Lol, I can't believe I'm agreeing with this shit and liked the post. But...of literally every woman I've known in my forty+ years on earth, the three who by far ended up with the best lives...millions in assets, good looking socially adept tall admired husbands, etc...were also some of the biggest sluts I ever knew in their teens and 20s. And yeah, one of them is me. But these are high IQ, verbally vicious, hilarious, politically and socially astute women.
And hell, I moved to Utah and partly that's because I like being the biggest degenerate on my block and surrounded by do gooding normies, I don't want anyone more degenerate than I in my neighborhood.
Though I don't think you need to be elite to see that the terror of being cucked by any woman who isn't dumb as a donut with zero sexual experience is a blaring signal of low status anxiety. It's pretty obvious. To the extent high status men may sometimes appear not to like slutty women it's only revulsion at the sloppy ones who lack the self control or intelligence to figure out how to be discrete and portray class in all situations where it matters.
This piece is sort of an interesting shadow-side companion to the arguments made regarding luxury beliefs, on behalf of normies, by Rob Henderson. I myself have always liked degenerates too much and allowed myself to indulge too much with them than is proper, but things have gone too far with people no longer trying to hide it or even pretend to be ashamed.
As a 23 year old, I agree. Always trust a man by his actions, not his words. With men, you always know they care and value the things they spend on. There’s all this talk about OF “whores”, but no one talks about the fact that married men (especially trad leaning ones) spend thousands a month in OF. Women look for personality, face and then maybe even body. Men will always look for the body, then the face, and then the personality.
So my trick and advice is that a smart girl (who is somewhat attractive) should optimise her looks and body always (hormonal health, physical exercise daily etc..). Currently doing my internship and being hot (as a former overweight girl) is opening so many doors. Second thing is, always follow your own agenda (goals, objectives) and prioritise your well-being (that means not eating unhealthy and going to daily workouts). By doing that, you are becoming a prize. Men are hunters, not gatherers. Cleopatra (taking immense care of herself and having a clear agenda no matter what men say) got the two most powerful chad men in Rome to go to war for her agenda. This “don’t give an f” attitude is so common among degenerate women and specially sluts/whores, who know their worth. It is not common among “biblical submissive” women who are too scared of their own dark feminine shadow.
Tried and true with me, and also my friends. You don’t have to be an actual OF/sex worker to be this “bad girl”. You do have to have this intense self respect to put yourself first, go to the gym and nurture yourself to become a very powerful being. This is why I’ve seen many elite men fall (actually fall) for moderately attractive fit women (yet no specially super hot) but all of these women have their own agendas and have accepted (and channeled) their personal power. This is why whores stay winning.
"Always trust a man by his actions, not his words. With men, you always know they care and value the things they spend on. There’s all this talk about OF “whores”, but no one talks about the fact that married men (especially trad leaning ones) spend thousands a month in OF. " Excellent point. They totally deny it though. But once you've been hit on by enough married with kids conservative guys (and they're always the ones), you just have to say "okay, whatever you say" to their denials. However, I do feel very bad for their true-believing wives, who believe their act. This is a complete epidemic in Utah...SO many divorced former trad-wives who were completely stunned and shocked when they found their husband's burner phone or discovered all his OF and real life whores.
Jun 18Liked by Kryptogal (Kate, if you like), Walt Bismarck
To a certain extent, I also do feel bad for my fellow women. Nonetheless, I do feel the core of the issue is psychological integration of the shadow and “light” sides of being a female. Religious dogmatism (always follow biblical womanhood, mother Mary if you’re a Catholic …) keep women away from embracing their inner dark feminine/slut/“bad girl”. These women also shame women who lead with this energy or are actually trying to integrate it (the way to personal power which translates in power couple/ “I would do anything for you” relationships).
I also have my doubts whether a majority of womanhood simply lacks the courage and psychological strength to fit the “powerful queen” archetype. Like Walt says, there’s always going to be the “whores” but since the whore is the dark femenine archetype that leads to the queen, you can always make a queen out of a whore. (One of the most prominent Byzantium queen was actually a prostitute). But the “trad wife” archetype is so disempowering, men know this, so they will likely cheat to get their dose of “dark femininity”. Even most disempowering is women staying, thinking that the “gooder” they are the better.
Something I am applying to myself and my life is “Be a total bitch until someone has proven worthy to see your empathy and love”. The key is integration of the shadow and the light. Also not believing for one second that men love submissive tradwives.
I guess the fact that I've never had any problem getting into relationships with them, marriage proposals, being sought after, etc. and I've definitely been one to play hard to get. So just based on that it seems they don't have an issue. They don't like desperate girls or people who seem like they do things just to please others (naturally, everyone gets turned off by someone that seems pathetic or not in control of their own conduct). But legitimately high drive and sexually adventurous/confident women? Never seen a man turn one down or not like them, other than maybe some very bitter or religious guys (but even they probably won't). So I'm saying it based on my life experience.
Being upset about someone else's sexual history or experience is mostly a marker of insecurity, for any gender. Sometimes it's disgust if you think the particular people they've been with or sexual acts they've engaged in are gross, but if it's just purely being upset bc someone else thinks sex with new people is fun, that's insecurity. Understandable insecurity, but that's the driver, fear. Fear you won't measure up and fear you'll be cheated on or left. Like I said, a legitimate fear.
And you're right, men say ALL KINDS of bullshit that doesn't at all reflect their conduct. Most men are waym way more thirsty and willing to act like fools over women than they would EVER admit to. Same as women though...what people say about themselves rarely matches up to their behavior when it comes to sexual behavior. Corner active men are the worst hypocrite slutbag houndogs out there despite whatever appearance they like to give off. I've been hit on easily 10x as much by married with kids supposedly religious family men than I ever have liberal guys (and no I have zero interest in and would never go for a married guy). The amount of times I've had men with pregnant wives make a pass at me is stomach turning.
Let’s suppose I am a good guy who wants to settle down with a good woman. It is very hard to know what any person is like in a relationship. So….1. OF account. 2. 100 sex partners. 3. Lived with four guys for various lengths of time for each. 4. Tatted up. 5. Sugared once. IE kept by an older rich guy. Let me think…YEAH FOR SURE, let’s consider her…NOT. Women can like this, or not. Guy’s sexuality does not find that appealing to commit to. A once or twice date. Yeah, maybe. A nice young woman on one of my job sites, cute, heavily tatted, sexy butt, slept with maybe 20 guys on the job site. That’s one job site over about a year!! I liked her. She was charming. Would I date her if I had been 50 years younger? Not seriously.
There's a huge difference between being a prostitute (i.e. having an OF account or being a sugar baby) and sleeping with a bunch of people for fun. I have no idea why a woman who would sleep with multiple guys on one construction crew ..that's truly bizarre if it ever actually happened. Let's not be extreme. There is a world in between having two boyfriends your whole life and selling access to pics of your butthole online. I'm not really sure why you'd be bothered by a woman who lived with four boyfriends...shows she was committed to them at least temporarily and likely thrifty and reasonable enough to know that living together saves money for both. I don't see that as remotely close to sleeping with gross old men just for pocket money and a meal or whatever other things you're talking about here.
You can’t be committed temporarily. But, there are only so many times you can fall in love. You live with four people either you didn’t feel much, a huge no no if you are considering her as a lifetime partner, or you’ve used your quota up. As fas the ‘well, she’s practical’…uh no. Another huge no no. Your pride in being verbally vicious, your previous sluttiness, the fact you continue to be hit on all suggests to me I am glad I am not your husband. But you are likely reasonably good looking.
Thank you for the feedback. You are right that it is meandering, but I wouldn't say it's meaningless.
One of my biggest faults intellectually is that I am very self indulgent and prone to rhetorical flourishes that can sometimes distract from the point at hand. I am also a very fluid thinker who naturally feels like the world is a contradictory/messy place, so I like exploring possibilities more than I do clearly stating my opinion and defending it.
In my other pieces I tried hard to suppress this tendency. But it's hard to be straightforward on this issue because I am genuinely sympathetic to both "sides" and have a foot in each camp.
My goals in this piece were as follows:
1) Explain why Trads and Degens can find common ground and work together in a "synthesis" position that cordons off separate degen spaces for the elite ("Traditionalist Degeneracy")
2) Argue that slut shaming is a counterproductive tactic for achieving this end, and that letting attractive and charismatic women ostentatiously "reform" when they want to settle down is the best way for trads to increase elite female TFR while promoting traditional femininity.
Do not change your style. It is meandering like a pleasant microdose-tinged stroll and the EHC is going to enjoy and respect your style. Few people can write as well as you do.
Possibly brand-diluting idea:
Your non-paywalled content can be simpler, higher-virality posts with memes, bullet points, and actionables. The willing-to-pay audience is the one interested in longform content.
One caution I'd add is that you want at least some of the longform content to be discoverable without a paywall (And thus attract subscribers who might bounce off the shorter stuff). But that can also be opening up older articles and calling them out in the bullet point works from time to time.
Indeed, his style is rambling, but quite good -- the fact that I read all the way through is proof of that. When it comes to writing, it's important to always speak in your own voice and express things naturally, and not imitate someone else's style or preferences.
OK great. I appreciate that you have some insight into your style, and some self-awareness. For me the issue is, I don't really follow this area of the Culture War (and its details) - except that I follow Rob Henderson and really think he is on to something with his concept of Luxury Beliefs - and your article was a reference as a defense of Luxury Beliefs, so I was looking for a clear pithy defense, and couldn't find it. I got the point about 'elites' needing an outlet for some of their extreme tendencies, but still didn't really get your point.
Not sure what the above poster saw, but I read a brilliant piece. I agree with your observations about male/female relations and also enjoyed the acid words with which the picture was etched. I know you are not addressing my demographic, but I have also observed some of what you say here. (Open-minded not young wordcel female in case you’re curious)
Mar 25·edited Mar 25Liked by Kryptogal (Kate, if you like)
I found it interesting because it was so astoundingly cynical. He's the gender relations version of the counsellor for a Supermax prison.
It reminds me of Norah Vincent's "Act Like A Man," where the authour dressed and presented as a man for a year to learn about men, and spent time in strip clubs and the like, meeting the dregs of masculinity - and later she committed suicide.
The world is filled with material targeted at r^tards like steven lightfoot. You're doing something unusual, unique even, and should keep doing that, rather than listening to the r^tards.
This passage at the beginning is the key to the post.
> One reason for this is that I am a novelty-seeking urbanite with high openness to experience, so these women comprise much of my friend group. I therefore feel a lot of loyalty to this type of person and want people to hear her side of the story.
> I also identify with her more than I do other promiscuous men, because I’m too strange and autistic to ever be seen as a “Chad”. Most of my own relationships have a kind of Elon/Grimes vibe that sometimes pisses people off. When low openness chuds see a weirdo who’s successful with beautiful women they tend to feel he doesn’t “deserve” it, and will go after him in the same way they do sluts (but NEVER will with normie “Chads” they don’t perceive as soft targets).
The rest of the post is basically an attempt at rationalization and cope.
Basically he makes a lot of arguments and desperately tries to ignore the fact that they all point in the opposite direction of his desired point.
Yes, good observations. I don't hate the piece, and it has many interesting points, but its all over the place. It reminds me of sophists I have known in my youth, good at fast talking, but if you have the time to consider what they say, its doesn't necessarily make all that much sense.
Whaaat? You're getting really mad at me for this. It's a timeless classic, and how god dang hard is it to make someone a sandwich! It's not like I'm asking you to invent calculus, or do any of the other world-changing events which were almost exclusively done by men. Probably why colleges should select for "moids" actually, since most women who go to college just end up going into retarded mickey mouse majors while rigorous majors like Physics and Math are disproportionately male.
You asking me to "go die in a war" as an insult is exactly why 99% of great figures in history were "moids". Dying in a war is a dignified way to go... And we're all gonna die one day! Death is always lurking and can never be avoided forever, read Heidegger!
Here we see the utterly hylic and substance-less worldview of your average cuntoid on display… No, physically giving birth is not what we are talking about when we say invention. A cow is not credited with the well-being of a farm because it tilled its soil. Invention means developing an idea, and implementing it. You’re not inventing a baby, your body is just producing one. And then you grant a second common error of the female mind — the NAXALT argument… “Who cares if men invented 99% of stuff, THIS ONE woman invented THIS ONE thing, so… DURRRR!!!” That’s what u sound like. Why do u even get mad at men for watching porn and playing video games if you think that men are already just intrinsically evil and awful? It’s not like not watching porn will make men up to your standards.
I’m very attractive, in fact we might even make a great couple! Permission to rizz you up, ma’am?
"There is nothing glamorous about this and you’re not “providing” at a level that inspires real submission. In practice she will just feel like a human trafficking victim [...] They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return."
This essay was *definitely* not written for me, but I appreciated the main point nonetheless. I've been complaining about how too few men on the right are willing to call out these types of men and how they contribute directly to the problems they complain about and focus too much on the women and our roles, and I think this essay does this very well.
I especially appreciate the emphasis on the need to *inspire* women to want to submit, if that's what you want from her.
the ratio of women who want to submit vs guys who are even theoretically capable of leading has always been 100 to 1 but nobody wants to admit this or grapple with the implications
In the days of enforced cultural monogamy the man got to lead if he could support a wife and family. And that was not always as easy as it looked. Nor was being supported by a man as cushy as it sounds. Trad was a trap for a lot of people.
In this day and age far more women could handle trad than guys. I make a reasonable amount of money. I have been the sole support for two families. It wasn’t easy. I am glad I did it and I expected it of myself. But I had tough tough years in there. Trad for a woman though is way easier. A few tiring, somewhat frustrating, but very fulfilling years, and a lot of easy years too though.
This is a conflict within most women’s psyches. Speaking as a twice married guy in his 70s, and been married for 46 years of that, most women want someone to be dominant, yet fight it. Don’t be though? And women will walk all over you and disrespect you. Each couple has to come to grips with this push/pull dynamic women impose on the marriage. It is kind of pathetic.
Mar 24Liked by Walt Bismarck, Kryptogal (Kate, if you like)
You might already be aware, but some obnoxious liberal Twitter account has screencapped a brief excerpt from your "Why I Am No Longer A White Nationalist" post, the paragraphs about living in the Midwest and finding it boring. "Ha! The white nationalist doesn't like other white people!"
I knew something was up when they didn't include a link back to the original post, which is of course much more nuanced, articulate, and potentially disconcerting to their audience. Fortunately, Google isn't so nerfed (yet) that I couldn't arrive at your blog by googling the first full sentence. Much here to read and contemplate, and to reply to with an opinion-dump that I'll try to keep to a bearable length.
As another commenter already pointed out, "*you* should be trad to make *my* discreet degeneracy more exciting" is a nonstarter. Sexual ethics is a textbook example of a collective action problem, where the hedonic incentives for the winners are too great to voluntarily renounce, and the losers have no ability to change the rules of the game.
I think there's an element of wishful thinking in your analysis here that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. "We get to be hedonists while our subjects live orderly and productive lives" is an arrangement that elites throughout history like to aspire to, since orderly and productive subjects are tractable and taxable, but human nature is more refractory than that. Pre-Victorian Britain had a flagrantly degenerate aristocracy ruling over a riot-prone populace of unwed drunken yobs, and the American white working class prior to suburbanization was no stranger to vice. (There's a lot of insight to be quarried from the work of lefty historians here, even if we disagree with their conclusions.) Vegas wasn't and isn't Monte Carlo or Monaco, an exclusive enclave for the sophisticated rich; it was/is a mass cultural phenomenon in postwar America. The Rat Pack were celebrities whose highly publicized adventures were wish fulfillment for ordinary working class men who were living the postwar suburban dream but had memories of their youthful adventures with vice, as teens in Depression-era inner cities and at overseas ports during the war. And the postwar suburban dream itself was in part an attempt to buy peace between the elites and the masses, at a time when the violent labor battles of the 1930s were a recent memory. There's a strong case to be made that the Fifties arrangement, where an average Joe who keeps his head down and plays by the rules gets to be the sole breadwinner for a suburban family with a rising standard of living, is the historical outlier; we've now returned to something more like the norm, in the grand sweep of industrial modernity.
(Likewise, there's certainly a case to be made that American culture would be healthier if its actually existing elites behaved more like a traditional aristocracy -- but if we had a traditional aristocracy, we wouldn't be the United States of America.)
Regarding the state of the generations, and the question of how redpilled high-IQ white men ought to conduct their reproductive lives (you had an interesting exchange on this topic in the comments to a previous post): I'm in my 40s, from an earlier generation than you. I didn't participate in any of the mid-2010s fun except as an amused lurker, so I enjoyed your recaps of what it felt like to be a hot-blooded young guy in the thick of the action. If I had been single rather than a risk-averse family man at that time, I might have ended up one of the Gen X movement intellectuals, but I'd probably also have ended up doxed and unemployable.
I was redpilled in my late twenties by the mid-aughts manosphere. Like a lot of nerdy guys in that era who came of age in liberal environments, I had to slowly and painstakingly reverse engineer the rules of the sexual marketplace, and figure out some rudimentary game, through real-world trial and error on my own. It was a thrill to discover the manosphere and compare notes with other men who had realized that the college feminism we had been socialized into was a load of nonsense.
This led in due course to redpills on those *other* things which I had quietly noticed but wasn't supposed to talk about in polite company.
And having swallowed that bellyful of redpills, how else to struggle against the lies of the system than to do my duty to the bloodline, take a wife and Put Family First, and do my best to be a trad dad?
So I've done time in those trenches, just as you did yours in corn country, and I've learned how difficult it is to hold frame and maintain your agency even in an ordinary monogamous marriage. Doing all this with an art hoe or an ex-OnlyFans? Nah, that's a headache I wouldn't encourage anyone to take on. If you're a true Dark Triad natural aristocrat who didn't need to consciously study the game in the first place, the strategy you suggest here might not be difficult, but I'm not sure it's wise if you're a high-IQ misfit who's had to devote serious effort to self-actualization.
