The Sexual Left’s Ambiguous Definition

In a recent Orthosphere post entitled “The Sexual Left Devours Itself” contributor Kristor commented on the recent rash of sexual harassment charges being lobbed at public figures. He begins his piece by writing,

The Great Sex Harassment Witch Hunt of 2017 is mostly hitting liberals. It is leaving conservatives largely unscathed (at least so far). Why should this be?

My first reaction after reading this assertion was to think of two prominent examples of sexual harassment charges hitting conservatives. The first is conservative Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore who has been accused by numerous women of sexually assaulting them when they were minors. The second is the Republican and self described conservative President of the United States, Donald Trump who’s own voice was recorded describing his penchant for grabbing women by their genitals. Despite these two rather glaring counter-examples, I must admit that there is nothing factually incorrect about his statement that most of the the accusations seem to be directed towards liberals when viewed generally.

The real problem is in trying to know what definition of liberalism Mr. Kristor is using. This is actually a common problem on the Orthosphere. It is very clear that the contributors and most commentators on the Orthosphere are anti-liberal in their political philosophy. But it is most decidedly unclear whether they are all using a common definition of liberalism. In some cases it is clear they are not.

For example, contributor Alan Roebuck wrote in his post “A Basic Guide to Liberalism and Conservatism, Part I“:

There is no need here to give a full definition of liberalism. Like the famous quip about pornography, we know it when we see it. We know liberalism because its message is everywhere.

Obviously, leaving liberalism undefined as such makes it a convenient punching bag because it can mean anything a person wants it to mean. But not defining liberalism also makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation about liberalism because although there might be a meeting of the minds in terms of one’s dislike for liberalism, it is unclear whether there is a meeting of the minds as to the reason for this dislike.

Another Orthosphere commentator and blog writer in his own right Zippy Catholic provides a more concrete definition of liberalism on his blog. In a post entitled, “Definition of Liberalism,” Zippy defines liberalism as:

…the political doctrine that securing individual freedom and equal rights is a primary legitimate purpose of government.

Zippy’s definition seems to be a reasonable one in that it is not inflammatory on its face, nor is it vague. It also largely accords with the standard definition of liberalism one might find in a typical dictionary. For this reason I will proceed with my analysis of Kristor’s post with this definition of liberalism in mind even though I do not know if this is the definition he is using.

After making his original assertion, Kristor went on to say:

Conservatives typically and generally labor under and prosper by a strong sense of traditional morality, under which it is not just perverse, but wicked, horrifying, repellent, and so rather inconceivable, to behave ignobly or impolitely toward women or other lessers. Most conservatives, I think it fair to say, would never even think of groping a woman or boy, any more than they would think of torturing a cat. They’d rather rip out their own guts.

At this point it is conceivable that Kristor believes a correlation exists between a belief that government should secure the freedom and equal rights of its citizens with a belief in sexual depravity. I suppose an argument could be made that if a person believed in freedom as a general political proposition that this belief in freedom would naturally translate into a free sexuality. I have no doubt it can be true that political freedom and sexual freedom correlate to a certain extent. But this certainly does not hold true for everyone. Take myself as an example. I consider myself to be a liberal according to Zippy’s definition but I have also been married and faithful to my wife for almost 20 years. I certainly have not sexually assaulted a woman during this time period. All this is to demonstrate that it is possible for a political liberal to not also be a sexual liberal. I am not sure that Kristor makes this distinction.

But Mr. K might not really be referring to political liberalism at all as it relates to sexuality. When he uses the term “liberalism” in his piece he might just be referring to sexual liberalism and nothing else. The point is that I am not sure as to this point and I question whether his is sure as to this point as well.

He continues:

Almost all the pathetic gropers who have been brought to shame in the last few weeks, on the other hand, are liberals, who have long loudly proclaimed their allegiance to liberal moral nostrums. As liberals, they think there is nothing inherently, absolutely wrong. They think that what we construe as wrong is – like everything else in human life whatsoever – no more than a social construct; which is to say, a pure fiction.

Here we see the author painting all liberals with a rather broad brush, asserting they all must hold (perhaps by definition) a belief in moral relativism. Again, for myself I have to point out that I am a political liberal but also believe in absolute right and wrong. Although I have no doubt that some liberals believe in moral relativism this is certainly not the case for all. So to say that moral liberalism (or relativism) and sexual liberalism are the same is questionable in my mind. However, I am not at all sure this is what Mr. K is saying, because I do not know what definition of liberalism he is using. You might say he is being liberal in his use of language.

Insofar then as the scandal truly attaches to some putative conservative, he must be conservative in name only. He must, i.e., be at heart a liberal. He must not at bottom really believe in the traditional morality he publicly espouses, or therefore form his acts according thereto.

