdown, when their ranks are swelled by ruined and declassé elements from all layers of a society in decay.

    In addition, the demagogue can usually win the support of the peasantry, who have no political organization and a petit bourgeoisie that feels economically threatened, but hates socialism

  8. Bonald, I think you’ve got this wrong. A pious Christian who aimed to bring Christ’s Kingdom to this earth as President would be unelectable, and I suspect, also theologically suspect. Christianity is NOT a political program, nor does Christianity thrive by legislative edict. Spain and Portugal were integralist countries for most of the latter 20th C and now they’re some of the most post Christian countries on earth. Christianity is a proposition that must be voluntarily accepted not an imposition to be borne.

    This election is not about paving the way to heaven, its instead about the practical response to things here on earth. No, Trump is not the one, but he is the least worst–ELECTABLE–candidate out there.

    It’s no use having a saint run as president if no one will vote for him.

  9. MPS,

    I think trump’s supporters are props rather than lumpenproletariat as the latter doesn’t vote in primaries or attend caucuses.

  10. That should read proles not “props”. Autocorrect.

  11. I much preferred Pat Buchanan as a candidate. With Pat you got the economic and demographic nationalism plus a traditional Catholic/Christian worldview. But Pat couldn’t get elected.

  12. If no one will vote for a saint, what does that say about democracy as a form of governance?

  13. Trump’s response to requested pledge to sign First Amendment Defense Act in first 100 days of his Administration

  14. “If no one will vote for a saint, what does that say about democracy as a form of governance?”
    If monarchy was so great, why did Juan Carlos II backstab the conservative military in Spain to pave way for liberalism?

    I find it quite telling that in the Muslim world, conservative religious governments are the results of democracy (eg Erdogan, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, whomever are running Pakistan, etc) and need autocratic governments to impose liberalism on them by force.

    Its a morally fallen people that are at fault, not democracy in and of itself. Unless you enjoy being cucked by liberal autocrats.

  15. I think the first sentence of the last paragraph hits the crux of the matter. To you the most important political issue these days is clearly the persecution of Christians by (or at any rate on the behalf of) sodomites. To many of Trump’s supporters, it barely seems to register compared to being (for the moment) a rebel, nationalist, and alpha bad-boy.

    Frequently this is justified on the grounds that if something isn’t done about controlling immigration there might not be a nation to fix. That if nothing is done about sodomy and baby-murder the nation will remain by definition unfixed doesn’t seem to phase them much.

  16. None of the Trump alternatives is going to do anything about sodo-matrimony or abortion.

  17. “I find it quite telling that in the Muslim world, conservative religious governments are the results of democracy (eg Erdogan, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, whomever are running Pakistan, etc) and need autocratic governments to impose liberalism on them by force.”

    Saudi Arabia is liberal?

  18. Minion:

    Churchill (IIRC) reportedly said that democracy is the worst form of governance except for all the others. It is one of those rare statements which is almost perfect in its purified, absolute wrongness.

    Structure is at most tertiary in importance. But it tends to be a reflection of (and reinforce) the thing which actually is important, which is the dominant political philosophy of the ruling class. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

    Authoritarian aristocracies and monarchies make morally good governance and a morally good people merely improbable.

    Liberal democracy makes morally good governance impossible.

  19. @ArkansasReactionary:
    “Saudi Arabia is liberal?”
    It would have been if it were not for the takeover of the
    ħaram (the black box in Mecca, including its surrounding campus) by a band of salafi youths demanding the monarchy to abandon its increasingly secularist policies. The monarchy seems to be considerably more liberal than most of its populace (excluding its large metropoleis).

    Jordan and Morocco are more typical of Arab monarchies, when they do not have strong religious pressures from their own government. Conversely, republican Yemen is delightfully anti-enlightenment in its entire social and moral values.

    “Liberal democracy makes morally good governance impossible.”
    Well, when you add the qualifier “liberal”, then yes, democracy is horrible. “Liberal” anything is horrible, even when it assumes the form of a crown and throne. The Ancient Greeks and Romans had lived centuries under democratic rule without ever even entertaining liberal notions (the oddly relevant satire of Aristophanes aside).

  20. Minion:

    The Ancient Greeks and Romans had lived centuries under democratic rule without ever even entertaining liberal notions

    Feel free to take that up with Socrates.

  21. @MPS

    I’m curious whether you are using “demagogue” in some technical, non-value-laden sense?