As above, things might be cleaner if we had an actual Euro-type aristocracy who were frank about the fact that marriage is about bloodline and property, not love and loyalty. Perhaps your experience differs, but I'm not sure American elites really come close to this. I'm a product of the dutiful, rule-following upper middle class, but I have enough privilege (heh) to have had classmates and friends who come from Wall Street wealth or generational old money. My anecdotal sense is that using your wealth to outsource parenting duties, while you incomemaxx and pursue side pieces and the wife goes to gallery openings, is a high risk strategy. After all, you can't spend ninety seconds in a big city art scene without meeting a half dozen trust fund fuckups lashing out at daddy. Often these kids fall prey to the boring, self-destructive kind of degeneracy, hard drug addiction or lowest-common-denominator commie shit, precisely BECAUSE they have no self-preservation incentive not to. Elon himself, with his "daughter" "Vivian," is by no means immune to this.
And if you don't want kids and can already get your needs met, why bother taking a wife? I love my children, but I've ruefully come to understand that my natural way of being is as a promiscuous urban intellectual. (I just don't wanna get mugged by 80-IQ ferals is all, which makes me "radical right.") Forcing myself into normie dad life chafes; my redpills came right as I was finally hitting the income/career sweet spot where life really starts to get fun, and if nothing else, I wish I had spent a few more years enjoying life before I settled down. That said, I do believe that once you've fathered kids, responsible high-investment parenting is the line that separates K from r and Us from Them. A man who can't keep it in his pants for the sake of that project IS a worthless degenerate; that's a hill I'm willing to die on.
Obviously, none of this takes away from your point that incels seething about online roasties are ngmi.
I think you're right about the state of gender relations among the Zoomers. The truths my generation discovered by groping around in the dark, and which were present as a body of knowledge for adventurous young men of your generation to discover and implement while you were still young, have become the conventional wisdom of the generation below yours. I don't necessarily envy you or them, all things considered; swipe-based app dating sounds like hell. But it's satisfying to know that that body of knowledge is out there, so that high-IQ young men can begin from a baseline of actionable facts and don't have to waste time in blind alleys. How to implement this knowledge at civilizational scale, though, is a very hard problem, and experience has made me skeptical of simple solutions.
Excellent post. Too much for me to respond to now, but I enjoyed your thoughts.
I will say I sometimes wonder how my life would have turned out if I'd married my first or second girlfriend and gone all in on the trad thing as a young guy. Sometimes I feel like I could have done it really well and degeneracy has just corrupted me, other times I feel like I would have hated it and been tempted by other women the moment I actually became attractive as an older guy
Ultimately we all fall down our own bagatelle path in life and come up with some narrative to explain/justify everything, but it's probably very rare for the path anybody goes down to be perfectly optimized for their nature. Something kind of existentially horrifying about that and it's prob best not to dwell on it too much.
You ever think that if you plan ahead your life narrative can be a lot easier to explain/justify? Maybe everything you've been through up to now you had to go through to realize that you want a wife and family and you can't have that and be a degenerate unless you're some kind of psychopath, which you don't seem to be.
I find that planning ahead tends to work out rather poorly for me when it comes to women and romance. You need to be flexible and somewhat outcome-independent to be most successful these days.
I can see why you would interpret planning ahead to be focusing on a particular outcome, but it is exactly the opposite of what I meant to communicate. When planning ahead with respect to simplifying your story, you don't focus on outcome other than developing awareness of your preferences so that you can take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. Instead, you focus on doing what you believe to be right given the information you have. This idea that people engaged in degeneracy "know what they're doing" is a complex narrative that you need to spin to justify your path. There is probably little truth in it given the mental health problems associated with this lifestyle and tendency for people to feel much better after "settling down." Maybe there are some who "can handle it" but I'd argue this is less an indication of quality and more an indication of psychopathy. All that to say when I say "plan ahead" in the context I mean preparing to rationalize your actions in the future by engaging in actions that are the simplest to rationalize in the present. When you say you've been "corrupted by degeneracy" I think this is the mechanism of the corruption. You've come to believe stories because you must believe them to rationalize the path you continue along, not because you have some deep conviction that they are true. The existential horror you experience reflecting upon this should be a clue.
I’m a SAHM of three kids; UMC; married to my college sweetheart. He doesn’t seem to mind that he never had a ho-phase. He is certainly happy I never did.
The idea that the most visible and vocal SAHM’s should only be the super wealthy, highly charismatic, cultish ones who have housekeepers and nannies and treat their children like another lifestyle item to flaunt on socials is very off-putting to me.
I never had or wanted a nanny. I did the natural birthing, breastfeeding, baby wearing, scratch cooking, hippy mama thing before I was ever aware there was a cultish TradWife movement online.
I wasn’t online except for FB to organize events for my local natural mama group (I led meet ups at local libraries and metroparks and clothing swaps and other social events) or later for my homeschooling projects. In theory I may enjoy a housekeeper but it’s certainly not necessary for me. I can watch silly shows and fold laundry or listen to podcasts and scrub out bathtubs as well as anyone else.
This essay describes a big city coastal kind of value system. I’m a Gen X Midwesterner. I’m just normal. I remember when I was teaching middle school and pregnant with my oldest my colleague asked me when I would be coming back to work. I told him “I am hoping that if I keep the house tidy, cook dinner every night, and put-out regularly my husband will like me being at home enough to not send me back to work.” And he busted up laughing and said “That would work on me.”
I grew up working class. The moms I most looked up to - the ones who seemed more relaxed and less stressed, who were patient and kind - they were the moms who didn’t have to work. I always felt like this would be ideal. My own mom was not very patient and always had to work. My parents clawed out of poverty into the working class through sheer grit and because they were an awesome team. None of the Moms I looked up to were wealthy. None had nannies or cleaning ladies. Heck, my aunt WAS a SAHM and a cleaning lady for a few working women.
My husband has always seen the value in not adding extra stress to my plate. And I have always tried to be a high utility wife for him to the best of my abilities. He’s a practical man who is wise with money and investments and there is no strange kitty in the world he would trade for half of his net worth. Luckily for us - after 29 years together he still likes and loves me and I still like and love him. I stayed fit after babies as well. As did he.
We are raising both boys and girls. My greatest hope for them is that they are also just normal, and content being normal. We have a good life. I hope they would want similar for themselves. The original essay seems to ignore that there are plenty of plain old normal wholesome families living normal lives — not online. Maybe we are just too concentrated in flyover states and not coastal elites … but we are not all exhausted and overwhelmed and miserable because we don’t outsource our roles to low income women. I don’t love cleaning toilets but I get satisfaction from cooking healthy meals that my family enjoys.
BTW; I’m not religious. I did a minor in women’s studies (🤣) during undergrad. I have 2 degrees and had a career before becoming a SAHM. I have voted for Dem, Greens and Independent mostly. But I wanted a very traditional life and am content to be in my traditional gender role because I always wanted - more than anything else - to be a mom. I selected my major as teaching because it seemed like a great job for a mom once her kids were in school. But I always hoped to be home when my kids were small.
I’m not trying to reopen the can of worms about the WQ on the right; but I don’t think your two choices as a SAHM are drudgery and misery and performative trad-wifery while you live the high, coastal elite life when the cameras are not rolling. Neither of those things resonate with my experience as a SAHM.
What is an elite woman to you? It seems to be correlated with materialism and being a coastal or big city striver. My brother married a materialistic woman who wanted all of the designer handbags, shoes, and clothing, vacations, salon and spa treatments, and fancy meals out all the time. She became an “elite” stripper and eventually an “elite” escort (while they were still married) to afford the material things she wanted (never children — she didn’t want to wreck her body which was her money maker!) Is she “elite” bc she was 10/10 beautiful and could fuck high-status men for money? I’m biased but I think my husband got the better wife, and I think I have the better life. And a Twitter 🐸 micro-celebrity once told me that the real privilege these days is growing up in a household where your parents love one another / still liking your parents when you are an adult.
It’s a value system difference for me. My normal cushy life is great. I have a handsome C-Suite husband, 3 really great kids, we are a tight knit family because we are both extremely family oriented, a nice suburban home, vacations when we want (or need) them, a closet full of Boden and Reformation dresses (which I got on super sale bc that’s who I am as a person.) I’m living my best life, balling at the local Costco and buying too many books.
I suppose I could make my life seem very glamorous on a public IG page - but I am just normie-mom posting on occasion on my locked down IRL friends / family / former students only page bc I am careful about who sees photos of my kids (and me) online. I’m just living life not pushing a lifestyle. I am raising three kids who seem to be pretty happy and well adjusted. So I am an influencer of sorts. They just have traditional values not materialistic ones. Happy Normie Traditional Moms probably just don’t have much interest in being social media trad-wife influencers. These are entirely different types of women.
There are some decent women writers who are RW adjacent. I know that younger people seem to consume more video content. I am older and I prefer reading and audio content — so possibly I just don’t have a good grasp of the TikTok trad mom thing. The Twitter Trad-Moms seem to be more irony posting from what I see.
I'm sure you're a lovely woman. But you're also rich yourself. Your life doesn't contravene my point. I am criticizing poor fat women in ill-fitting clothes who make housewifery seem like cleaning up puke/shit all the time.
If the only video content out there showing stay at home moms is pity content from poor women who are exhausted and overwhelmed and highly curated fake-Trad content from charismatic reformed party girls, I am not sure my daughter ever needs to go on TikTok.
We both came from poor/working class families and were very normal middle class the majority of the way due to sacrificing my income. My husband is nearly 50 at this point and is rather financially savvy and we both have a similar mindset about money.
I also wondered what your definition of “elite” women is. You kind of take it for granted that it’s something grand and valuable but much like you said femininity needs to be made appealing, so does eliteness. If only for the sake of those who have the wherewithal to pursue or to know they are it. Based on the piece (which I mostly liked; will write another comment on it) it sounds like elite woman to you is a high in openness, promiscuous, well educated, attractive woman who is willing to trade on her looks or any of her other qualities for material gain. Something like that. At least that’s what came out from the piece.
And if that’s the case, that doesn’t describe a woman many people want and not one that many women want to be. I’d guess the trad/femininity movement is virtue signaling against those because those aren’t women they want in their camp.
He does so much for us. It’s crazy how lucky I am that I met this man at 15 and we started dating when I was 17 and I basically landed an elite husband in the making. We’ve been through things as well, so I try to never take him for granted.
Like saying you want to devalue labor to "push the middle and lower classes down" who says something like that???
Also I think many of your claims about the lower classes are unfounded, probably because you don't interact with them. Like yeah I agree they are usually pretty stupid, but you are treating them like they are not much different than animals.
lol I said the exact opposite of that. I said that I want to help the middle and lower classes by making underclass labor cheaper. I want every guy who makes 60-70k to easily afford a maid/babysitter/nanny, which is very much not the case since covid.
That is the exact opposite of the problem we have today. Inflation and lowering value of labor is what messed up the cost of living in the first place. That's why the 50s and 60s were the golden age of America; because labor was high value compared to the cost of living.
Making nannies cheaper isn't going fix anything anyways. Middle and lower class people don't hire nannies. They hire neighborhood girls to babysit for them, or they outsource to family members (like grandparents, or they send them to a daycare. If anything, devaluing the labor of nannies will just make it harder for them to earn a living.
That also brings me to my other point; you have a retarded view of babies and it makes me feel like you've never even seen one. I am a germaphobe, I have every reason you have and more to be grossed out by babies because it is ingrained in my individual psychology to have a low disgust threshold and a harsh disgust response. And yet, I plan to spend most of my 22nd birthday babysitting my 2 identical twin cousins (<1 year old) because I think they are swag.
But my main point here anyways is that this general elitism that is so pervasive in your writing (and is generally very typical of Millennial RWers in general) is absolutely God awful. It's inherently anti-aristocratic. It's just the remnants of your (speaking more generally of Millennial RWer's) upbringing from generally snobby liberal backgrounds. Millennial RW politics is not the solution. It's a transitional stage from before that brings all the baggage that entails.
Yes. Bc I am not even RW, per-se, but babies are not things we just outsource to other people. You cannot even raise a baby in a traditional way with a nanny. I breastfed my kids for 18 months, 2 years and 3 years. They never had formula. You cannot do this with a nanny. Most women cannot pump breast milk like that. And on the germaphobe point; when I wanted to test out a gym membership, all that happened was that my boys would get sick from the gym daycare. It was just easier to put them in a sling and stroller and take a brisk walk around the neighborhood rather than constantly battling daycare germs.
Are you saying you want policies that subsidize this cost for your average $70k family, or that you'd want to lower the total earnings of domestic help? Many people would support the former. Trying to get even normie conservatives to accept the latter seems pretty impossible. Most people would see that as needlessly cruel.
If you import young Russian women to be nannies they are all going to end up being SAHM’s because smart men will wife them up. My Russian friend is the ideal housewife and I am always trying to get her to fix up her Eastern European transplant friends with my RW former students who want to get married to more traditional women. This isn’t a bad outcome though.
I don't see "traditionalist degenerate" being an "ideology" that takes off anytime soon. "I want everyone else to play by conservative rules so I can have more fun breaking them." Are the people who bully women for having an OnlyFans going to hear that and listen to you? I doubt it.
On the topic of being mean to women, I agree that men being mean to women in public is probably not useful, as the men who do that will be seen as the Bad Guy regardless of who is actually right or wrong about anything. But low status/low IQ men will always be lashing out in this way about something towards someone, and the same traits that cause them to do this in the first place will probably also prevent any attempts to persuade them to stop.
In the meantime, men more generally can definitely influence cultural norms through less obnoxious expressions of their preferences, for instance by refusing to date or commit to women that are marred by "sex work." Women don't respond to direct aggression by low status incels, but they will respond to changing social norms overall. If it becomes the case that having an OnlyFans destroys a woman's marriage prospects, women will stop hopping on that train quite so eagerly. Hopefully this is the direction things are headed in, but only time will tell.
I don't see OnlyFans ruining a woman's prospects unless she is very uneducated or not that attractive. It's not the sort of thing that high status guys care about--they might even like it. Recall that even Trump's wife famously posed nude in a magazine.
Certainly middle class girls might be more persuadable with this kind of thing, but any girl who has the social intelligence to become big on OF (such that she couldn't hide it) probably could also land an elite degenerate man.
>Certainly middle class girls might be more persuadable with this kind of thing, but any girl who has the social intelligence to become big on OF (such that she couldn't hide it) probably could also land an elite degenerate man.<
Yeah, I'm talking about women in general, not just the most successful top percent. That's your goal, right? You want the bottom 80% to be conservative again? I agree that having an OF probably doesn't hurt a woman's prospects all that much even among that lower 80% right now. But that's the sort of change that might bring about what you want--if the majority of women who don't become social media superstars start to perceive that making an OF will ruin their prospects. If Gen Z is any indication, things maybe moving in this direction. One can only hope.
Hey some women like sex a lot and will do it with lots of men, and some won’t. It’s so tiresome to have no access to a shorthand word like promiscuous. Although it’s true that promiscuity is more natural to men. It may be their default, not sure. But look at the ahem spread between homo extremes - the guy that visits glory holes and the homebody fat lesbian with her cat or small dog. There is something to biological differences. Men are dawgs, and the ones that aren’t wish they were. Believe me, I didn’t start out in life knowing this.
Also my third serious gf had a partner count of 17 when mine was 6 and I was kind of put off by that. But then we dated more recently when she was at 23 and I was in the triple digits and she seemed very innocent to me.
These days i still feel that way about high volume escorts and pornstars but pretty much no other type of woman. I would definitely marry a woman who had a past in stripping or sugaring.
This is messed on so many levels. It reads to me like you aren’t capable of feeling anything. Sorry, dude. You’ve missed the point. All these categories you talk about are written about very superficially. I am reasonably successful and I agree with your high ambition drive - likely high sex drive. If I dated a woman and found she had done some lighter sex work/Only Fans stuff she’s gone. If she is super fun I could see me having coffee with her. But date her? No way. When you write this sort of stuff you might be correct if you are talking about a sociopath. But people who prefer intimacy aren’t interested in those who have put time into sex work. It is hard to make a relationship work. When you see a giant red flag only a fool would move forward on it. Who knows? Maybe she has transformed and could make a great wife. But the odds…? Not good.
Whether you’re a traditional Christian conservative or a traditional degenerate, the fact is that you cannot reverse time and go back to a culture and a system that used to be. People moved on from it because something about it did not work as time passed and situation changed. In essence, you sound just like the people romanticizing the 50s without ever questioning why such a culture could exist at all.
Suburban stability of the 50s was the result of a very unique set of global circumstances that won’t ever be repeated.
I don’t disagree that when the overall culture is less degenerate, the actual degeneracy can stay more tasteful, but its new version will look entirely different when it rolls around. You definitely sound as if you would turn your nose up and say “It was so much better back in my day”, when it does.
Mostly mythological too. I think in Canada we had 500,000 returning war vets. Everyone of them with PTSD. The ‘Leave it to Beaver’ ‘Father knows Best’ TV show was NOT the reality for any but a few. The world had gone through a trauma unlike anything ever seen, which followed a massive depression. Above all else it needed stability. I was born in 1951. It was far less stable than people wish to portray. And people were poor. Much much poorer than now.
> Such behavior horrifies middle class finger-waggers and Dave Ramsey enjoyers who could never afford to do this and pretend it has no appeal to decent people like themselves.
It was those very finger waggers that kept the degeneracy contained.
Ironically, the same self-awareness of how social dynamics actually work which makes this piece insightful stand directly in the way of the author achieving his vision for society, were it to be adopted en masse. It's what Spengler calls "ornamentation," that which occurs when a culture becomes conscious of its own stylistic trappings and rigidly follows them, instead of fluidly moving to some unspoken intuition. When a culture's art takes on ornamentation, that culture ossifies and begins to die.
Similarly, The "Baccanale playpen" model Bismarck wishes to bring back only worked because it was an organic growth within a culture that actually believed in its own moral precepts, and the members of that culture understood, tacitly, that many people they knew fell well short of those precepts. This is why Vegas and its historical antecedents were isolated from polite society, and this is why everyone understood that we cover up the nakedness of our fathers, and we do not talk about such things in polite spaces. Cultures of ages past also only had the social capital to burn on these kinds of base indulgences because it was built up by high-functioning, elite true believers.
Men who take this view cannot rebuild a functional civilization. Cynical sociologists laying bare the sacred and profane alike for all to see can do no more than provide a diagnosis (or an autopsy) of the patient, and have no hope of curing him. If you wish to see a culture sturdy enough to afford the social cost of a Las Vegas, you will need true believers to build it first; high-IQ cynics playing the part won't cut it. On a micro level, we've seen this dynamic play out in the churches time and time again. A certain kind of young man disaffected with modernity returns to the church for similar reasons: playing the autodidact sociologist, these recognized that a culture where the church was dominant was better than one where it wasn't, and entered the narthex with pretensions of social engineering. These people either learned to believe for real, or left the church frustrated and unsatsified.
Besides, there's a much simpler reason not to be mean to roasties online: Finger-wagging promiscuous girls is a job for old women, and young men should not act like old women.
I admire your ability to take feedback and you are an excellent writer. The amount of astute cultural references and snapshot metaphors (i.e. “i was a mattress on the floor guy”) indicate you as a certain type of person who has a high level of sensory receptivity to subtle yet impactful shifts in the zeitgeist that most people merely feel but find ineffable. This ability to do this is both impressive and delegitimating. You are embroiled in a r/redscare myopia in which everything that happens in society can be reduced to some Freudian frequency or mapped out on some cause and effect chain that starts in a vanity fair article and ends in a hang-gliding Palestinian. The truth is that you are a degenerate (self-avowed), and as a degenerate you will always tend to see social good as a matter of strategy rather than morality. A person who believes in any sort of higher order divinity is not concerned with grand strategies and certainly not by way of “do the wrong things for awhile so that eventually the right things happen.” To be honest, no one should have to think like this. People should be able to live happily without having to toggle their behaviors to align with a grand social structure that properly vents society’s libidinal urges. I agree with you that this contractual, high availability of smutiness is gross - as I often say “everyone is having sex but no one is sexy.” But the diagnosis of this doesn’t mean that those who identify as self-appointed elites get to move the pieces around on the table until their orgies are exciting again. The truth is that my critique of this is not at all stylistic, but personal. You do not have to be a degenerate. Men should not have to cheat on their wives to properly diffuse their biological frustrations. Happiness isn’t found in any of these things, and replacing many of these behaviors with actual love and joy and happiness makes so much of this irrelevant. You won’t agree with this, that is fine. But i do think it’s worth considering that this whole schema here is an extremely complicated Rube Goldberg machine you’ve set up here when finding real joy and fulfillment (as i hope you and everyone on this thread will) will make a lot of this feel very trivial.
>A person who believes in any sort of higher order divinity is not concerned with grand strategies and certainly not by way of “do the wrong things for awhile so that eventually the right things happen.”
>Happiness isn’t found in any of these things, and replacing many of these behaviors with actual love and joy and happiness makes so much of this irrelevant.
But that's the paradox of sexual modernity, the disjunction between the micro and the macro scales. I agree that society as a whole would likely be better off if more people followed traditional sexual ethics. But that's not the same as the proposition that any given individual will be happier by voluntarily choosing to restrain himself, in an environment where those behaviors are no longer hedonically adaptive. Trad arguments often proceed from the assumption that these two things are identical, but experience suggests this isn't always the case. (And it's not a new problem; the debate over whether true happiness consists in virtue or hedonism goes right back to Plato.)
I appreciate that sincere religious faith resolves this paradox by making sexual ethics a deontological rather than utilitarian obligation. But even so, when we think of the Old Days we we remember the success stories rather than the failures. If you were a husband married to a frigid shrew, a wife putting up with a drunken bum, or just an incompatible shotgun marriage paying a lifelong bill for a momentary bad decision in your youth... there was nothing you could do but grit your teeth, do your duty, and "offer it up to Christ." The explosion in divorce rates when the legal environment changed suggests a lot of pent-up demand.
Even within the canonical Western tradition we have an alternative option, the Nietzschean or classical pagan argument (spoken for in the online right by BAP and his followers) that true fulfillment is found in struggle and great deeds, not the perpetuation of "mere life."
I'm comfortable living with ambiguity here and don't think either side is straightforwardly "correct," but I do think the paradox needs to be made explicit. I'm skeptical of answers that purport to apply to everyone at all times, not least because a young man can mess his life up by choosing wrongly for his own concrete circumstances.
As expected you are getting a lot of pushback, but you are on point. The online slut shaming is low status cringe, drips with nicely resentment.
You correctly identified the problem that degeneracy for the masses is lame. That's my problem with onlyfans, the whole thing is low status trailer park vibes.
He thinks he can have degeneracy only for himself and not have it spread to everyone else.
This has very much the "There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night." vibe of the old French Aristocracy. Didn't work out so well for them.
One of the biggest misanthropy starters is finding out how much money is made by the creators of those youtube shows where some ugly mutt "invites" onlyfans girls on air and then proceeds to pretend bully them and they pretend to cry
I get the vibe reading this article that you're a pretty liberal 115 IQ guy with high openness, you were only on the alt right because it was transgressive and edgy and now you're bored with it, inevitably as movements expand they become about substance and not about their relation to broader society -- the goal of the movement is to become broader society. As a liberal edgelord, you need liberal substance and edge which is edgy in relation to liberalism. So, your article basically understands the world through a thoroughly liberal frame, and is edgy with respect to liberal feminist morality only. For example, your understanding of marriage is that it is "BDSM." You have the relation reversed, BDSM is not "real" with marriage being a simulation of BDSM, BDSM is a simulation of marriage, which is the organic bedrock of human sexual relationships. It's where babies come from, and all fetishes are really just degenerated forms from the marriage ideal.
>And this is why elite women like Radfem Hitler who understand the world in a nuanced way have such contempt for “Trad” guys who support things like Marital Debt. They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return.
I don't know if marital debt is some fetish term but if you mean a wife should cost millions of dollars, no lol. Women are not naturally entitled to much, just 3 meals a day and pregnancy, this is the natural way. It is feminist in fact to be concerned with the woman feeling glamorous ... what about men's feelings? A thought experiment I like to use is to raise myself to similar levels of entitlement. If women shall not give birth (as is their natural job) for less than millions per year, than neither shall men work for less than that! I guess that throws away your complaint about there being a middle class. By your standard what man can submit to working for some loser middle manager who can hardly afford to pay their infinitely worthy soul 5 figures per year? As we all know, all men are highly deserving of everything, just as all women are deserving of equality and a rich husband and so on.