Acts betray convictions.

Here, I think we see that in the eyes of Mr. K a conservative is by definition a person who acts sexually according to a conservative morality and a liberal is a person who acts sexually according to a liberal morality. This seems to be true to him regardless of whatever political philosophy the conservative or liberal might also hold.

But again, the problem here is that I have no idea whether Kristor makes any distinction between the terms political liberalism, sexual liberalism or moral liberalism. If he is talking about political liberalism then the counter example of myself refutes his assertion that political liberalism necessarily leads to sexual liberalism all the time. If he is speaking only of sexual liberalism then it seems like he is attempting to make a point that is obvious on its face. That is, sexual liberals are sexual liberals. If he is talking about moral liberalism it is unclear whether Kristor can see the possibility of a person acting morally in one situation (like speaking the truth) and acting immorally in another such as groping a woman against her will. Non moral relativists can differ in terms of what they believe morality to be. Would a person be considered to be moral if he acted morally but believed in divorce? Reasonable, moral people can differ as to this point. And just because a person is a moral relativist does not mean that they would go about committing murder and rape. Again, I doubt Kristor is making this distinction.

Liberal “morality” leads logically, and so inevitably, to boundless wickedness. It removes the ontological (and therefore ineluctable) limit of right action, that cannot be swayed by any means whatever; so then any act that can be rationalized… The result is not limited to a parade of petty personal pecadilli [leading to] things like the Katyn Forest Massacre, or the Holodomor. Or, indeed, Lidice, the Holocaust, the Terror, the Purge.

There is a certain logic to the notion that if political liberalism leads to moral liberalism then atrocities are a possible or perhaps probable outcome. However, the examples of the massacres in the Katyn Forest, Holodomor, Lidice and the Holocaust all occurred in un-free police states and as such, arguably illiberal regimes. If free societies lead to massacres the same argument could be made against hierarchical police states as well and if both arguments can be made then it is hard to make the case that liberalism has anything to do with it.

I have made this argument before and it does not seem to make any impact on a person who has committed himself to believing that the political philosophy which holds that the freedom and equal rights of citizens can actually be the exact opposite. Anti-liberals by definition are against liberalism. This sentiment is only reinforced by having no clear definition of liberalism because it creates a boogeyman that can then be blamed for anything one finds disagreeable.

Kristor concluded his opinion piece by stating:

If sexual predation is wrong, it is *wrong,* period full stop. And in that case, the moral relativism of liberalism, and with it the sexual libertinism of liberalism, is … absolutely wrong. In which case, feminism is dead.

To this I would clarify that the objectionable portion of the term “sexual assault” is that an “assault” (or predation if you prefer) occurs against the will of the other. I believe this is what the feminists primarily take issue with and not so much the sexual aspect of it except to the extent that a sexual assault is generally considered to be a higher degree of assault. Accordingly I think Kristor has exaggerated his report as to the death of feminism. I also think his anti-liberal tirade would be made stronger by clearly defining the term.


Filed under Uncategorized

47 responses to “The Sexual Left’s Ambiguous Definition

  1. T. Morris


    If he is talking about political liberalism then the counter example of myself refutes his assertion that political liberalism necessarily leads to sexual liberalism all the time.

    That isn’t Kristor’s assertion; it’s *your* assertion about what he wrote.

    Having followed Kristor’s posts for years, dating back to our old VFR days, I can assure you that Kristor would *never* assert that “political liberalism necessarily leads to sexual liberalism all the time,” your counter-example and any number of others you might cite (or the lack thereof) notwithstanding.

    Concerning what definition of liberalism Kristor is working off of, yes, he would agree with Zippy’s definition. He would also agree with Zippy’s definition of what a liberal is further down Zippy’s post.

    As to your “glaring counter-examples” you mention early on, okay, I’ll give you Roy Moore, but no-one on the Traditionalist Right (including Kristor) would ever say that Donald Trump is a “conservative.” At very best he is a right-liberal, meaning that his underlying philosophical point of view (world view, if you like) is liberal, and he leans to the right on certain issues. E.g., he is apparently something of a nationalist.

    But of course, as you said, the example of Trump doesn’t negate Kristor’s point in any case. Far from it. Moreover, “self-described conservative” is a good way to put it in Trump’s case because, like I said, no true conservative considers him a part of the conservative camp except nominally at best, like a lukewarm Christian. I’ve personally known a bunch of ’em (self-described conservatives), and more often than not they’re just right-liberals who have convinced themselves they are conservatives, and in many cases “ultra-conservatives.” And very often sexual liberals t’boot.

    Whatever floats their boat, I guess.

    • So you are saying that Kristor’s post is discussing sexual liberalism only and that sexual liberalism is not necessarily related to political liberalism?

      • T. Morris

        Umm, no, that’s not what I’m saying and you know it. I’m merely pointing out that Kristor isn’t saying (in the post you cite) what you claim he said. Namely that political liberalism *necessarily leads to sexual liberalism all the time*. And I’m working off of your (sketchy) definition of what constitutes sexual liberalism at that. Hint: that you (or I, or anyone else for that matter) haven’t groped another woman in the 20 odd years you’ve been married does not make you a sexual conservative, or non-sexual-liberal if you like.

      • I don’t use these terms. There does not seem to be an agreed upon definition which was the point of my post.

      • T. Morris

        Agreed upon definition of what? Liberalism, Political Liberalism, Sexual Liberalism, Moral Liberalism? What? You’ve made distinctions that certainly exist on a case-by-case, moment-by-moment basis, but what has that to do with anything Kristor said in his post?

        I don’t presume to understand what your overall point in the post was/is, but I’ll take you at your word and also say you’ve wildly failed to make it!

        That *you* don’t see general agreement amongst traditionalists about what constitutes liberalism, is a failure on your part. Hell we settled that question years ago, as I’ve pointed out numerous times already. Alan Roebuck’s post is no exception to the rule; he was right in the thick of it at VFR when all of that was under intense discussion.

      • I think my point was clear but I take you at your word that you don’t understand it.

  2. Pingback: Wildly Failing to Make an Assertion | Winston Scrooge

  3. Pingback: An Anti-Liberal’s History of Liberalism | Winston Scrooge

  4. thordaddy


    You are a radical sexual autonomist.

    A “father” who stated that “contraception is responsible family planning.”

    You are no refutation of a political liberalism reduced to a sexual liberalism.

    So, it is within the “sexual revolution” that the great mass of whites have suffered her most ubiquitous wounds of self-annihilation. And it is “our” perpetuating self-annihilation which serves as the pretext for political liberalism, ie., tolerance and non-discrimination for white self-annihilation.

    • When you say “self annihilation” do you mean “racial annihilation”?

      • thordaddy

        No… Collective racial annihilation is a particular effect of individual self-annihilation via deracination.

    • Also, please explain this statement, “You are no refutation of a political liberalism reduced to a sexual liberalism.” I have no idea what you are talking about here.

      • thordaddy

        You are a radical sexual autonomist SO OF COURSE you would prefer and advocate for political liberalism.

        Ergo, you ARE NOT a refutation of the notion of political liberalism always reducing to sexual liberalism.

      • I can see how you might feel that way given your definition of radical sexual autonomist. However, I do not agree with your opinion that I am a radical autonomist, sexual or otherwise. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

      • thordaddy

        Then you will have implicitly retracted your statement as a father that “contraception is responsible family planning.”

      • Please define your term in plain English so that we know we are talking about the same thing.

      • thordaddy

        The essence of “liberalism” is to avoid a particular definition. One can only point to instances of “radical sexual autonomy” where such temporarily emerges only to “vanish” with adamant denials.

        Your CLAIM as a “father” that “contraception is responsible family planning” is such a particular instance of “political liberalism” bringing definition to the phenomena of “radical sexual autonomy.”

        The claim is self-refuting.

        The claim annihilates itself.

        As in, were it true, “father,” “conception,” “family,” “responsible,” etc. are all rendered meaningless.

        It is, in the world of “radical sexual autonomy,” that “fathers” abort their children, “families” have their genesis in anti-creative acts, “responsibility” is terminating a burden with extreme prejudice and your “conception” is not real.

      • I’m not avoiding definitions. I am asking for them. That is the whole point of this series of posts. It is your ilk, the supposed anti-liberal who avoiding definitions for some reason.

      • thordaddy

        I’ve defined “liberalism” for you, repeatedly.

        Liberalism is a perpetuating self-annihilation.

        Liberalism is the ideological process of dissolving a definition of the self.

        Liberalism is anti-definition.

      • Does any other Orthospherian use your definition?

      • thordaddy

        Certainly… They just state it in different terms.

        There is broad agreement that where “liberalism” is actualized, it is then annihilated. A self-refutation.

        The reality is that “liberalism” still perpetuates, ie., carries on in life.

        Ergo, “liberalism” is a perpetuating self-annihilation.

        Final Liberation is the aim.

        Most liberals will attain Final Liberation in the most passive of manners.

        Those liberals who most aggressively attain Final Liberation will be called suicidal maniacs.

        So the ideology remains elusive.

      • Can you provide an example of anyone else who agrees broadly that where liberalism is actualized it is then annihilated? What does that even mean in plain English?

      • thordaddy

        When a liberal experiences “equal freedom,” it is a temporary tickling of his deepest temptation before a foreboding terror of a mundane inequality return to rear its perpetually ugly head.