    I can think of many demagogues who have run for the GOP nomination for president. All of the socially conservative ones, for example, are such. But Trump?

    He is proposing policies, reasonable and defensible ones, which are actually in the interests of the people he is appealing to. That his presentation is gauche seems an irrelevant side issue to me. If it works, great.

  22. DrBill

    Well, the dictionary definition is “a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.” This suits Trump to a T. Even if the policies he proposes are capable of being defended reasonably, Trump’s presentation is entirely emotional rather than rational. (In fact, I do think that his positions on immigration and foreign policy are broadly rational).

    For example, isn’t promising to get Mexico to pay for a border wall a perfect example of something that fires up the vulgar masses despite being totally absurd? Mexico would never be willing to be seen as bowing to the US in that way, no matter how many remittances we ban.

    More than anything else he strikes me as an American Geert Wilders-sold on leftist rot on sexual issues, but conservative on immigration. IMO not nearly enough of a good trade to support such a wildly unqualified person with so horrendous of a personal life.

    Genuinely curious-could you pick one of the demagogues you have in mind and explain how he is more of a demagogue than Trump?

  23. Oh also Bonald: You claim Trump has made public his repudiation of Christianity. Has he actually done so? It seems to me that if you embrace moral error but still believe in the Trinity and Resurrection, for instance, you’re merely made yourself a bad Christian rather than repudiated Christianity. How do you distinguish the two?

    But I disagree still more with “He is not a Christian”.

    As canonist Ed Peters says, “An individual becomes “Christian” by, and only by, (valid) baptism. Donald Trump was apparently baptized Presbyterian, which faith community has valid baptism. Donald Trump is, therefore, as a matter of canon law (c. 204), Christian. Trump might be a good Christian or a bad one—I cannot say, and neither can anyone else. Trump might do and say things consistent with Christian values or in contradiction to them, but his status as baptized, and therefore as Christian, is beyond dispute.”

    If believing something like this caused you to cease to be a Christian, by what right would the Church continue to exercise authority over you? Whereas if it makes you a Christian who committed an ecclesiastical crime, canonical punishment makes sense.

  24. My definition of Christianity is not theological but political (in Schmitt’s sense). When the enemy attacks, is he on our side or theirs?

  25. Interesting. It seems a bit of a regressive definition though. How can we define a Christian as a person who oppose the enemy of Christians? Episcopalians might claim that they’re Christians because they uphold Christianity’s message of tolerance against the enemy of fundamentalism, or some such nonsense.

    Your definition would make Mormons Christians but Anglicans not, which is contrary to Catholic teaching. Or do I misunderstand?

  26. Bonald’s definition would ultimately leave only Catholics, and not all of those. Whether wittingly or no, culpably or no, to embrace heresy or schism is in fact to take the Enemy’s side against the Church. Such a definition, while not perhaps the most technically and theologically correct, is not without a long and distinguished pedigree.

  27. As a long time Bonald reader I find your rejection of Trump disappointing. I guess that Trump may represent the
    parting of the ways between Nationalists/racists and Christians. A few reactions that I had here:

    1. Gay marriage the most important issue of our time? I’m against gay marriage; it makes no sense to me. But surely it is not
    the most important issue of our time. Muslims want to infiltrate our countries, rape our women and children, and violently convert
    us to their religion. Surely that is a more pressing issue. Trump is comparatively quite strong here.

    2. The Pope did not call Trump out on gay marriage; he called Trump out on wanting a border fence. It seems like you are
    trying to trick yourself into liking the Pope more by conflating his objections to Trump (Trump isn’t enthusiastic enough
    about flooding America with non-Whites) with your own objections to Trump (gay marriage etc.).

    3. While I oppose gay marriage, I regard it as being a natural consequence of the decline of the sanctity of real marriage.
    The Kentucky county clerk who is referenced in the article you quote has been married four times to three different men.
    At a certain point, heterosexual objections to gay marriage don’t seem terribly persuasive when they come from women like that.

    4. Finally, as an agnostic who is normally fairly sympathetic to Christianity, I would like to add that if one of the best
    pro-White candidates we have had in a long time is also anti-Christian, there might be a lesson in there somewhere.
    Ted Cruz is a staunch Christian (protestant) and also a total shill for Israel and the precious Jews. Maybe if Christianity had not
    capitulated so quickly and completely to anti-White, pro-Jewish sentiment, White people would be more reluctant to see it die.
    Just a thought.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: