Passport bros pushing for men to go to places like Thailand is not only incredibly shortsighted, but it's also just flat-out bad advice. It won't even take a few decades for the laws there to look exactly the same as the US right now, and they'll be in the exact same situation they'd be right now had they married in the West with their wife of 30 years wanting to divorce them. Also, last I checked, Thailand had the highest rates of infidelity in the world.
@@latt.qcd9221 Passportbros act like female nature is not universal. You give that small nice Philipina female rights and the first thing she does is take her clothes off, opens up OF and ab0rts her child
trad con is being pushed by low smv men who cant get women. They want women unable to vote and work so they are forced to marry them to survive. They advocate going to poor countries so they can control economically impoverished women. Most of these guys will tell you how great capitalism yet in a free dating market they have nothing to offer so they want government intervention to ensure they can get a woman. sexual socialism
@@clarkkent8286 Yup, as far as I'm aware. At least for countries outside of the US. US might be higher, but passport bros are trying to date outside the US and Thailand would be the worst place to go to.
The range of people pushing the trad myth spans from figures like Jordan Peterson all the way to Andrew Tate and beyond. Both of those figures, despite the differences in their presentation style and a couple things they advocate for, are essentially pushing the same message: men are worthless as they are, they get their worth by becoming desirable to women no matter how unreasonable women's expectations get, and you do that by behaving in a way that not only will fail to work for the majority of men, but will get you in serious trouble if you're not part of that minority of men it doesn't destroy.
I will agree on your statement about Andrew Tate, but to equate his message with that of Jordan Peterson's, can only mean you misunderstand his views on the subject.
@@jamesharper8373 The funny part is that as far as both of those men are concerned they don't embody many of the 'traditional values' that they espouse. Jordan is a collage intellectual/academic who doesn't really embody the 'traditional masculine role.' The man is very lanky, doesn't work with his hands, and his own daughter doesn't even live by these 'traditional values'. Then you have Tate who is a practicing Muslim who bed's a new vvomen every week. It feel's the the 'tradition conservatives' simply just pick and choose what they want to preserve and ignore the things that don't align with their worldview.
It's impossible to conserve anything because it's all been blown open. The Overton Window wasn't opened incrementally, it was kicked out by the Left. What they view as 'progress' was just rapid accelerationism and degeneration.The genie's out of the bottle and now one's gender is a wish of command. It's just a matter of pharmaceutical science and rhetoric. It is the world for Splicers in Rapture (a nod to Bioshock).
Don't you find it weird how 99% of men are disatisfied with their marriage when they speak honestly about it. It's like women behave nice only towards top 1% (Chads)
Many women bait & switch, chameleon mode aka act nice & such in the beginning but after the ring is in her finger, she changes into a v1tch. Also people change. She might also get bored.
Muh values, norms, traditions and regulations. Humanity needs to get a grip and grow a few braincells. Not only a grip tho but a whole smackdown in and out.
My dad was a 1950's teen. He would tell me back in the 1980's when I was in high school "Sure, women back then were housewives moreso than today, but growing up on a dairy farm. My mom bailed hay, drove a tractor. Milked cows. Made soap, cooked. Chopped wood. Mended clothing. Washed clothing. My dad did the heavier lifting of butchering, hunting (deer), moving the cows from one pasture to another. Taking cows to market. Plowing. raking hay. My mother didnt live this "Ozzie and Harriet" lifestyle and all the women in my area didnt. We didnt even have a TV, they got one a few years after I moved out probably around 1961. That 1950's lifestyle wasnt as common as people would like you to believe. Cities, suburban areas, sure. Country, small town, smaller city? No."
So kind of like how the "roaring 20s" was really only good for people that actually had money and time to spare, but sucked for everyone else. although I do note the lack of you mentioning a downgrade in standard of living compared to times before the 50s, as what is occurring today by and large
@@hertzwave8001 well, my dad growing up ate well...they always did, they lived and worked a farm. There wasnt hunger. Yes, they had a 1950's newer Chevrolet family car and a truck that was used for farm work as well. Yes, they had a telephone. Electricity and running water in the bathroom. They owned their tractor. Owned the land. The mortgage was paid off by the end of the 1940's. It wasnt destitute. They didnt have a lot, my grandparents remembered the Depression of the 1930's. They thought they were doing quite well in the 1950's all things considered.
This is what makes me laugh the most. These people still haven't realized that this world is heading towards obscurantism. Preserve what? There's nothing to preserve.
Conservating nature which is the most conservative thing ever and should be taken back from the woke. Also conservating ACTUAL traditions like myths, old stories and traditional festivals, also tradition work like blacksmiths or bell founders. There is a way if you're not too blackpilled. Even if you just conservate the tiniest things for yourself.
1950s are so popular because it was peak optimism. The war was won, war production was moved to advancing home technology. The truly revolutionary tech became common at the time. Fridges, washing machines, vacuum cleaners are such massive time saving devices
I suspect (don't "know", "suspect") that they are popular because they are the boomer childhood era. Most of the people glorify their childhood, even if for the fact it was their naive youth. It had to be a time of blood and shadow for people not to feel longing for their snot-nosed days. So as time went on boomer artists wrote 50s into "far away happy days" and since they produced mass media, it latched onto later generations consoooming those pieces, now glorified and, important, unknown to them. Kind of like in Andersen's fairy tale, where one character fulfills his dream of "going back to the better days" and teleports up to his ballsack into mud, since back then streets were not cobbled. As I see it, 50s were full of hysterical adults, expecting nuclear war any moment and in shock from technology, hence the amount of science fiction with dangerous technology and alien invasions. It was alright for kids and those kids told others that 50s were based.
@skylinefever the 90s had a similar vibe as well. Cold war over. People talking about the end of history. Pre 9/11 But people definitely have fondness over childhood.
@@DrLicuid Boomers love that era because it was the era of "benefits" for them and only them, as decades went by and they had to share the benefits with their kids they got greedy
@@Capitanvolume Distributist Dave's argument is that whatever was wrong with the next decade was brewing in the previous decade. Trying to go back is like Sisyfus rolling the rock uphill again and expecting it not to roll downhill. There were great things about the 1950s. However, if it was that ideal, nobody would try to remove it in the 1960s.
I'm turning 50 in less than a month. It took me decades of wrestling with wanting to become a "traditional" man and chasing them to be monogamous and a provider, and so much else. After being burned so many times the brain is reprogrammed so bad and so far past the point of no return that even thinking about traditional "dating" is pure burden. I have never married and do not have any kids. In fact, I had to start lying to people at different jobs about not being married because the shame and relentless comments about being "selfish" for NOT being married and not procreating or being "commitment phob." I just tell them what they want to hear and that shuts them up. Then there comes the accusations or insinuations of being "gay" because they don't see you with a woman and consistently with the same woman. The dating world is SEVERLY lopsided, and more and more men cannot haul the various burdens anymore to achieve this so-called ultimate solution to being happy and doing the right thing by "being in a commitment." Life OUTSIDE of romance especially in the modern world for people, ESPECIALLY men is way too hard and so many different ways that having the mental, physical, S drive, and economic resources are not there anymore. So much must change... at minimum, divorce courts AND wehmen's delusional expectations MUST CHANGE. I ask God to help us fix this because from what I can see, humanity is being swept up into a massive tornado of political, social, economic, technological, employment, educational, housing, and health chaos. Anybody's comment
Much younger dude here, People are stupid and insane. I've had accusations of being "gay" after ASKING GIRLS OUT and BEING REJECTED. The rumours would be spread by the same person that rejected me. It's the "anything goes" era... As for the jobs stuff, it will become harder and harder for men in the workforce, although I only have a proper point of reference for white-collar jobs. There is no point to the office environment anymore... nowadays I only find it tolerable if no one is there (my company has the hybrid methodology, so sometimes this can happen, where I'm the only person there, or like 2-3 people). So the next logical step would be to start a small remote business or something, and that's probably the same conclusion many young men will come to. Even THAT does not really solve all the burdens listed in your comment, it just cuts back on the interactions one has to deal with.
You cannot change a woman's evolutionary based drives the man thinks rationally and is trying to have a family and the woman is looking tirelessly 7 days a week 24 hours a day year after year after year to replace you with the bigger better deal what part of this do you not understand they are not monogamous
God either doesn't actually exist, or is a demon who takes pleasure in pain. This is from someone who thought at a time there might be some good thing out there. Not much of that belief anymore. Willing to be proven different by this supposed god and people. But have yet to see such. Likely why there is so much prattle about the "next life" being supposedly so good. If many admitted to what this life is and what they do, humans would become the ouroboros instantly, more than they already are.
@@pentagon56 The world is ruled by Satan. Read the Bible and get your theology right. I made the same mistake as you as I believed the secular explanation, but fortunately was corrected on my mistaken belief about who is in charge of this fallen world, and why. Do that and then re-evaluate your position. Get your premises correct first, however.
largely a myth. I read a book called 'Worlds Of Pain: Life In The Working-class Family' from 1972. She gives stats in there showing the fairly large percentage of working class women who worked outside the home ever full time or part time. Working class men simply didn't earn enough to support a family, then or now
@@barbellsamurai8014 don’t get me wrong, but I was referring to the 50’s, by 1970 it was already over, the hippy(mk ultra) movement made by the gov, the constant wars also made by the gov, and the disruption of the nuclear family, it was on its way to modern, contemporary destruction of families/communities/society….so what are you are talking about is already too far gone from the question in itself
@@barbellsamurai8014 Yeah. Plenty of married women with kids waiting tables, working in stenography pools, 10 hour shifts at sewing factories, did housework for other people, were teachers and nurses etc.
OFC, the populace doesnt control the money printer only the elites, so OFC a single elite would be able to provide enough for 5+ families whereas the robbed middle class can barely get by even with two parents working, disgusting.
The reason why the 50's are represented as the "ideal conservative values" is because that's when the Boomers were young. Thus this last pre-Boomer period is seen as "what came before". The media at large have been stuck in a time-stop bubble for the last 50 years because of demographic boomer supremacy, and that should last for something like 10 more years, tops. The average age of TV watchers is well into the 60-70 range now. And for (gasp) newspaper subscriptions, you don't want to know... Once the bubble pops, we'll see an amazing time compression in mainstream media and then "the good old days" will be the 90s, because that was the Millenials' childhood. That one will last until 2050. Then, and only then, will the 2020s be somehow yet inevitably seen as the good times.
I already started noticing a huge shift in nostalgia in the media a few years back to the 80s, as the Gen Xers started gaining a larger share in the market.
The 90s are already seen as a near mythical golden age. I can't attest to that being that I was a toddler at the turn of the millennium. But it is a thing for early gen Z like myself to call themselves 90s kids even if they only have very hazy and sporadic memories of the decade. I myself have only a couple very vague memories from very late 1999 and all of it is confined to the small condo my parents had at the time. I will say that the 2000s when I grew up is vastly preferable to the naked insanity of the current day. It had it's faults like any other time (it's when the modern problems first really reard their heads starting around 9/11) but it seems like it was much easier to just live life without being bombarded with nonsense.
I would actually go further, in suggesting that "Conservatism" is merely the desire to have "Traditional morals" in a Capitalist world. The people who behave this way, cannot see the latter kills the former.