        So “liberalism,” when “it” is definitively concrete, is here then gone.

        Political liberalism is utilized to hide this salient repercussion due each and every liberal ideologue.

      • What is “equal freedom”?

      • thordaddy

        The aim of liberal “ government.”

      • thordaddy

        “Equal freedom” for its subjects.

        And YOU do not get to define “equal freedom” beyond a blanket “right to self-annihilate.”

      • As fun as it is to build up my blog’s stats by interacting with you it never goes anywhere because your comments are incoherent. For this reason I’m going to delete incoherent comments going forward. Feel free to comment in plain English though.

      • thordaddy

        That you cannot understand my “incoherent comments” just memes YOU ARE NOT A REAL liberal*, after all.

        So what are you EXACTLY?

        *If illiberals cite the “incoherency” of liberalism as its defining “feature” THEN real liberals KNOW incoherency.

      • thordaddy

        OUR liberal government VIOLENTLY PROTECTS *your* “right to self-annihilate” WITH your very own tax dollars.

        This ^^^ is “equal freedom” and OUR current-crypto reality.

      • I still don’t know what you mean by “self annihilate.” Is this the annihilation of race, body, soul or something else? Does this happen during life or after death?

      • thordaddy

        For someone who pontificates on the phenomena related to “shaming,” it seems rather inexplicable that you are unable to comprehend the essence of “self-annihilation?”

      • I don’t know what you mean by the term and I wonder why you choose to be unclear in explaining this concept you have invented.

      • thordaddy


        I think you are just being obtuse or a liberal, temporarily.

        Self-annihilation is self-explanatory… As in, “it” is an annihilation of the self…

        Yet, “self-annihilation” does suppose your self and *you* “in possession of” your self?

        Do you deny possession of a “self” subject to annihilation SUCH THAT “self-annihilation” is inexplicable to you at face value?

      • If I have annihilated myself why do I still exist? If it is an ongoing process when will it be completed?

      • thordaddy

        Because your self-annihilation is not complete or final.

        You certainly exhibit RESISTANCE to certain acts of self-annihilation where your focus is an illicit shame (or perhaps you resist smoking, for another example).

        You are, though, a perpetuating self-annihilator UNABLE OR UNWILLING to attain Final Liberation, ie., absolute annihilation. And in this perpetuation is just enough evidence for you living your life for you to deny any belief in ideas that will literally kill you in due time.

        This perpetuation is good, but at the expense of real liberalism. Yet, misinterpreted in the favor of total annihilation.

      • At what point will I have annihilated myself. I’m still unclear on the endgame and why you refuse to articulate it clearly.

      • thordaddy

        From a Christian perspective, there is no such “total annihilation.” This belief in “total annihilation” is one held by the “radical autonomist” (unrepentant liberal) with delusional intensity. What will happen is that you will die physically and your soul will, per a Catholic faith, “travel” to a different realm. *Your* absolute annihilation not being a metaphysical possibility.

        You basically lack a consideration of those who desire total annihilation for themselves and humanity.

        Do they get “it” as individuals?

        What do they “look” like? Those with desire for absolute annihilation?

        “They” are the MOST REAL liberals.

      • So if I cannot be a self annihilator why do you keep labeling me as such.

      • thordaddy

        You can defiantly take action to annihilate yourself WITHOUT there being a possibility of your total annihilation so that before you physically die, *you* might not know yourself at all.

      • So now we’re talking about annihilation of personality? Do you understand why this idea of yours is difficult to follow?

      • thordaddy

        Is your soul, self and personality mutually exclusive?

        Are any of these “things” liable to absolute annihilation?

        If you say, as a “father,” that “contraception is responsible family planning,” what are you ACTUALLY STATING?

        I say that you are claiming your “right to self-annihilation.” Your right to destroy your soul, your self and your personality.

        What shall we call this ^^^ phenomenon?

      • I could be stating any number of things. Since I already have children I don’t think I am saying that I don’t want to reproduce.

      • thordaddy


        Do you recognize ANY acts or beliefs that will lead to the annihilation of the self?

        What do you call those who persist in such acts and beliefs ESPECIALLY under ideological pressure?

  5. thordaddy

    I, counter Kristor, do believe that all political liberalism is the spawn of a sexual liberalism. The white mass has been hit hardest by the “sexual revolution” which is, in fact, a mass sexual assault on the white race from the infant to the elderly. Political liberalism is the ideology utilized to assuage and de-emphasize the self-annihilating consequences of a sexual liberalism as the dominant mechanism of desire. Ergo, a desire for “radical sexual autonomy” exists and political liberalism serves to expand its scope of “normalization.”

    So tomorrow, filthy rich “faggots” will purchase sexbot clones “virtue-signaling” the most radical of “radical sexual autonomy.”

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