Henry Kissinger's Wife…

@thekwon and @Daughter_of_Dust, though in truth she looks to me simply like a particularly lanky and awkward woman, I agree with both of you about the possibilities here. There are certainly still fouler things that happen at those levels, and it wouldn’t be the first case of its kind. But with the abundance of really solid and indisputable information about Kissinger’s despicable record that we could be considering, what real use is there in speculating about the gender of his wife? At best, it’s wholly conjectural; at worst, as Rosey has rightly pointed out, it’s tasteless and counter-productive.

Daughter_of_Dust, as a fellow artist, your points on portraiture are well taken, but there is a remarkable natural variety in the human form, and these signs, while suggestive, are far from demonstrative.

In any case, I don’t like digital legerdemain of this kind, even when it is ostensibly at the expense of a fiend and war criminal like Kissinger. The fact that these photos are doctored so competently makes it still worse. We have enough manipulation and deception to work through as is; what good could possibly come of adding to it within our own circles?

We’re arguing two different points here, @thekwon. The first concerns the gender of Kissinger’s wife; the second concerns the cavalier use of manipulated images.

So far as the first point goes, I never once denied that there are people of high rank with gender-vague or gender-altered spouses; the contrary. I quite doubt there is much danger in many men “getting lustful” over Kissinger’s wife, whatever gender she happens to be, but I see your point: there is harm in these practices which extends well beyond the celebrities involved, precisely on account of their fame and the normalization of gender deviancy that they are consequently able to effect.

Having said that, I see no reason to believe that every person of high rank has a gender-altered spouse, as you have claimed, and as of yet, I have seen no compelling argument to support the hypothesis that Nancy Kissinger in particular is a man. If I am “resisting” or “denying” anything here, it is the habit of arriving at conclusions in the absence of sufficient evidence to support them. And I will stubbornly continue to resist that habit and to deny its fruits, not out of fear of their possibility, but because I, precisely like you, “think there is value in seeing the world accurately.”

It is for the same reason that I strongly object to cleverly falsified images like those posted at the head of this entry. They serve no end but confusion, as I think the comments here make abundantly clear.

I never asked once for proof, @thekwon — something which obviously can’t be delivered in this case. I spoke exclusively of arguments and evidence. I’ve looked carefully at the available photos of Nancy Kissinger, and to say it again, see nothing in them to suggest to me that we are dealing with anything other than a somewhat oddly formed female. Is it possible she is a man? Certainly. I am only really certain that there is no cause to make strongly affirmative assertions on this matter, along the lines of those which have been made throughout this comment section, and which you yourself have made.

For though I am wed to no position on the matter of Nancy Kissinger’s gender, the point that I do stand on concerns how swift we should be to accept, with total conviction, claims that are in truth at best conjectural. You and I evidently have different standards of evidence. You have noted that I have elsewhere been reluctant to acquiesce to certain other arguments; I must assume you are referring to my conversations with Gem. For my part, it seems to me that you are too ready to claim certainty and to speak as if you knew, where you are in truth only intelligently guessing.

I am well aware of the connection between transgenderism and Luciferianism. The hermaphrodism inherent to the occult is not always brought to the level of physiological and surgical manipulations. The occult is characterized precisely by its chaotic variety of paths, and to speak about its universal practices already seems to me to fundamentally miss the point. I am also honestly unsure how to understand your claim that “Everyone I have investigated is clearly transgendered.” I doubt you are saying, for instance, that Henry Kissinger is a woman. Evidently this is a rule that only applies to all the wives of the high and mighty?

You may well be right about the origin of these photos. All the more reason to avoid them like the plague, and to denounce them unequivocally when they appear.

I’m content to say that we probably don’t strongly disagree about Nancy Kissinger’s case, thekwon. Let’s say there’s a difference in emphasis in our views, owing, I think, to a subtle if perhaps important divergence in our understanding of the world “elite.” About the general corruption and wickedness of this elite, however, we seem to agree in the main.

As far as Gem’s conclusions go, on the other hand, it will come as no surprise if I here once again openly disavow them. I disagree with you even that there is ample evidence for these conclusions, not to speak of “ample undeniable evidence.” I can only imagine that when you speak of the “origins of Catholicism” you are referring to the era of Constantine. Though Gem was never able to satisfy me that this period represented a break with any established Christian practices, I am, as ever, open to renewing the dialogue on this matter with anyone who wishes to discuss it.