@RealNormHall I *can,* but it is not something that is easily "summed up." But, ill try: in summary, tradition is intrinsically anticapitalist, and vice versa. Small example: an old Irish tradition was finding the biggest tree you could, chopping it, hewing it, and making it into your front door posts. The bigger the tree, the more prestigious it was considered. There is zero structural reasoning to do this. It was purely a cultural tradition. In fact, it's rather inefficient to the construction of a home to have to go find a large tree, chop it, parse it, drag it back, hew it, then install it to "complete" the home. This concept is incompatible with capitalism, because capitalism tries to "create efficency" in the market. Moreover, capitalism turns *everything* into a market, because money becomes the only common value. I could go on for so much longer, but I'm already worried this c_mment will be p_rged as is.
@RealNormHall If you are genuinely interested in understanding this concept, even if you disagree, l_ok into the Middle Ages. Low, High, Late. "Strong" language incoming, as I get passionate about this subject: Examine how they actually functioned, beyond the surface level "wow, look how backwards and st00pid these people were, lul" nonsense. If people would stop assuming their ancestors were literal r_t_rds, who were just madly o_pressed constantly, they would start realizing we are actually the the characteristics described above. Bold claim, I know. But I mean it.
If you were to travel back in time to the 1950s and ask those who were living the life idealized in nostalgia if they were "traditional" or "conservative", they would have laughed in your face. For them, the creature comforts made possible by the technological breakthroughs of the time allowed for a lifestyle that was progressive and cutting edge. "Traditional" would have evoked a return to the 1930s where most people were living on rice and beans, working any shitty job they could get, and NO ONE wanted to go back to that.
Good point. There's a reason that techno-utopian science fiction was mainstream back then. Not just Asimov; The Jetsons shows that hi-tech ideal. Even the Flintstones sorta parodies all the gadgets that made home life easy for the housewife in the form of (yoked, complaining) dinos serving as vacuum cleaners, etc. literal creature comforts if you will
If you were to travel back in time to the 1950's and tell them that in the future their sons would have their privates cut off and be brainwashed into thinking they're a girl. White people and men will be demonized indefinitely. The country will have opened boarders with foreigners invading constantly with inflation lowering the standard of living. Divorce and child support, etc. Tell those people what their "Progressive" future is like, and they would be horrified.
I view ‘trad’ as reinforcing the idea of men being the head of the household in marriage, child-rearing, and romantic relationships, as a pushback against the trend of women being encouraged to be more masculine and men encouraged to be more feminine. No where in history that I’m aware of has there been a push to make women masculine
places have push women to fight because all people were needed but again it does not matter. Just live free and damn what they want you to do, they want you to be masculine for women and other people reasons not for your own freedom.
Really in the west it was always about tricking the naive men to be good workers who were squeezed till close to death, then you are accepted as a "good man", usually spineless worms that said "happy wife happy life" or "I'll sleep when I die, need to do more work".
I grew up in a traditionally conservative family (church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday, literally everything was deemed a sin, etc.), and I doubt that the people who want to "go back" to traditional conservatism were ever there. They don't know what that life is actually like. Phonies like Stephen Crowder and Matt Walsh saw a profitable bandwagon and jumped on it. (An e-mail exchange between those two commentators was made public a year or two ago, and demonstrated in very crass terms how "conservatism" represented flashing neon dollar signs for them.) The manufactured tradwife phenomenon is hilarious. Does the average man really think that if he finds a traditional woman who stays at home and bakes cookies, she's going to look like Estee Williams? Good luck. These guys don't want traditional wives; they want sexy '50s pinup girls. It's the same old craving with a patina of *Father Knows Best* on top. Can't we just want what we want without attaching it to some semi-mythical value system?
@@skylinefever Yep. It's something that seems attractive to them only because they're complete strangers to it. They'd go bonkers in a couple of weeks.
I always saw "Traditional Conservatism" as the "Simpsons life script." A life script where Homer works while Marge stays home, they raise a nuclear family of 2.5 children. Homer can afford a suburban detached house. Grandpa lives in a retirement home. Bart, Lisa, and Maggie are expected to grow up and buy their own detached houses. I always saw Traditional Conservatism as this 1950s ideal of "a nuclear family with 2.5 children living in suburbia." Throughout human history and in much of the world today, most humans lived in extended or multi-generational families- which drastically cut back of resources used. 7 people living in one house saves tremendous resources over 7 people renting their own apartments. The multi-generational and extended families would solve a lot of problems for many people such as financial and labor problems. Problems like single parent families, drug use, poor diets, elderly poverty, and over-stressed families are caused by the nuclear family. The nuclear family isn't the solution to many of these problems.
Controversial take, but I think what “family style” works best depends on the genetic background of the family. Meds, Arabs, Asians, Africans, Slavs, etc. seem to thrive in one-roof multigenerational households, or at least tolerate them better. Scandinavians, Germans, and Anglos seem to prefer more privacy and space. For example, “in-law suites” seem to be an almost wholly Anglosphere, Germanic, and Scandinavian phenomenon.
The Simpsons is an obviously woke and quasi-feminist show. Homer and Bart are always the stupid clowns who harm the family (especially Homer) and make others suffer while Marge, Maggie and Lisa are often moral and wise and never ever serve as comedic relief aka. laughing stock. Lisa is highly intelligent and moral and near-perfect (being a vegetarian feminist) and same goes for Marge while Maggie is also super intelligent and cool for a baby.
@@candide1065 They had decency to give Marge weakness to gambling, drinking and being an uncool khhhming worried mom. Overall classic Simpsons had nuance that died, coincidentaly, when production went digital around 2005. They were a dysfunctional (but loving at their core) family, all five, they looked middle class, but it was all a cheap cover as was usually shown by house falling apart and so on. They were constructing as laughing stock for the viewer. Also, they had male and father characters in the town who were not laughing stock. And overall Springfield was a city of limping dreams and missed opportunities. It is the later seasons that went retarded and shallow, and then straight on libtard.
@@DrLicuid I can see where you come from and i agree with your general idea, but I just seem to be more critical. I like the first 4-5 season but ever since then the series went downhill and is overall very forgettable. It's no secret that basically all the guys making the Simpsons were and are liberal leftists and pretty woke at that. They kinda gave Marge a little weakness here and there but in 99,9% of all episodes, she or Lisa are voice of reason while in almost every case, Homer (and sometimes Bart) is the laughing stock and an obviously terrible father, man and person. There are tons of male characters in the Simpson who are the laughing stock like Moe, Granpa Simpson (while Homers mother is some kind of cool, righteous, brave activist despite having abandoned her son which is sugarcoated in a more than woke way). Also the comic dude who is of course a fat idiot. The females are, on the other hand, always treated very carefully and pc, like Marges Sisters. One of them, the lesbian one, is some kind of LGBT mascot in order to show how inclusive and woke the Simpsons are. All that said, I don't want to argue, I just have critical standards and I came to dislike all these american shows who, in the end, serve the status quo and portrait more of what the producers feel is reality than actual reality.
@@candide1065 When I was watching it in the 90s I separated eccentrics and buffoons of media from real people and I would say that, for someone not as gullible as to take lessons in human nature from a sitcom, it is just a joke show. Stopped watching it after feature film, something changed for the worst with entrance into HD era, perhaps they started trying too hard, copying Family guy's unfunny "lets talk a joke to death" trick, perhaps deliberate inclusion of modernity was jarring, it ended up being dated anyway, those Wiis and Blackberrys. But looking back on why it was funny, I have to say it was probably because comedic presentation of inappropriate male behaviour is funny. Like a satire. It can be made an example of disgusting, or it can be made funny (but still not something that is meant to be copied). I never took it as "this is how men are" but "boy this particular Homer sure gets into load of trouble" and "that is not how a man should act". Weakness that can be avoided being laughed at. Rule old as comedy itself. But seeing how such media progressed in the last thirty years, and learning more about other sitcoms and appearance of moronic head of the family archetype in media (I'm not from USA, so my intake of sitcoms was miniscule), yes I can agree with your take that it has a taint of liberal propaganda. Maybe not intended at first, but written that way because that is the framework of writers' views, they can't avoid it. Later on it certainly became deliberate, things written into on purpose, especially when Lisa started declaring herself a feminist, that one cut my ears. There is a line between funny masks of characters and models of humans to absorb and judge others with. While I was never one of such, hence my probably naive post that Simpsons were just a comedy setup (guess that is where my kind of rose glasses need to be taken off) I, especially nowadays, have to agree that it certainly works as propaganda of sorts and people just can't filter jokes and models. We just can't have nice things I suppose. A little more, and saying that Doom provokes school shootings might just be real reasoning.
I remember someone on a political blog asking years ago why conservatism in the US seems to consist exclusively of making rich people and corporations even richer.
Conservatives seek to conserve that which currently exists. It does not matter what rhe current thing is, the conservative will seek to conserve it. Western women during the 1950s and early 1960s were generally focusing on having babies, hence the baby boom which gave rise to the boomers. The traditionalists want to return to the happy days of the 1950s, however, that is effectively an impossible dream while conserving the current social norms as well as operating with the current economic realities. Traditional conservatism contains two elements that are not compatible which is why it fails.
Wow that was perfectly put without provocation or insult to any party, thank you I wish I heard this a long time ago but alas I was too stuck in these romantic notions of the ‘American dream’
Also do you think those that believe in this ideal know this to be true already? Why do they choose to believe in such ideals still when modern standards are so divergent?
I miss sheltering under my school desk during nuclear attack drills. It was the closest that I was able to get to my elementary school crush, who sat next to me. Nowadays, I'd probably have to hide under my desk to avoid my woke teacher. I guess that would make me a conservative.
I was in middle school in 2010, so it was miserable by default. But had I been in my mid 20s as I am now, I would have certainly preferred it. I live in an area that was spared the worst of the great recession despite being just outside a major city, so it probably would've been the last time a man of modest means could afford property in the area.
It was the prevailing way of socially engineered life (an oofy doofy if you will) that was much closer to ooga booga. When you juxtapose against the currently prevailing socially engineered life. (Woke unorthodox and so on) It is a myth to say that traditional values are a carbon copy of cavepeople culture grounded in genetic proclivities. But it is not a myth to say that the traditional way of doing things was closer to that than the unorthodox way we currently have. In sum the sociology and biology are not as complementary as they used to be. Some find that problematic and others do not.
What if it was after years, something that we figured out? Simple things like community, need for religion, the virtues, living "the good life", working hard, the merit in hard and good work? What if all of this comes conveniently from religion? Wherein it controlled hypergamy as well? Because this topic which Stardusk picked is political and much of the f3m!n!sm is the result of the state. Why does the state always is forgotten or not mentioned? Why the fear of stating the consequences of a collective? Conservative is in some sense keeping the normal. But the again , the Importance of religion is becoming apparent.
@@unknowninfinium4353 as an atheist I wouldn’t say a belief in god or meeting at a building once a week to discuss a book is the make or break. It’s something else more broad that you mentioned: a community with a value system grounded in virtue. Now we have individuality grounded in self preservation and self interest. Mens hypogamy (the ability to date down and in abundance) is kept in check by laws. That is, male nature is kept in check by laws. (And still is) Women’s hypergamy was kept in check by the social norms that came with a conservative oofy doofy. Those were deemed oppressive and since they were not laws, it was very easy to undo that. Compared to laws, which are much more difficult to change. While the government obviously plays a big role in the change, it must also be understood that the government is made up of people like you and me. Over time, the people in said government eroded the traditional oofy doofy and substituted it for the unorthodox oofy doofy we have today where it’s anything goes. An unintended side effect of this is that male ooga booga is still chained up by laws but female ooga booga is unbound. Social norms must return to restore balance and laws need to be more balanced. Probably would also help if women had to sign up for selective service in order to vote
@@Otto-Just oofy doofy = sociology. Your environment. How it’s engineered. Ooga booga = biology. Your genetics. Your proclivities and what you can possible be. In this context, while even traditional societies in the early half of the 20th century were socially engineered (oofy doofy), the degree to which they deviated from our natural proclivities (ooga booga) was not as pronounced as it is today
@@unknowninfinium4353I see religions as tools of social control. Problem is, I see religions as only being useful for people with the right set of personality traits. A certain set of people will always have unstoppable skepticism. I also get the "woke is a religion" argument because the whole thing won't tolerate people questioning the thing too much. Much like how the God Squad can't handle questions about how freshwater fish and saltwater fish aren't both extinct due to massive environmental change during Noah's flood.
Any men in marriages that I ask to speak candidly mentions how much of the suffering in the marriage doesn't contribute to anything, it's a blind abyss that sucks up their energy and gives them nothing they want in return because "that's how it is", or treatment from their wives that they not only do not appreciate but can't hope to amend. That's all the proof I need to know my fate is just like theirs should I commit.
The reason people idealize the 1950s is precisely because it is a transitional period. It's a period that held on to many traditional societal norms that conservatives like (family, sex roles, home/land ownership...) with all of the benefits of modernity (a large airconditioned home with space for a large comfy car, a TV, a dishwasher ,...) which conservatives also like. Jetsons in space if you will. It's not the later sitcom format that we transitioned to with "modern family" with two lesbian mothers with a son that identifies as a lizard. You would be hard pressed to find a conservative that dislikes penicillin lol (although dig deep enough and I assure you they do exist).
believe in the dream if you want but majority of the world could not read or right and those people love the time because it was right after the WW2 so you would of have to go thru that part of history.
There are communities that maintain traditional values, but are integrated/integrating with technology. Mennonites, for example. They might be more of a "rural Southern" thing, but they exist. They typically run farming communities (albeit, corporate farms), and have very traditional family structure. Husbands and sons work the fields, wives and daughters process crops. They use modern farming tech (tractors, those big watering machines, combines, crop dusters, etc.) and make tons of money doing it. They are close-knit, niche Protestant, community. They allow tech in their homes, but it's typically under the jurisdiction of the father. They also have communal meals at the end of the work days, where all the Mennonite families come together and eat a big meal. Traditional and Technology aren't opposed, intrinsically.
@@WilliamMcAdams Traditional and Technology aren't always opposed. But those groups make a conscious decision to not let technology effect that. They have religion that holds it all together too. But if you don't do that new technology will just take society in a new direction. And people adapt to the new reality very quickly, forgetting the old ways.
It's true of every movement that you can easily build a very large tent in the early stage when you're just identifying a problem, but it becomes difficult to hold the coalition together once you move onto suggesting solutions since it wasn't necessary for anyone to agree on what the goals should be or how to reach them in the earlier stages.
They are better than the left, but the illogical belief that a trad marriage is an obtainable goal for most people is a major weakness of the right. Whatever era they are idealizing, women are highly driven by their socal environment, so trying to do this in an era where it isn't the norm is extremely difficult. To have a reasonable chance of success, you need to move to a very rural area or be in a highly insulated community like the Amish. The idea that men living in or near big cities (i.e most men) can achieve the trad life is absurd.
The goal is to have a good relationship that works for the couple. The only reason why trad-cons worked is because women had to settle. Now that they have freedom to pursue their own destiny, it's their choice that they would rather be single than be with a man that they don't respect. Evolution will eventually sort this out.
I'm 68 years old, and everything in this video is completely true. The 20 years right after WWll (1945 - 1965) were the briefest blip in the vast timeline of human existence - a one-time anomaly that can never be recaptured. You might as well try to bring your childhood pet back to life as try to bring back the 1950s. History only moves in one direction. It doesn't have a reverse gear.
@@badgerattoadhall no..what is that? btw i aint an American....i am an indian..which many of u wont like . ...but Indian trads are as bad to men as indian fmnists.
Start 250 years ago, dismantle the concepts of the Enlightenment, or what Traditionalists call Modernity. Also, Conservatism and Traditionalism aren’t equivalent. The former is simply the preservation of the status quo, the latter is linked towards either a collective ethnic or spiritual wisdom/tradition or natural law that will be upheld regardless of the time or period. Any political ideology or system can have Conservatives, even the USSR at its end days had Conservatives, they were termed ‘the Hardliners’ by Western observers, these Conservatives or ‘Hardliners’ simply wished to maintain or restore the USSR as is or was, whereas Gorbachev and his lot were the ‘Progressive’ or Reformist elements of the USSR. Conservatism in the American context is just simply an allegiance to Liberalism (Classical) or any new strain as it develops. Which is why any Traditionalist has to be against the U.S. Constitution, the very notion of America itself, making one a Reactionary. Edit: Steven Crowder and any of his ilk are simply confused Liberals at the end of the day, attempting to put together two incompatible systems. If they understood their predicament, they would dispense with Traditionalism as they realise where the values of the nation lies (deifying the Constitution or Americanism and what it entails).
Yep, correct analysis my man. Most people don't understand that the battle "Democrats vs Conservatives" is just a fog, the real battle is "Enlightement vs Traditionalism".
That isn't possible, and you'd hate it if it was. The only way out is through. The problems that modernity and technology has created can, and will, be solved with more technology. Those who try to escape into an idealized past will be crushed underfoot by those who embrace evolution - even if it means becoming something that people in the past would have recognized as a monster, a demon.
@@dark7element You know, I had another reply aimed towards user, but withheld posting it because it was getting quite lengthy as well, so I simply shelved it. The mistake people make in interlinking the fruits of industrialisation and each of its iterations, with Modernity and its values. Or an assumption that the former will result in the values of the latter as a fait accompli, I completely reject this notion. I can post the lengthier response that I shelved, if you’d like.
@@cryptarisprotocol1872 Go ahead, because I'd strongly disagree with that claim. I believe Modernism is an inevitable and inexorable result of the engine that is industrial society. Every attempt to "have your cake and eat it too", in creating an industrialized and technological state with traditional religion and pre-modern values, has been an unmitigated failure. Franco tried it, and failed. Iran under Khomeini tried it, and what's the result? Less than 50% of Iranians believe in Islam anymore and the religious, traditional government is only able to stay in power by applying increasing amounts of terror to the population. When the generation that is currently 50+ in Iran dies off, the Islamic republic will unavoidably collapse.
10-20 years ago there were some of us as individuals who learned through dating different cultures of women that women are basically women. There's the initial appearance of Eastern European and Asian women being different but after 3 to 6 months you realize there's no real difference.
Traditional conservatism is LARPing as a person in the past while hoping and praying that the incentives and disincentives that made the present the way it is don’t ruin their immersion
Yes! I often ask what I call "Con Inc" things like "will you stop using houses as a speculative asset, and make them a place to live instead?" The 1950s allowed such things because decent jobs were common and a house was about 4 years wages.
Lets call it like it´s some people just want the benefits of going back without the cons of the present. Which would require a new order none of those "wanters" are willing to fight for and enforce so they entire spheal is mute and void.
I figured if the 1950s were so great, it wouldn't have a bunch of pissed off youth trying to remove it in the 1960s. Distribust Dave argues that go back to a certain era is like Sisyfus rolling the rock uphill again, and expecting it not to come back down.
@@skylinefever that's a great analogy. There was certainly a lot of cultural strife that got swept under the rug in the postwar era. The youth of that era grew up in households with parents who were deeply wounded, traumatized individuals. This does not excuse the behavior of any generation alive today, but it does help us understand the dynamic.
Well of course everyone has a different idea of traditionalism. But one easy thing that holds us together isn't really a definition at all: the resistance to the apparent mania for changing *everything* that people took for granted for millennia (not just in the 50s): - the differences between the genders - that the sexes existed at all - the positive view of our tribe/country/culture - that the vows of marriage are made before God and the community, and that if you break those vows then you've betrayed both. - that marriage is a way of organising the procreation and care of children (rather than men just running around impregnating women & then playing no part in the nurturing of the child, or women just reproducing with the "alphas" or say 5% of males) - any belief in God - the idea (slowly developed) that politicians should represent small groups of us (rather than being ruled by the rich , or by a despot, or by a world government where our vote is so diluted by billions of others that it is meaningless) Marriage is just one part of it, not the whole. But there is a movement to dismantle all of this. Of course going back to a traditional marriage is all but impossible in the current age: where communities are different; where we are bombarded with messages about sex, love & marriage that make it impossible for each one of us to NOT compare ourselves with people living hedonistic or exciting lives; and where house prices assume that both members of a couple are working and earning big bucks
Traditionalism is actually not at all like the pop conservative image of it, which is heavily influenced by that 50's esque idea that you mentioned. Its like calling mormonism or Presbyterianism Christianity on their own in totality. Reading the actual traditionalists is a good place to start: Weaver, Chesterton, et cetera. Hazony's "Conservativism" is a good place to go, also. I think you're on good terms with Dave the Distributist, so this should be something you can easily pickup. What can we boil traditionalism down to? The first thing is filial orientation. Life in regard to duties and desires fulfilled in an extended family network. Respect for those now dead, and preparation for those yet to come. Religious observation, which is pretty self explained; values and morals derive from it, as well as meaningfulness and motivation for facing the suffering inevitable in life. For any rebuttals to this, see the rising rates of deaths from despair in our secular times. And really thats about it. Traditionalism can involve agrarian or urban environments, can be low tech or techno optimistic, and so on and so forth.
@@crimsonguy8696 Those things are great for the vast number it does work for. How does one deal with those who follow the script and everythibg sucks for them? The social conservative act is to say they had to just life script XYZ harder, or just treat the fewer people like zeroes. I say if trad wants to win, instead of life insurance, they have "life script insurance." It would be an insurance policy that if people obey the rules and work hard, they make it big.
@@skylinefever Im not sure I understand how it would work. But I do agree that some sort of acknowledgement must be made that this is a generality. There will be people acting in good faith who are robbed of family worthy of obligations and duties, and robbed of proper religious teaching and experience. Recognition of when and how people are trying to do the right thing could be a place to start, if that's what you mean. Maybe something like the shopping cart test but with a benefit that follows it?
@@crimsonguy8696 I also do not know how life script insurance would work. I just say that good luck motivating people to keep trying when they regularly are thrown off the ladder of lifetime achievement.
The reality of it currently and past was that men and women have only tolerated one another. We have never gotten along well and the records show this to be very much the case. Traditional conservatism is aimed at a Chad's view/perspective of how thing ought to be , but seemingly always acted out through a beta scope in the end. (Always aiming for top 10% but living in the sub 90%)
@@technologic21 I'm always baffled by the extremely different perception others have of the exact same thing. Mad Men is obviously a very woke show that's pathologizing men (especially 50's men) and trying to make them look as racist and sexist as possible while also trying to show that men in charge are toxic which is why the stenotypist girl makes the show later on and shows it to all the stupid sexist men. Next thing people want to tell me that Sex and the City is a philosophical show or Breaking Bad is actually a rom-com.
@@skylinefever Clarey is a whinny muppet. Yes, SOME men where actually liked. Doesn't give credence to anything besides the (once again we see the top 10%) mega chads...
Traditionalism died in the mid 1800s when the Industrial revolution shaped our world and let to the agrarian lifestyle and organic community being obsolete. The nuclear family is actually a modern concept that resulted due to progressivism and industrial society
The whole Tradcon/tradwife thing at this point has boiled down to just a fashion statement or trend, kinda like how punk became a trend in the 90s. Women talk about 1950s Americana the same way they talk about the Victorian era or just European aristocracy in general - they idealise and admire the pretty dresses or the quirky etiquette, but also view it as the worst time of humanity where women lived as 3rd class citizens. Men (i. E. Manospher redpillers and boomers) usually viewed the 50s as the time when "men were men" even though if they saw the same manners in a modern day man, they would have called him a beta effeminate male. I consider myself as conservative leaning. However, I never thought deeply about what it means to be conservative I just tend to politically agree with some or most of the conservative to me it just meant "to conserve the past" and "to go back" sameway how progressivism means social progress towards new ideas and ideologies.
it's probably just a standard part of the grow and decay cycle of soyciety I assume within the growth phase just passed violence and war, when people appreciate structure and safety maybe in another 60 years, but first a price has to be paid
I went to my subscription feed and didn't see anything good. I go to my home, scroll down and there is your video and it says 3 hours old. I go back to my subscription feed and scroll back til.stuff says 5 hours and you are not in there. I looked and I am still subbed but man that is bull. YT is playing games again.
in the 1950s my grandfather married my grandmother, who was his assistant at a major oil company. After marriage my grandmother had to quit her job because at that time a man would fataly lose his face when he doesn't prove to be able to provide by letting his wife continue her job. Kids (my aunt and mother) came only several years later so my grandmother had nothing to do than sit at home all day awaiting for my grandfather to return home from work. Crazy conservative times in Germany.
The Nuclear Family is a "modern phenomenon", however gender roles and dynamics as we knew them before the shreksual revolution and after the Bronze Age isn't. What allowed civilization to flourish beyond tribes ransacking and "pillaging" each other in every single way is a very explicit social contract. One that has been voided and denied for us men. Also yes, expatriation is not the ultimate solution, but it offers an environment that is no where near as degraded as it is in the Occident, barring outliers like Russia or South Korea.
Traditional Conservatism is a set of values and world views, that allow an ethnic group to perform optimally. Under normal circumstances, a group would not need to create this label, or category, just like you wouldn't need to say 'ascending the stairs by putting one foot on the first stair, and then the other foot on the other stair'. It comes naturally when a group is experiencing standard Darwinian selection. We are very far away from that norm in this day in age.
Trad conservatism as its been popularized is like a lumping together of a bunch of different ideals and concepts. There is Conservatism as a balancing of power and maintaining the status quo. And there is traditionalism as in the folkways of a people or the teachings of a religon. But clearly those two things arent necessarily the same. Liberalism is really the status quo so liberalism should be conservative if the strict definitions were accurate. The problem is disolving ethnic traditions has been the status quo of america for at least half a century so it conflicts quite substantially
I come from eastern Europe, its a tiny bit better, and used to be much better for women, compared to the west but the gap is closing faster and faster.. People dont realize that we dont have regions without internet anymore, everyone has a smartphone and Instagram is global.. A girl back home will expect a good restaurant and a good income, no negotiations on that part.. And yeah a good income in the south is 2k a month, which is obviously not a lot for Americans but not everyone can work remotely and good luck making that down there.. Even doctors earn around half of it
Whether you yearn for traditional norms of the past or you view the Trad-Con lifestyle as just another system of oppression, everyone has to admit that raising children in stable nuclear family units makes for a much more stable and productive society.
Virtually all of the available data reflects this, too. Its true for kids in general, but boys especially are WAY worse off without a "traditional" household, and a present father. Boys raised by single mothers are far more likely to take to substance abuse, drop out of school, end up in jail, the list goes on and on.
I think where tradcons go wrong is they embody the niche aspects of what the past culture holds, where as I think it would be best to promote the ideals that made that time period so prosperous, such as the nuclear family, cohesive homogenous communities with a singular goal, strong work ethic, good faith actors and above all a reason to be which many no longer have.
They are trying to define what it ought to be. It is a misconception that women didn't work. At least the non-elite women, who had to help the husband somehow, at home, in the fields, they had to contribute. And people are trying to define what a man or woman should do with their time. Like things are not evolving naturally..
Its never supposed to be defined by anything more than fuzzy adjectives and nebulous descriptions. Its like closing your eyes and waving a flashlight infront of your face for pretty colours. The end goal is to not think about anything in detail - ignorance is bliss. Of course we all know of unfair legal system and cultural attitudes towards men and how they existed back then.
I have no idea what "traditional conservatism" is myself, though I agree that it often seems to refer to the gender dynamics of the 1950s. For my part, as a Millennial born in the 1980s, I'd be content if the young women today were at least more like my generation at a minimum. Not that Millennials are perfect, but at least in my generation, there are still plenty of women who still believe in the idea of marriage and regard OF girls as morally reprehensible (and who don't convince themselves that they're 10s due to the attention that they get on social media).
You know heck of a lot more about it than I do. I hear the phrase trad con a lot I think mostly on this channel though. I think I'm done trying to live like we we're I'm going to respond to what has happened with experience.
Its an interesting exercise in propaganda that men have been convinced a brief 10-30 year period from the 50s is emblematic of the "natural" order. The two parent two kid nuclear family was nearly unheard of in ancient societies where men would have wives for house work and other women for pleasure and procreation. Even marriage was often done not out of live but purely to bring peace between families or nations.
Its funny how Conservatism can be described as "I like the prior thing" versus Progressivism can be defined as "I want that new thing". Personally i think many typically Conservative ideals are worth conserving, and even so much as attempting (and i mean making a strong proactive effort not a half assed attempt) to live up to. Fundamentally i see little wrong with the majority of those ideas unless viewed at with a hyper progressivist attituded and mental framework. 🤔
Pretty much. Change isn't inherently good or bad. Something new shouldn't be blindly feared as it often was back then, but also not blindly celebrated as it often is now.
Meh, who cares. The only thing that matters are AI & transcendence development and seeing how this broken world is nearing its end in whatever form that might be. Just chillin.
Traditional conservatism is progressivism in slow motion
Facts
Perfectly said 😂 They will still bow down to skirts at the end of the day
Made to Provide Woman Confort and Whats She Wants Till Feminism and Progressivism Happening again.
Don't be a conservative, be a restorative.
@@richardcrook2112The word you're looking for is reactionary
Passport bros pushing for men to go to places like Thailand is not only incredibly shortsighted, but it's also just flat-out bad advice. It won't even take a few decades for the laws there to look exactly the same as the US right now, and they'll be in the exact same situation they'd be right now had they married in the West with their wife of 30 years wanting to divorce them.
Also, last I checked, Thailand had the highest rates of infidelity in the world.
Highest rates? That's interesting
@@latt.qcd9221
Passportbros act like female nature is not universal.
You give that small nice Philipina female rights and the first thing she does is take her clothes off, opens up OF and ab0rts her child
trad con is being pushed by low smv men who cant get women. They want women unable to vote and work so they are forced to marry them to survive. They advocate going to poor countries so they can control economically impoverished women. Most of these guys will tell you how great capitalism yet in a free dating market they have nothing to offer so they want government intervention to ensure they can get a woman. sexual socialism
Actually it's china. Japan is second (guys get a pro because the wife stops s3x after the children are born).
@@clarkkent8286 Yup, as far as I'm aware. At least for countries outside of the US. US might be higher, but passport bros are trying to date outside the US and Thailand would be the worst place to go to.
The range of people pushing the trad myth spans from figures like Jordan Peterson all the way to Andrew Tate and beyond. Both of those figures, despite the differences in their presentation style and a couple things they advocate for, are essentially pushing the same message: men are worthless as they are, they get their worth by becoming desirable to women no matter how unreasonable women's expectations get, and you do that by behaving in a way that not only will fail to work for the majority of men, but will get you in serious trouble if you're not part of that minority of men it doesn't destroy.
@@latt.qcd9221
Jevvrdan Peterson 🎩👃
I will agree on your statement about Andrew Tate, but to equate his message with that of Jordan Peterson's, can only mean you misunderstand his views on the subject.
@@jamesharper8373 The funny part is that as far as both of those men are concerned they don't embody many of the 'traditional values' that they espouse. Jordan is a collage intellectual/academic who doesn't really embody the 'traditional masculine role.' The man is very lanky, doesn't work with his hands, and his own daughter doesn't even live by these 'traditional values'. Then you have Tate who is a practicing Muslim who bed's a new vvomen every week. It feel's the the 'tradition conservatives' simply just pick and choose what they want to preserve and ignore the things that don't align with their worldview.
@@jamesharper8373 Where's the misunderstanding? Or are you simply talking about the number of women?
There’s nothing traditional about either pederstein or tate
Honestly, what is left to really “conserve”?
It's impossible to conserve anything because it's all been blown open. The Overton Window wasn't opened incrementally, it was kicked out by the Left. What they view as 'progress' was just rapid accelerationism and degeneration.The genie's out of the bottle and now one's gender is a wish of command. It's just a matter of pharmaceutical science and rhetoric. It is the world for Splicers in Rapture (a nod to Bioshock).
Absolutely nothing.
Certainly not Western women.
Muh constitution.
@@ericp0012 If they don't like what is written, they'll just change the meaning and useage of words until they do.
Who wants to be married to begin with.
Plenty of dudes do unfortunately
Trust me Marriage Inc is not going anywhere. Plenty of men out there who’ll keep it on life support for the foreseeable future.
@@murraysaucedo897that's not what modern stats say
Matt Walsh, Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro.
@@hugh2hoob668 because most dudes can’t even get a date
Don't you find it weird how 99% of men are disatisfied with their marriage when they speak honestly about it. It's like women behave nice only towards top 1% (Chads)
And make up the overwhelming majority of OnlyFans subscribers
Many women bait & switch, chameleon mode aka act nice & such in the beginning but after the ring is in her finger, she changes into a v1tch. Also people change. She might also get bored.
They also divorce billionaires and top athletes. The 1% isn't safe either.
@@734ch3r
Most billionaires and athletes are not Chad. They might have money and status, but most of them aren't Chad.
Chad > Rich & Famous
yep
If you're not an accelerationist, i dunno what you're doing. There's nothing to conserve in this sick society
Veee moost accelerate accelerationism
Muh values, norms, traditions and regulations. Humanity needs to get a grip and grow a few braincells. Not only a grip tho but a whole smackdown in and out.
@@brettmmontague I do not know if I am accelerationist. However, I do know when the world finally does burn, I won't try?to put out the fire.
My dad was a 1950's teen. He would tell me back in the 1980's when I was in high school "Sure, women back then were housewives moreso than today, but growing up on a dairy farm. My mom bailed hay, drove a tractor. Milked cows. Made soap, cooked. Chopped wood. Mended clothing. Washed clothing. My dad did the heavier lifting of butchering, hunting (deer), moving the cows from one pasture to another. Taking cows to market. Plowing. raking hay. My mother didnt live this "Ozzie and Harriet" lifestyle and all the women in my area didnt. We didnt even have a TV, they got one a few years after I moved out probably around 1961. That 1950's lifestyle wasnt as common as people would like you to believe. Cities, suburban areas, sure. Country, small town, smaller city? No."
So kind of like how the "roaring 20s" was really only good for people that actually had money and time to spare, but sucked for everyone else. although I do note the lack of you mentioning a downgrade in standard of living compared to times before the 50s, as what is occurring today by and large
@@hertzwave8001 well, my dad growing up ate well...they always did, they lived and worked a farm. There wasnt hunger. Yes, they had a 1950's newer Chevrolet family car and a truck that was used for farm work as well. Yes, they had a telephone. Electricity and running water in the bathroom. They owned their tractor. Owned the land. The mortgage was paid off by the end of the 1940's. It wasnt destitute. They didnt have a lot, my grandparents remembered the Depression of the 1930's. They thought they were doing quite well in the 1950's all things considered.
How to conservate something that was already destroyed?
Degeneracy
You can’t, you just make that something (un)constitutional or (il)legal.
This is what makes me laugh the most. These people still haven't realized that this world is heading towards obscurantism. Preserve what? There's nothing to preserve.
Conservating nature which is the most conservative thing ever and should be taken back from the woke. Also conservating ACTUAL traditions like myths, old stories and traditional festivals, also tradition work like blacksmiths or bell founders.
There is a way if you're not too blackpilled. Even if you just conservate the tiniest things for yourself.
@@bruhmomentchi All thats left is to destroy whats bad and create whats good, law of equivalent exchange and all that.
1950s are so popular because it was peak optimism. The war was won, war production was moved to advancing home technology. The truly revolutionary tech became common at the time. Fridges, washing machines, vacuum cleaners are such massive time saving devices
I suspect (don't "know", "suspect") that they are popular because they are the boomer childhood era. Most of the people glorify their childhood, even if for the fact it was their naive youth. It had to be a time of blood and shadow for people not to feel longing for their snot-nosed days. So as time went on boomer artists wrote 50s into "far away happy days" and since they produced mass media, it latched onto later generations consoooming those pieces, now glorified and, important, unknown to them. Kind of like in Andersen's fairy tale, where one character fulfills his dream of "going back to the better days" and teleports up to his ballsack into mud, since back then streets were not cobbled. As I see it, 50s were full of hysterical adults, expecting nuclear war any moment and in shock from technology, hence the amount of science fiction with dangerous technology and alien invasions. It was alright for kids and those kids told others that 50s were based.
@@Capitanvolume this is why Distributist Dave has a lot to say about milennials wanting the 1990s to return.
@skylinefever the 90s had a similar vibe as well. Cold war over. People talking about the end of history. Pre 9/11 But people definitely have fondness over childhood.
@@DrLicuid Boomers love that era because it was the era of "benefits" for them and only them, as decades went by and they had to share the benefits with their kids they got greedy
@@Capitanvolume Distributist Dave's argument is that whatever was wrong with the next decade was brewing in the previous decade. Trying to go back is like Sisyfus rolling the rock uphill again and expecting it not to roll downhill.
There were great things about the 1950s. However, if it was that ideal, nobody would try to remove it in the 1960s.
By 2030, any married woman who is NOT on Onlyfans will be considered a tradwife.
Relatively speaking by today's standards, that's true!
i am genx i just cant grasp why every other word coming out of a young dudes mouth is onlyfans.
don't have to wait till 2030, modern "conservatives" think this is true
@@Atombender Anybody that is against Agenda 2030 will be considered right-wing.
@@badgerattoadhall Imagine 30% and growing of the women your age were street walkers.
Don't allow yourself to be trad conned.
Nobody even considers to trad con me lol
@@k-3402 We cannot allow more people on our side fall to the controlled opposition.
“Traditional Conservatism” is just whatever was normal 40 years ago.
It's what kept us away from modern degeneracy
Rewatch the RNC. No it's not.
@@LunarWolf-H8 The Tradcons allowed Feminists to get their way. You guys started this so you can finish it as well. Christ Cuckbois to the rescue!
More like 60
Normal on TV. Lot of things we think was the reality back in the day was just on TV.
I'm turning 50 in less than a month. It took me decades of wrestling with wanting to become a "traditional" man and chasing them to be monogamous and a provider, and so much else.
After being burned so many times the brain is reprogrammed so bad and so far past the point of no return that even thinking about traditional "dating" is pure burden. I have never married and do not have any kids. In fact, I had to start lying to people at different jobs about not being married because the shame and relentless comments about being "selfish" for NOT being married and not procreating or being "commitment phob." I just tell them what they want to hear and that shuts them up.
Then there comes the accusations or insinuations of being "gay" because they don't see you with a woman and consistently with the same woman. The dating world is SEVERLY lopsided, and more and more men cannot haul the various burdens anymore to achieve this so-called ultimate solution to being happy and doing the right thing by "being in a commitment." Life OUTSIDE of romance especially in the modern world for people, ESPECIALLY men is way too hard and so many different ways that having the mental, physical, S drive, and economic resources are not there anymore.
So much must change... at minimum, divorce courts AND wehmen's delusional expectations MUST CHANGE. I ask God to help us fix this because from what I can see, humanity is being swept up into a massive tornado of political, social, economic, technological, employment, educational, housing, and health chaos. Anybody's comment
Much younger dude here,
People are stupid and insane. I've had accusations of being "gay" after ASKING GIRLS OUT and BEING REJECTED. The rumours would be spread by the same person that rejected me. It's the "anything goes" era...
As for the jobs stuff, it will become harder and harder for men in the workforce, although I only have a proper point of reference for white-collar jobs. There is no point to the office environment anymore... nowadays I only find it tolerable if no one is there (my company has the hybrid methodology, so sometimes this can happen, where I'm the only person there, or like 2-3 people). So the next logical step would be to start a small remote business or something, and that's probably the same conclusion many young men will come to. Even THAT does not really solve all the burdens listed in your comment, it just cuts back on the interactions one has to deal with.
You cannot change a woman's evolutionary based drives the man thinks rationally and is trying to have a family and the woman is looking tirelessly 7 days a week 24 hours a day year after year after year to replace you with the bigger better deal what part of this do you not understand they are not monogamous
God either doesn't actually exist, or is a demon who takes pleasure in pain. This is from someone who thought at a time there might be some good thing out there. Not much of that belief anymore.
Willing to be proven different by this supposed god and people. But have yet to see such. Likely why there is so much prattle about the "next life" being supposedly so good. If many admitted to what this life is and what they do, humans would become the ouroboros instantly, more than they already are.
The standards are baked in to their DNA
@@pentagon56 The world is ruled by Satan. Read the Bible and get your theology right. I made the same mistake as you as I believed the secular explanation, but fortunately was corrected on my mistaken belief about who is in charge of this fallen world, and why. Do that and then re-evaluate your position. Get your premises correct first, however.
when 1 job could get you everything you needed for a whole family?
largely a myth. I read a book called 'Worlds Of Pain: Life In The Working-class Family' from 1972. She gives stats in there showing the fairly large percentage of working class women who worked outside the home ever full time or part time. Working class men simply didn't earn enough to support a family, then or now
@@barbellsamurai8014 don’t get me wrong, but I was referring to the 50’s, by 1970 it was already over, the hippy(mk ultra) movement made by the gov, the constant wars also made by the gov, and the disruption of the nuclear family, it was on its way to modern, contemporary destruction of families/communities/society….so what are you are talking about is already too far gone from the question in itself
@@barbellsamurai8014 Yeah. Plenty of married women with kids waiting tables, working in stenography pools, 10 hour shifts at sewing factories, did housework for other people, were teachers and nurses etc.
OFC, the populace doesnt control the money printer only the elites, so OFC a single elite would be able to provide enough for 5+ families whereas the robbed middle class can barely get by even with two parents working, disgusting.
The reason why the 50's are represented as the "ideal conservative values" is because that's when the Boomers were young. Thus this last pre-Boomer period is seen as "what came before".
The media at large have been stuck in a time-stop bubble for the last 50 years because of demographic boomer supremacy, and that should last for something like 10 more years, tops. The average age of TV watchers is well into the 60-70 range now. And for (gasp) newspaper subscriptions, you don't want to know...
Once the bubble pops, we'll see an amazing time compression in mainstream media and then "the good old days" will be the 90s, because that was the Millenials' childhood. That one will last until 2050. Then, and only then, will the 2020s be somehow yet inevitably seen as the good times.
I already started noticing a huge shift in nostalgia in the media a few years back to the 80s, as the Gen Xers started gaining a larger share in the market.
You know back in the 2020s granma was a pioneer in the OF subscriptions sphere nowadays these ungrateful OF brats have no idea 😂
@@DanMcCheese I'm eagerly waiting for 90s dance and jerky energetic music nostalgia.
The 90s are already seen as a near mythical golden age. I can't attest to that being that I was a toddler at the turn of the millennium. But it is a thing for early gen Z like myself to call themselves 90s kids even if they only have very hazy and sporadic memories of the decade. I myself have only a couple very vague memories from very late 1999 and all of it is confined to the small condo my parents had at the time. I will say that the 2000s when I grew up is vastly preferable to the naked insanity of the current day. It had it's faults like any other time (it's when the modern problems first really reard their heads starting around 9/11) but it seems like it was much easier to just live life without being bombarded with nonsense.
All downhill since the 1280s
ah yes the 1280's
No since 2011 ( Arab Spring )
I agree, the merchants made many changes in the 1280’s; especially in Europe.
Those damn Sicilians... we never really recovered after these Easter vespers of 1282.
"You should work like a dog for the comfort of women because that's just how it is. C'mon, step up and be REAL MEN like our generation!" *sssssip* yup
@@UnhingedJessie and sometimes those who say it also say the world owes you nothing.
Well when the world burns I do not owe it firefighting.
trad = women cheating but less obvious cause they play the part well
I like this.
Exactly
@@ohnoohnono Back then they often joked about kids that more closely resembled the mailman.
@@ohnoohnono bring back extended families, that way someone you trust can watch her while you work
@@zerosaber257 or maybe get a life outside of women and having a family? Get an identury for yourself?
Not to mention the economy of that country at that time. It doesn't exist anymore.
You can't be a Traditionalist and a Capitalist at the same time.
That's the crux of all "Conservatives."
I would actually go further, in suggesting that "Conservatism" is merely the desire to have "Traditional morals" in a Capitalist world.
The people who behave this way, cannot see the latter kills the former.
@@WilliamMcAdams Absolutely this. I frequently joke that if conservatives say small government and deregulation, where do I buy hookers and blow?
Can you elaborate the incongruence between the two ideas and its compatibility as I’m not sure I understand?
@RealNormHall I *can,* but it is not something that is easily "summed up."
But, ill try: in summary, tradition is intrinsically anticapitalist, and vice versa.
Small example: an old Irish tradition was finding the biggest tree you could, chopping it, hewing it, and making it into your front door posts. The bigger the tree, the more prestigious it was considered.
There is zero structural reasoning to do this. It was purely a cultural tradition. In fact, it's rather inefficient to the construction of a home to have to go find a large tree, chop it, parse it, drag it back, hew it, then install it to "complete" the home.
This concept is incompatible with capitalism, because capitalism tries to "create efficency" in the market.
Moreover, capitalism turns *everything* into a market, because money becomes the only common value.
I could go on for so much longer, but I'm already worried this c_mment will be p_rged as is.
@RealNormHall If you are genuinely interested in understanding this concept, even if you disagree, l_ok into the Middle Ages. Low, High, Late.
"Strong" language incoming, as I get passionate about this subject:
Examine how they actually functioned, beyond the surface level "wow, look how backwards and st00pid these people were, lul" nonsense.
If people would stop assuming their ancestors were literal r_t_rds, who were just madly o_pressed constantly, they would start realizing we are actually the the characteristics described above.
Bold claim, I know. But I mean it.
An example of conserving the Status Quo. That's what I've seen.
At best they slow the progressive agenda down but barley
@@thechuckjosechannel.2702 Exactly. Republicans are just delayed-Democrats and Conservatives are just late-Liberals.
If you were to travel back in time to the 1950s and ask those who were living the life idealized in nostalgia if they were "traditional" or "conservative", they would have laughed in your face. For them, the creature comforts made possible by the technological breakthroughs of the time allowed for a lifestyle that was progressive and cutting edge. "Traditional" would have evoked a return to the 1930s where most people were living on rice and beans, working any shitty job they could get, and NO ONE wanted to go back to that.
Like today but with McDonald's and Wendy's? Lmao 🤣
Good point. There's a reason that techno-utopian science fiction was mainstream back then. Not just Asimov; The Jetsons shows that hi-tech ideal. Even the Flintstones sorta parodies all the gadgets that made home life easy for the housewife in the form of (yoked, complaining) dinos serving as vacuum cleaners, etc. literal creature comforts if you will
If you were to travel back in time to the 1950's and tell them that in the future their sons would have their privates cut off and be brainwashed into thinking they're a girl. White people and men will be demonized indefinitely. The country will have opened boarders with foreigners invading constantly with inflation lowering the standard of living. Divorce and child support, etc.
Tell those people what their "Progressive" future is like, and they would be horrified.
I view ‘trad’ as reinforcing the idea of men being the head of the household in marriage, child-rearing, and romantic relationships, as a pushback against the trend of women being encouraged to be more masculine and men encouraged to be more feminine. No where in history that I’m aware of has there been a push to make women masculine
places have push women to fight because all people were needed but again it does not matter. Just live free and damn what they want you to do, they want you to be masculine for women and other people reasons not for your own freedom.
Really in the west it was always about tricking the naive men to be good workers who were squeezed till close to death, then you are accepted as a "good man", usually spineless worms that said "happy wife happy life" or "I'll sleep when I die, need to do more work".
I grew up in a traditionally conservative family (church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday, literally everything was deemed a sin, etc.), and I doubt that the people who want to "go back" to traditional conservatism were ever there. They don't know what that life is actually like. Phonies like Stephen Crowder and Matt Walsh saw a profitable bandwagon and jumped on it. (An e-mail exchange between those two commentators was made public a year or two ago, and demonstrated in very crass terms how "conservatism" represented flashing neon dollar signs for them.)
The manufactured tradwife phenomenon is hilarious. Does the average man really think that if he finds a traditional woman who stays at home and bakes cookies, she's going to look like Estee Williams? Good luck. These guys don't want traditional wives; they want sexy '50s pinup girls. It's the same old craving with a patina of *Father Knows Best* on top. Can't we just want what we want without attaching it to some semi-mythical value system?
I frequntly would joke "how many enjoyed life from back then? How many washed strong pills down with booze to just barely tolerate it??
@@skylinefever Yep. It's something that seems attractive to them only because they're complete strangers to it. They'd go bonkers in a couple of weeks.
@@jonathanmitchell9886 Tradlife: washing down barbiturates and quaaludes with hard liquor.
Modernity: washing down xanax and ambien with hard liquor.
I always saw "Traditional Conservatism" as the "Simpsons life script." A life script where Homer works while Marge stays home, they raise a nuclear family of 2.5 children. Homer can afford a suburban detached house. Grandpa lives in a retirement home. Bart, Lisa, and Maggie are expected to grow up and buy their own detached houses.
I always saw Traditional Conservatism as this 1950s ideal of "a nuclear family with 2.5 children living in suburbia." Throughout human history and in much of the world today, most humans lived in extended or multi-generational families- which drastically cut back of resources used. 7 people living in one house saves tremendous resources over 7 people renting their own apartments.
The multi-generational and extended families would solve a lot of problems for many people such as financial and labor problems. Problems like single parent families, drug use, poor diets, elderly poverty, and over-stressed families are caused by the nuclear family. The nuclear family isn't the solution to many of these problems.
Controversial take, but I think what “family style” works best depends on the genetic background of the family. Meds, Arabs, Asians, Africans, Slavs, etc. seem to thrive in one-roof multigenerational households, or at least tolerate them better. Scandinavians, Germans, and Anglos seem to prefer more privacy and space. For example, “in-law suites” seem to be an almost wholly Anglosphere, Germanic, and Scandinavian phenomenon.
The Simpsons is an obviously woke and quasi-feminist show. Homer and Bart are always the stupid clowns who harm the family (especially Homer) and make others suffer while Marge, Maggie and Lisa are often moral and wise and never ever serve as comedic relief aka. laughing stock.
Lisa is highly intelligent and moral and near-perfect (being a vegetarian feminist) and same goes for Marge while Maggie is also super intelligent and cool for a baby.
@@candide1065 They had decency to give Marge weakness to gambling, drinking and being an uncool khhhming worried mom. Overall classic Simpsons had nuance that died, coincidentaly, when production went digital around 2005. They were a dysfunctional (but loving at their core) family, all five, they looked middle class, but it was all a cheap cover as was usually shown by house falling apart and so on. They were constructing as laughing stock for the viewer. Also, they had male and father characters in the town who were not laughing stock. And overall Springfield was a city of limping dreams and missed opportunities. It is the later seasons that went retarded and shallow, and then straight on libtard.
@@DrLicuid I can see where you come from and i agree with your general idea, but I just seem to be more critical.
I like the first 4-5 season but ever since then the series went downhill and is overall very forgettable. It's no secret that basically all the guys making the Simpsons were and are liberal leftists and pretty woke at that.
They kinda gave Marge a little weakness here and there but in 99,9% of all episodes, she or Lisa are voice of reason while in almost every case, Homer (and sometimes Bart) is the laughing stock and an obviously terrible father, man and person.
There are tons of male characters in the Simpson who are the laughing stock like Moe, Granpa Simpson (while Homers mother is some kind of cool, righteous, brave activist despite having abandoned her son which is sugarcoated in a more than woke way). Also the comic dude who is of course a fat idiot.
The females are, on the other hand, always treated very carefully and pc, like Marges Sisters. One of them, the lesbian one, is some kind of LGBT mascot in order to show how inclusive and woke the Simpsons are.
All that said, I don't want to argue, I just have critical standards and I came to dislike all these american shows who, in the end, serve the status quo and portrait more of what the producers feel is reality than actual reality.
@@candide1065 When I was watching it in the 90s I separated eccentrics and buffoons of media from real people and I would say that, for someone not as gullible as to take lessons in human nature from a sitcom, it is just a joke show. Stopped watching it after feature film, something changed for the worst with entrance into HD era, perhaps they started trying too hard, copying Family guy's unfunny "lets talk a joke to death" trick, perhaps deliberate inclusion of modernity was jarring, it ended up being dated anyway, those Wiis and Blackberrys. But looking back on why it was funny, I have to say it was probably because comedic presentation of inappropriate male behaviour is funny. Like a satire. It can be made an example of disgusting, or it can be made funny (but still not something that is meant to be copied). I never took it as "this is how men are" but "boy this particular Homer sure gets into load of trouble" and "that is not how a man should act". Weakness that can be avoided being laughed at. Rule old as comedy itself. But seeing how such media progressed in the last thirty years, and learning more about other sitcoms and appearance of moronic head of the family archetype in media (I'm not from USA, so my intake of sitcoms was miniscule), yes I can agree with your take that it has a taint of liberal propaganda. Maybe not intended at first, but written that way because that is the framework of writers' views, they can't avoid it. Later on it certainly became deliberate, things written into on purpose, especially when Lisa started declaring herself a feminist, that one cut my ears. There is a line between funny masks of characters and models of humans to absorb and judge others with. While I was never one of such, hence my probably naive post that Simpsons were just a comedy setup (guess that is where my kind of rose glasses need to be taken off) I, especially nowadays, have to agree that it certainly works as propaganda of sorts and people just can't filter jokes and models. We just can't have nice things I suppose. A little more, and saying that Doom provokes school shootings might just be real reasoning.
I remember someone on a political blog asking years ago why conservatism in the US seems to consist exclusively of making rich people and corporations even richer.
It is why for all the talk of sealed borders, the pre Trump Republican establishment never gave a shit about illegal immigration.
Conservatives seek to conserve that which currently exists. It does not matter what rhe current thing is, the conservative will seek to conserve it.
Western women during the 1950s and early 1960s were generally focusing on having babies, hence the baby boom which gave rise to the boomers.
The traditionalists want to return to the happy days of the 1950s, however, that is effectively an impossible dream while conserving the current social norms as well as operating with the current economic realities. Traditional conservatism contains two elements that are not compatible which is why it fails.
Wow that was perfectly put without provocation or insult to any party, thank you
I wish I heard this a long time ago but alas I was too stuck in these romantic notions of the ‘American dream’
Also do you think those that believe in this ideal know this to be true already?
Why do they choose to believe in such ideals still when modern standards are so divergent?
I miss sheltering under my school desk during nuclear attack drills. It was the closest that I was able to get to my elementary school crush, who sat next to me. Nowadays, I'd probably have to hide under my desk to avoid my woke teacher. I guess that would make me a conservative.
Chasing a flash in a pan is fools game
2010 still feels like 3 years ago to me lol. I'm 29.
2010 was the last good year of my life. I miss it.
I was in middle school in 2010, so it was miserable by default. But had I been in my mid 20s as I am now, I would have certainly preferred it. I live in an area that was spared the worst of the great recession despite being just outside a major city, so it probably would've been the last time a man of modest means could afford property in the area.
Women used to work in the fields. There are many such paintings from the 19th century.
they still do in many parts of the world
"Women's rights was a mistake" - Hayao Miyazaki
"You never said that, you're a cucked femenist" -Hideaki anno
Miyasoymilk wouldn't ever say something (that) based, especially since he's a radical feminist for japanese standards.
"Trad" is just a buzzword used to describe chasing a moving goalpost. And who moves the goalpost? Women of course.
Now saying that you must be 18 to get a transgender surgery is considered the "conservative" position. It's over before it began.
traditions are dead anyway
the best we have is cosplay with inflation
It was the prevailing way of socially engineered life (an oofy doofy if you will) that was much closer to ooga booga. When you juxtapose against the currently prevailing socially engineered life. (Woke unorthodox and so on)
It is a myth to say that traditional values are a carbon copy of cavepeople culture grounded in genetic proclivities. But it is not a myth to say that the traditional way of doing things was closer to that than the unorthodox way we currently have.
In sum the sociology and biology are not as complementary as they used to be. Some find that problematic and others do not.
What if it was after years, something that we figured out?
Simple things like community, need for religion, the virtues, living "the good life", working hard, the merit in hard and good work?
What if all of this comes conveniently from religion? Wherein it controlled hypergamy as well?
Because this topic which Stardusk picked is political and much of the f3m!n!sm is the result of the state.
Why does the state always is forgotten or not mentioned? Why the fear of stating the consequences of a collective?
Conservative is in some sense keeping the normal.
But the again , the Importance of religion is becoming apparent.
@@unknowninfinium4353 as an atheist I wouldn’t say a belief in god or meeting at a building once a week to discuss a book is the make or break. It’s something else more broad that you mentioned: a community with a value system grounded in virtue.
Now we have individuality grounded in self preservation and self interest.
Mens hypogamy (the ability to date down and in abundance) is kept in check by laws. That is, male nature is kept in check by laws. (And still is)
Women’s hypergamy was kept in check by the social norms that came with a conservative oofy doofy. Those were deemed oppressive and since they were not laws, it was very easy to undo that. Compared to laws, which are much more difficult to change.
While the government obviously plays a big role in the change, it must also be understood that the government is made up of people like you and me. Over time, the people in said government eroded the traditional oofy doofy and substituted it for the unorthodox oofy doofy we have today where it’s anything goes.
An unintended side effect of this is that male ooga booga is still chained up by laws but female ooga booga is unbound. Social norms must return to restore balance and laws need to be more balanced. Probably would also help if women had to sign up for selective service in order to vote
what does oofy doofy and ooga booga mean?
@@Otto-Just oofy doofy = sociology. Your environment. How it’s engineered.
Ooga booga = biology. Your genetics. Your proclivities and what you can possible be.
In this context, while even traditional societies in the early half of the 20th century were socially engineered (oofy doofy), the degree to which they deviated from our natural proclivities (ooga booga) was not as pronounced as it is today
@@unknowninfinium4353I see religions as tools of social control.
Problem is, I see religions as only being useful for people with the right set of personality traits.
A certain set of people will always have unstoppable skepticism.
I also get the "woke is a religion" argument because the whole thing won't tolerate people questioning the thing too much. Much like how the God Squad can't handle questions about how freshwater fish and saltwater fish aren't both extinct due to massive environmental change during Noah's flood.
Any men in marriages that I ask to speak candidly mentions how much of the suffering in the marriage doesn't contribute to anything, it's a blind abyss that sucks up their energy and gives them nothing they want in return because "that's how it is", or treatment from their wives that they not only do not appreciate but can't hope to amend. That's all the proof I need to know my fate is just like theirs should I commit.
The reason people idealize the 1950s is precisely because it is a transitional period. It's a period that held on to many traditional societal norms that conservatives like (family, sex roles, home/land ownership...) with all of the benefits of modernity (a large airconditioned home with space for a large comfy car, a TV, a dishwasher ,...) which conservatives also like. Jetsons in space if you will. It's not the later sitcom format that we transitioned to with "modern family" with two lesbian mothers with a son that identifies as a lizard.
You would be hard pressed to find a conservative that dislikes penicillin lol (although dig deep enough and I assure you they do exist).
believe in the dream if you want but majority of the world could not read or right and those people love the time because it was right after the WW2 so you would of have to go thru that part of history.
There are communities that maintain traditional values, but are integrated/integrating with technology.
Mennonites, for example.
They might be more of a "rural Southern" thing, but they exist.
They typically run farming communities (albeit, corporate farms), and have very traditional family structure.
Husbands and sons work the fields, wives and daughters process crops.
They use modern farming tech (tractors, those big watering machines, combines, crop dusters, etc.) and make tons of money doing it.
They are close-knit, niche Protestant, community.
They allow tech in their homes, but it's typically under the jurisdiction of the father.
They also have communal meals at the end of the work days, where all the Mennonite families come together and eat a big meal.
Traditional and Technology aren't opposed, intrinsically.
@@WilliamMcAdams Traditional and Technology aren't always opposed. But those groups make a conscious decision to not let technology effect that. They have religion that holds it all together too.
But if you don't do that new technology will just take society in a new direction. And people adapt to the new reality very quickly, forgetting the old ways.
Traditional conservatives be like: “Well, at least I have muh constitution.”
Babe, wake up! Thinking Ape just uploaded! Oh wait, I’m alone.
It's true of every movement that you can easily build a very large tent in the early stage when you're just identifying a problem, but it becomes difficult to hold the coalition together once you move onto suggesting solutions since it wasn't necessary for anyone to agree on what the goals should be or how to reach them in the earlier stages.
They are better than the left, but the illogical belief that a trad marriage is an obtainable goal for most people is a major weakness of the right. Whatever era they are idealizing, women are highly driven by their socal environment, so trying to do this in an era where it isn't the norm is extremely difficult. To have a reasonable chance of success, you need to move to a very rural area or be in a highly insulated community like the Amish. The idea that men living in or near big cities (i.e most men) can achieve the trad life is absurd.
The goal is to have a good relationship that works for the couple. The only reason why trad-cons worked is because women had to settle. Now that they have freedom to pursue their own destiny, it's their choice that they would rather be single than be with a man that they don't respect. Evolution will eventually sort this out.
as long as you keep giving single moms money to feed their bastards, evolution won't come into effect.
I'm 68 years old, and everything in this video is completely true. The 20 years right after WWll (1945 - 1965) were the briefest blip in the vast timeline of human existence - a one-time anomaly that can never be recaptured. You might as well try to bring your childhood pet back to life as try to bring back the 1950s. History only moves in one direction. It doesn't have a reverse gear.
Tradcon Christian Republicans took away my online adult entertainment. This is the last straw... I hate conservatism now.
feminist had something to do with that.
@@badgerattoadhall No it didn't. Christians always take our rights away usually "for the sake of the children".
@@badgerattoadhallThey both r 2 sides of same coin
@@NoOne-kx7zs that is 100%
Have you ever heard of Gail dines
@@badgerattoadhall no..what is that? btw i aint an American....i am an indian..which many of u wont like . ...but Indian trads are as bad to men as indian fmnists.
Start 250 years ago, dismantle the concepts of the Enlightenment, or what Traditionalists call Modernity.
Also, Conservatism and Traditionalism aren’t equivalent. The former is simply the preservation of the status quo, the latter is linked towards either a collective ethnic or spiritual wisdom/tradition or natural law that will be upheld regardless of the time or period.
Any political ideology or system can have Conservatives, even the USSR at its end days had Conservatives,
they were termed ‘the Hardliners’ by Western observers, these Conservatives or ‘Hardliners’ simply wished to maintain or restore the USSR as is or was, whereas Gorbachev and his lot were the ‘Progressive’ or Reformist elements of the USSR.
Conservatism in the American context is just simply an allegiance to Liberalism (Classical) or any new strain as it develops. Which is why any Traditionalist has to be against the U.S. Constitution, the very notion of America itself, making one a Reactionary.
Edit: Steven Crowder and any of his ilk are simply confused Liberals at the end of the day, attempting to put together two incompatible systems. If they understood their predicament, they would dispense with Traditionalism as they realise where the values of the nation lies (deifying the Constitution or Americanism and what it entails).
Yep, correct analysis my man.
Most people don't understand that the battle "Democrats vs Conservatives" is just a fog, the real battle is "Enlightement vs Traditionalism".
That isn't possible, and you'd hate it if it was.
The only way out is through. The problems that modernity and technology has created can, and will, be solved with more technology. Those who try to escape into an idealized past will be crushed underfoot by those who embrace evolution - even if it means becoming something that people in the past would have recognized as a monster, a demon.
Become a Monarachist.
Accepting hierarchy, to the degree you long for a King, does much to liberate the soul.
@@dark7element
You know, I had another reply aimed towards user, but withheld posting it because it was getting quite lengthy as well, so I simply shelved it.
The mistake people make in interlinking the fruits of industrialisation and each of its iterations, with Modernity and its values. Or an assumption that the former will result in the values of the latter as a fait accompli, I completely reject this notion.
I can post the lengthier response that I shelved, if you’d like.
@@cryptarisprotocol1872 Go ahead, because I'd strongly disagree with that claim. I believe Modernism is an inevitable and inexorable result of the engine that is industrial society.
Every attempt to "have your cake and eat it too", in creating an industrialized and technological state with traditional religion and pre-modern values, has been an unmitigated failure. Franco tried it, and failed. Iran under Khomeini tried it, and what's the result? Less than 50% of Iranians believe in Islam anymore and the religious, traditional government is only able to stay in power by applying increasing amounts of terror to the population. When the generation that is currently 50+ in Iran dies off, the Islamic republic will unavoidably collapse.
You make good and important videos stardusk. You never know who may be using/listening to your content
Anecdotely Stalin asked 'what is a Kulak?' while rounding up 'kulaks'
10-20 years ago there were some of us as individuals who learned through dating different cultures of women that women are basically women. There's the initial appearance of Eastern European and Asian women being different but after 3 to 6 months you realize there's no real difference.
As Thomas Wolfe wrote, "You Can't Go Home Again".
People need to read Moll Flanders. Read that novel and comeback to this video after that and you will see Ape's point
Personally, I never wanted to be Ward Cleaver. I just can’t relate to that at all.
One day there will be traditional transmaxxing
philion fan alert
YT took away my free speech so I screw them with my name.
Traditional conservatism is LARPing as a person in the past while hoping and praying that the incentives and disincentives that made the present the way it is don’t ruin their immersion
Yes!
I often ask what I call "Con Inc" things like "will you stop using houses as a speculative asset, and make them a place to live instead?"
The 1950s allowed such things because decent jobs were common and a house was about 4 years wages.
Lets call it like it´s some people just want the benefits of going back without the cons of the present.
Which would require a new order none of those "wanters" are willing to fight for and enforce so they entire spheal is mute and void.
I'd like to learn more about the American underground counterculture that existed in the 1940s and 1950s.
It's easy, turn on the TV. They control society now.
I figured if the 1950s were so great, it wouldn't have a bunch of pissed off youth trying to remove it in the 1960s.
Distribust Dave argues that go back to a certain era is like Sisyfus rolling the rock uphill again, and expecting it not to come back down.
@@skylinefever that's a great analogy. There was certainly a lot of cultural strife that got swept under the rug in the postwar era. The youth of that era grew up in households with parents who were deeply wounded, traumatized individuals. This does not excuse the behavior of any generation alive today, but it does help us understand the dynamic.
The story of Bobby Driscoll is interesting. Some good RUclips videos on him. Very sad.
Well of course everyone has a different idea of traditionalism.
But one easy thing that holds us together isn't really a definition at all: the resistance to the apparent mania for changing *everything* that people took for granted for millennia (not just in the 50s):
- the differences between the genders
- that the sexes existed at all
- the positive view of our tribe/country/culture
- that the vows of marriage are made before God and the community, and that if you break those vows then you've betrayed both.
- that marriage is a way of organising the procreation and care of children (rather than men just running around impregnating women & then playing no part in the nurturing of the child, or women just reproducing with the "alphas" or say 5% of males)
- any belief in God
- the idea (slowly developed) that politicians should represent small groups of us (rather than being ruled by the rich , or by a despot, or by a world government where our vote is so diluted by billions of others that it is meaningless)
Marriage is just one part of it, not the whole. But there is a movement to dismantle all of this.
