Treason in the United States has an incredibly narrow definition given that the men who wrote the Constitution had just finished committing treason: "only in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Fonda is one of the few people in the last century to have actually met this definition.

I don't need to. Would you provide an answer to my questions?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What is a nationalist? How does it relate to whether or not women have penises?

I'm not sure "fact" is the right concept or at least how the word has come to be used in common parlance. I've been home all day, and thus spending too much time posting here, and everything I've griped about comes down to the rejection of Realism. Take the dictionary definition of "fact":

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
3. A real occurrence; an event.

Notice the trend: "real", "demonstrated", "real". Realism supports the existence of universals, numbers, and propositions. These three are "mind independent." Universals being things like a circle; there is no need for a human mind to exist for a circle to exist. Numbers being things like the number seven; there is no need for human mind to exist for the number seven to exist. And finally propositions being things like "trees are green"; require not human mind to exist for the proposition to be true.

Ok, why all this crap? Because if you're not a realist you wind up being some sort of nominalist. And that is the sort of person that says: "some women have penises and some men have babies." Such statements used to be confined to defenders of Realism given as a hyperbolic example of nominalism, but now it's part of our public discourse.

I don't give a shit who shits next to me. I do give a shit about people who can't or won't give a proper definition of Man/Woman, something that illiterate morons have been able to do since the advent of language.

My gripe isn't with Republicans; its with Conservatives. Two generations and they haven't conserved a damn thing. This makes sense when you realize that American Neo-conservatism was founded by dude who didn't necessarily disagree with Liberals, but thought they were moving a bit too fast (Irving Krystal; Early Life section reads as expected).

All I ask at this point, and I'm being serious, is a Republican who is willing to unapologetically say in public: "Women do not have penises, and men cannot have babies." Until they cross that particular Rubicon, they are not to be taken seriously. This is a very low standard.

Edit: To be honest, transgenderism is a bit of a godsend: you can, in a moment, determine if a person is capable of rational thought and honest communication. If a person is incapable of thought, its a harder question as to if they can be saved. If this sounds like a purity test: you're goddamned right.

Yeah. Contentious media consumption at this point nearly requires giving strong preference to original works. Not much loss in that as most known names have been bought up by large corporations employing creatives (for lack of a better word) who hate us. It can be hard for some it give up on beloved IP, but the originals are still there. It was difficult to explain to a boomer parent why not only would I not watch ring of power with them but that I was legitimately irritated with them watching it.

Eh, its a short excerpt from a play. Sir Thomas Moore went willing to his execution rather than compromise his beliefs both in God's law and Man's law. The movie adaption of the play is great and TheRealLiszt's linked to the scene. I recommenced it; don't know if its on any steaming platforms.

It does. All homosexuals, by definition, lack a proper capacity to form bonds with the opposite sex. Why people of all political persuasions have been willing to cut Lesbians extra slack compared to their male counter parts, that is an interesting question.

why they don’t found their own religion

Religion aside, this is not how you subvert an institution. The long march through the institutions is intended to corrupt and twist the old functioning groups from within and bend them to the will of Marxists (or various other brands of revolutionaries and/or progressives). They do this for two reasons: 1) They hate the old and 2) cannot create on their own. As to why any religious clergy or laymen of any particular group would tolerate such behavior, I can only assumed its the typical reason lately: pathological altruism.

Aristotelian realism and Natural Law theory do not require a religious basis. Just saying, for those who wish to avoid Governments suggesting that "religious beliefs" do not belong in the public sphere.

Edit: Aristotelian realism is a clumsy phrase given that Aristotelianism is realist by nature. Keeping it though.

A number of years ago I coined the phrase "progressive denialism" in a conversation with friends as a way to describe that "the slippery slope " was actually part of progressive agendas. At the time, I thought it was a pretty astute observation for a person like me. Now you can't talk to anyone left of center without them denying to your face the existence of the very ideas and policies they support.

Sorry, don't know why I didn't post archive.

The sooner we abandon the moralities and neuroses of people ten thousand plus years dead

“Tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record... Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death." -- GK Chesterton

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

According to files from the communist-era security services

Their source is commie jackboots? You might have led with that.

Perhaps. A couple of the past few popes have suggested and teach that capital punishment is "impermissible" currently. This has caused a great deal of consternation, because the Church has long held the opposite. The quirk is that, in an attempt avoid contradiction, the new teaching says capital punishment is not "the right move" in light of modern society's capability to carry out life sentences. In this case, the mega-prison idea seems doomed to failure and when if fails it will be a social nightmare. Even under nupope teaching, these guys should have hung.

people's sexuality is quite malleable

There is no such thing as "sexual orientation" or sexuality. The (two) sexes are oriented to each other. Anything else is an abnormality that results in degenerate behaviors.