As for the “history of Catholicism,” the very idea, as you seem to be using it, appears to me an unjustifiable abstraction. The Catholic Church of the first millennium is different from the Catholic Church of the early second, which is again very different from the Catholic Church of the Renaissance, and still more different from the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. Gem’s argument absolutely depends on the radical consistency of the Church over the past two thousand years (@444gem, as ever, if I am mischaracterizing your views, it is not done intentionally, and I will welcome any correction); yet I would claim that any deep and sensitive approach to the historical periods in question reveals instead markedly variegated hierarchical moralities, religious practices, and popular beliefs from historical epoch to historical epoch. The only thing that has ever stopped the Catholic Church from becoming a mercurial and entirely historically contingent human institution is the profound faith of a core of pious Christians which has always graced the Church, even in her darkest periods.

It seems to me that this remnant faithfulness, and not the impossibly uniform and maliciously occult wickedness of its pontiffs and hierarchy, is the single thing that has ever given the Catholic Church any kind of transhistorical unity, whether for good or for ill.

@444gem, I think it is probable there there is no one on this entire comment board who is at once so skeptical of your perspective, but who has at the same time dedicated so many hours of thoughtful attention to its consideration, as I. I can therefore say with confidence that your statements are not only uncalled for, but unjust in the extreme.

I could, if I so wished, level the same charges against you that you have brought against me, for you have passed over, in like silence, many of my detailed attempts to specifically assess the historical substance of your statements. You have on some occasions even reasserted the same bald claims (as for instance that Theophilus massacred tens of thousands of monks, or that the early Church committed “genocides”) without so much as acknowledging the meticulous responses I had previously made, at the cost of many hours of my personal time — which, I assure you, I can well spend elsewhere.

Yet I have never once reproved you for overlooking or ignoring my words. Our exchanges have been long and intricate, and I have accepted as inevitable that even large portions of our conversation would slip through the cracks. I have expected only the same courtesy from you, which you have nonetheless decided on several occasions is for some reason not owed me. You have seen fit to attack me, more than once, in a spirit which I can only describe as contemptuous and demeaning. You now accuse me of having ignored your words, even of never having read them, simply because I have not responded to everything you have posted — the which would have been literally impossible for me, given the length and variety of your posts, and the non-negotiable limitations on my time. It has evidently never crossed your mind that I might be paying you the respect of only responding when I am able to give both my replies and your words (which I have always taken the time to read) the space and consideration they deserve.

On the other hand, I am honestly doubtful whether you have read my own words with similar attention, since I did, in fact, respond to several (though certainly not all) of the points you say you received no response on. (To wit: I have several times agreed with you on indulgences, and I have responded, now specifically and now generally, both to the “genocides” and to the “heresy burnings” you have imputed to the Church.) I also cannot help but notice, with a degree of amazement, that despite all our exchanges, you continue to call the Catholic Church “my church” — which, alas, makes me strongly suspect you are not taking the same care, be it in your reading or your responses, that I am.

You have in this latest post gone so far as to estimate the number of words to which I have not responded, without stopping to weigh how many of my own you have similarly passed over. Most recently, our conversation on the Virgo lactans stands dead in the water, precisely because, after I once again spent no small amount of time and energy assiduously considering your specific, concrete claims, reading through numerous articles and even books in the full range of scholarly literature to orient myself, you responded to me without so much as mentioning even a single one of my points. Instead, you launched into a lengthy and multifaceted discourse in comparative religion, which, while characteristically fascinating and worthy of investigation, had no direct bearing whatsoever on anything I had said, leaving me at a total loss as to how to proceed.

Now, either we both are held to answer every single comment that the other makes, in which case it is imperative that we limit the scope of our conversation in order to make this rule practical, or we each give the other the same amount of good faith leeway in responding selectively. I am more than willing to continue our conversation on either of these equable premises, and will even leave it to you which point, be it new or old, we should consider, including any of those to which I have yet to respond to here or in the King Charles thread.

I am not willing, however, to subject myself to unwarranted derision or to unjust impeachment at the bar of an evident double standard.