Of course going back to a traditional marriage is all but impossible in the current age: where communities are different; where we are bombarded with messages about sex, love & marriage that make it impossible for each one of us to NOT compare ourselves with people living hedonistic or exciting lives; and where house prices assume that both members of a couple are working and earning big bucks
Could you do a video about the the mr. Beast situation from your perspective?
You are a small but important piece of the puzzle of the manosphere as well as society and culture as a whole
Traditionalism is actually not at all like the pop conservative image of it, which is heavily influenced by that 50's esque idea that you mentioned.
Its like calling mormonism or Presbyterianism Christianity on their own in totality.
Reading the actual traditionalists is a good place to start:
Weaver, Chesterton, et cetera. Hazony's "Conservativism" is a good place to go, also.
I think you're on good terms with Dave the Distributist, so this should be something you can easily pickup.
What can we boil traditionalism down to?
The first thing is filial orientation.
Life in regard to duties and desires fulfilled in an extended family network.
Respect for those now dead, and preparation for those yet to come.
Religious observation, which is pretty self explained; values and morals derive from it, as well as meaningfulness and motivation for facing the suffering inevitable in life. For any rebuttals to this, see the rising rates of deaths from despair in our secular times.
And really thats about it. Traditionalism can involve agrarian or urban environments, can be low tech or techno optimistic, and so on and so forth.
@@crimsonguy8696 Those things are great for the vast number it does work for. How does one deal with those who follow the script and everythibg sucks for them? The social conservative act is to say they had to just life script XYZ harder, or just treat the fewer people like zeroes.
I say if trad wants to win, instead of life insurance, they have "life script insurance." It would be an insurance policy that if people obey the rules and work hard, they make it big.
@@skylinefever Im not sure I understand how it would work.
But I do agree that some sort of acknowledgement must be made that this is a generality.
There will be people acting in good faith who are robbed of family worthy of obligations and duties, and robbed of proper religious teaching and experience.
Recognition of when and how people are trying to do the right thing could be a place to start, if that's what you mean.
Maybe something like the shopping cart test but with a benefit that follows it?
@@crimsonguy8696 I also do not know how life script insurance would work. I just say that good luck motivating people to keep trying when they regularly are thrown off the ladder of lifetime achievement.
@@skylinefever oh yeah, something definitely has to change, with the massaging at least if nothing else; total agreement.
The reality of it currently and past was that men and women have only tolerated one another. We have never gotten along well and the records show this to be very much the case. Traditional conservatism is aimed at a Chad's view/perspective of how thing ought to be , but seemingly always acted out through a beta scope in the end. (Always aiming for top 10% but living in the sub 90%)
Reminds me of the dialogue that Don had with his date in 'Madmen.' Great show!
@@technologic21 I'm always baffled by the extremely different perception others have of the exact same thing.
Mad Men is obviously a very woke show that's pathologizing men (especially 50's men) and trying to make them look as racist and sexist as possible while also trying to show that men in charge are toxic which is why the stenotypist girl makes the show later on and shows it to all the stupid sexist men.
Next thing people want to tell me that Sex and the City is a philosophical show or Breaking Bad is actually a rom-com.
@@CrummyVCR Aaron Clarey frequently made such points. He discussed how many men in history were actually liked by women.
@@skylinefever Clarey is a whinny muppet. Yes, SOME men where actually liked. Doesn't give credence to anything besides the (once again we see the top 10%) mega chads...
Alexander MGT0W made a great video of neo traditionalism & its myths & faults. His videos had been gone, pity.
Search for...."Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles". That's it. It's all there.
Traditionalism died in the mid 1800s when the Industrial revolution shaped our world and let to the agrarian lifestyle and organic community being obsolete. The nuclear family is actually a modern concept that resulted due to progressivism and industrial society
Based and Tedpilled
Traditional conservatives be like: “I support traditional values such as gay marriage.”
Note that Chen was just now banned from RUclips and apparently will have charges filed against her (others may as well).
Right. They wouldn’t be on social media 😂
The whole Tradcon/tradwife thing at this point has boiled down to just a fashion statement or trend, kinda like how punk became a trend in the 90s.
Women talk about 1950s Americana the same way they talk about the Victorian era or just European aristocracy in general - they idealise and admire the pretty dresses or the quirky etiquette, but also view it as the worst time of humanity where women lived as 3rd class citizens.
Men (i. E. Manospher redpillers and boomers) usually viewed the 50s as the time when "men were men" even though if they saw the same manners in a modern day man, they would have called him a beta effeminate male.
I consider myself as conservative leaning. However, I never thought deeply about what it means to be conservative I just tend to politically agree with some or most of the conservative to me it just meant "to conserve the past" and "to go back" sameway how progressivism means social progress towards new ideas and ideologies.
it's probably just a standard part of the grow and decay cycle of soyciety
I assume within the growth phase
just passed violence and war, when people appreciate structure and safety
maybe in another 60 years, but first a price has to be paid
I went to my subscription feed and didn't see anything good.
I go to my home, scroll down and there is your video and it says 3 hours old.
I go back to my subscription feed and scroll back til.stuff says 5 hours and you are not in there.
I looked and I am still subbed but man that is bull. YT is playing games again.
You don't want anything to get better because you know you will be left behind.
Feigned ignorance is the most virtuous ignorance.
Wow now i finally see more questioning the trad myth.
Conservatism is about conserving the original interpretation of the US constitution.
Okay, but the US constitution was written by (classical) liberals.
no conservative in politics believes that.
I know that women are the same EvErYwHeRe.
in the 1950s my grandfather married my grandmother, who was his assistant at a major oil company. After marriage my grandmother had to quit her job because at that time a man would fataly lose his face when he doesn't prove to be able to provide by letting his wife continue her job.
Kids (my aunt and mother) came only several years later so my grandmother had nothing to do than sit at home all day awaiting for my grandfather to return home from work. Crazy conservative times in Germany.
It's just the Bible as Westerners interpet in in a limited scope and mostly new testament kindness and old testament rules
That and the movement leaders are pretty selective about what to read.
I often ask when Christ like behavior will be promoted to money changers.
@@skylinefever Hosea 13:16 is scary af
It's conformity to the status quo.
The only consistent status quo I see is capitulation to women.
your want conservative you want traditional
A familial system, guided by Sharia, is the only such lifestyle still in existence.
What the did they try conserve ?
They are trying to conserve what little remains of their power.
I'm curious to know your thoughts on men developing sexual confidence in today's world?
The Nuclear Family is a "modern phenomenon", however gender roles and dynamics as we knew them before the shreksual revolution and after the Bronze Age isn't. What allowed civilization to flourish beyond tribes ransacking and "pillaging" each other in every single way is a very explicit social contract. One that has been voided and denied for us men.
Also yes, expatriation is not the ultimate solution, but it offers an environment that is no where near as degraded as it is in the Occident, barring outliers like Russia or South Korea.
This is the most censored comment section on RUclips.
Trad cons and the right wing in general are an extremely clever and effective psyop
I think the closest I would go to preserve a time period before it fell is maybe 2007.
Traditional Conservatism is a set of values and world views, that allow an ethnic group to perform optimally. Under normal circumstances, a group would not need to create this label, or category, just like you wouldn't need to say 'ascending the stairs by putting one foot on the first stair, and then the other foot on the other stair'. It comes naturally when a group is experiencing standard Darwinian selection. We are very far away from that norm in this day in age.
Trad conservatism as its been popularized is like a lumping together of a bunch of different ideals and concepts. There is Conservatism as a balancing of power and maintaining the status quo. And there is traditionalism as in the folkways of a people or the teachings of a religon. But clearly those two things arent necessarily the same. Liberalism is really the status quo so liberalism should be conservative if the strict definitions were accurate. The problem is disolving ethnic traditions has been the status quo of america for at least half a century so it conflicts quite substantially
The modern world cannot accommodate certain values.
I come from eastern Europe, its a tiny bit better, and used to be much better for women, compared to the west but the gap is closing faster and faster.. People dont realize that we dont have regions without internet anymore, everyone has a smartphone and Instagram is global.. A girl back home will expect a good restaurant and a good income, no negotiations on that part.. And yeah a good income in the south is 2k a month, which is obviously not a lot for Americans but not everyone can work remotely and good luck making that down there.. Even doctors earn around half of it
Whether you yearn for traditional norms of the past or you view the Trad-Con lifestyle as just another system of oppression, everyone has to admit that raising children in stable nuclear family units makes for a much more stable and productive society.
Yep. And Big Daddy Government ain’t gonna have that.
Virtually all of the available data reflects this, too. Its true for kids in general, but boys especially are WAY worse off without a "traditional" household, and a present father. Boys raised by single mothers are far more likely to take to substance abuse, drop out of school, end up in jail, the list goes on and on.
Marry and Reproduce
I prefer to be a mother
But.. but.. Hambyhands gonna fix that plantation with his MGTARD manifesto 🎅🏻😂😂😂
I think where tradcons go wrong is they embody the niche aspects of what the past culture holds, where as I think it would be best to promote the ideals that made that time period so prosperous, such as the nuclear family, cohesive homogenous communities with a singular goal, strong work ethic, good faith actors and above all a reason to be which many no longer have.
They are trying to define what it ought to be.
It is a misconception that women didn't work. At least the non-elite women, who had to help the husband somehow, at home, in the fields, they had to contribute.
And people are trying to define what a man or woman should do with their time.
Like things are not evolving naturally..
Its never supposed to be defined by anything more than fuzzy adjectives and nebulous descriptions. Its like closing your eyes and waving a flashlight infront of your face for pretty colours. The end goal is to not think about anything in detail - ignorance is bliss. Of course we all know of unfair legal system and cultural attitudes towards men and how they existed back then.
I have no idea what "traditional conservatism" is myself, though I agree that it often seems to refer to the gender dynamics of the 1950s. For my part, as a Millennial born in the 1980s, I'd be content if the young women today were at least more like my generation at a minimum. Not that Millennials are perfect, but at least in my generation, there are still plenty of women who still believe in the idea of marriage and regard OF girls as morally reprehensible (and who don't convince themselves that they're 10s due to the attention that they get on social media).
You know heck of a lot more about it than I do. I hear the phrase trad con a lot I think mostly on this channel though. I think I'm done trying to live like we we're I'm going to respond to what has happened with experience.
why do we allow them any say in it? they speak because we allow it. they act because we allow it. are we fed up yet?
Its an interesting exercise in propaganda that men have been convinced a brief 10-30 year period from the 50s is emblematic of the "natural" order. The two parent two kid nuclear family was nearly unheard of in ancient societies where men would have wives for house work and other women for pleasure and procreation. Even marriage was often done not out of live but purely to bring peace between families or nations.
Its funny how Conservatism can be described as "I like the prior thing" versus Progressivism can be defined as "I want that new thing".
Personally i think many typically Conservative ideals are worth conserving, and even so much as attempting (and i mean making a strong proactive effort not a half assed attempt) to live up to.
Fundamentally i see little wrong with the majority of those ideas unless viewed at with a hyper progressivist attituded and mental framework. 🤔
Pretty much. Change isn't inherently good or bad. Something new shouldn't be blindly feared as it often was back then, but also not blindly celebrated as it often is now.
Meh, who cares. The only thing that matters are AI & transcendence development and seeing how this broken world is nearing its end in whatever form that might be. Just chillin.
Trad is gone