>And they never go after elite women who are very Faustian / BPD and crave this intensity, because they know they aren’t nearly impressive enough to dominate such women. Instead they expect dumb normie girls who listen to Taylor Swift to go along with this insane shit. They’re basically just incels trying to scam girls into sexual slavery with scripture—just one step above the Rotherham grooming gangs. .
BPD hos are not Faustian, only men can be Faustian on their own in fact, it is a category error and feminist to think women can be Faustian except through a man.
“The sort of men who rise to the top of society have an enormous desire for conflict and risk-taking. If you don’t give them a Vegas they will start a war and send your son into the trenches.”
Apr 10Liked by Kryptogal (Kate, if you like), Walt Bismarck
I lurk on this FB group that's aimed at conservative women who are anti-seed oil, Trad wannabes and predominantly evangelical Christian. They have this leader who is a pretty YouTuber who has no children, no husband and works constantly. It's very weird.
Walt, you have these women dead to rights. The Dave Ramsey worship, the modest is hottest baloney, the constant eye narrowing at sluts.
But what seems to unite them is a seething hatred for women who have it better than them. Most of them are lower income married to low IQ schlubs (again, nailed it) and they comfort themselves with sour grape proclamations.
Things like, "personally, I don't even want manicures. I think they show that you don't work hard"
"Honestly, I wouldn't even want my husband to make more money, he'd never be around to be with the kids".
And on and on. But you scratch the surface even slightly and the women are desperate for more money. All trying to exchange ideas of how to bring in extra income without compromising their SAHM status which they feel elevates them.
So many posts are women at their brink with a husband who won't chip in at all and they are poor, that Marriage Debt™ thing comes up a lot.
They brag about never saying 'no' to their husband's every boner. Some have even said, 'I just let my husband talk for me. He's the household leader in Christ'.
I said to my husband, "This is just conservative BDSM"
The women are really earnest and naive about how the world works (or should work). And they are terrible at converting others because they are so judgemental and unglamorous.
Excellent article! This is my first introduction to your work and I'm very impressed.
That is genuinely tragic. Ironically these are exactly the sort of women who get exploited by a shifty fast talker into having an affair in their early 30s.
Lol, I can't believe I'm agreeing with this shit and liked the post. But...of literally every woman I've known in my forty+ years on earth, the three who by far ended up with the best lives...millions in assets, good looking socially adept tall admired husbands, etc...were also some of the biggest sluts I ever knew in their teens and 20s. And yeah, one of them is me. But these are high IQ, verbally vicious, hilarious, politically and socially astute women.
And hell, I moved to Utah and partly that's because I like being the biggest degenerate on my block and surrounded by do gooding normies, I don't want anyone more degenerate than I in my neighborhood.
Though I don't think you need to be elite to see that the terror of being cucked by any woman who isn't dumb as a donut with zero sexual experience is a blaring signal of low status anxiety. It's pretty obvious. To the extent high status men may sometimes appear not to like slutty women it's only revulsion at the sloppy ones who lack the self control or intelligence to figure out how to be discrete and portray class in all situations where it matters.
This piece is sort of an interesting shadow-side companion to the arguments made regarding luxury beliefs, on behalf of normies, by Rob Henderson. I myself have always liked degenerates too much and allowed myself to indulge too much with them than is proper, but things have gone too far with people no longer trying to hide it or even pretend to be ashamed.
As a 23 year old, I agree. Always trust a man by his actions, not his words. With men, you always know they care and value the things they spend on. There’s all this talk about OF “whores”, but no one talks about the fact that married men (especially trad leaning ones) spend thousands a month in OF. Women look for personality, face and then maybe even body. Men will always look for the body, then the face, and then the personality.
So my trick and advice is that a smart girl (who is somewhat attractive) should optimise her looks and body always (hormonal health, physical exercise daily etc..). Currently doing my internship and being hot (as a former overweight girl) is opening so many doors. Second thing is, always follow your own agenda (goals, objectives) and prioritise your well-being (that means not eating unhealthy and going to daily workouts). By doing that, you are becoming a prize. Men are hunters, not gatherers. Cleopatra (taking immense care of herself and having a clear agenda no matter what men say) got the two most powerful chad men in Rome to go to war for her agenda. This “don’t give an f” attitude is so common among degenerate women and specially sluts/whores, who know their worth. It is not common among “biblical submissive” women who are too scared of their own dark feminine shadow.
Tried and true with me, and also my friends. You don’t have to be an actual OF/sex worker to be this “bad girl”. You do have to have this intense self respect to put yourself first, go to the gym and nurture yourself to become a very powerful being. This is why I’ve seen many elite men fall (actually fall) for moderately attractive fit women (yet no specially super hot) but all of these women have their own agendas and have accepted (and channeled) their personal power. This is why whores stay winning.
"Always trust a man by his actions, not his words. With men, you always know they care and value the things they spend on. There’s all this talk about OF “whores”, but no one talks about the fact that married men (especially trad leaning ones) spend thousands a month in OF. " Excellent point. They totally deny it though. But once you've been hit on by enough married with kids conservative guys (and they're always the ones), you just have to say "okay, whatever you say" to their denials. However, I do feel very bad for their true-believing wives, who believe their act. This is a complete epidemic in Utah...SO many divorced former trad-wives who were completely stunned and shocked when they found their husband's burner phone or discovered all his OF and real life whores.
To a certain extent, I also do feel bad for my fellow women. Nonetheless, I do feel the core of the issue is psychological integration of the shadow and “light” sides of being a female. Religious dogmatism (always follow biblical womanhood, mother Mary if you’re a Catholic …) keep women away from embracing their inner dark feminine/slut/“bad girl”. These women also shame women who lead with this energy or are actually trying to integrate it (the way to personal power which translates in power couple/ “I would do anything for you” relationships).
I also have my doubts whether a majority of womanhood simply lacks the courage and psychological strength to fit the “powerful queen” archetype. Like Walt says, there’s always going to be the “whores” but since the whore is the dark femenine archetype that leads to the queen, you can always make a queen out of a whore. (One of the most prominent Byzantium queen was actually a prostitute). But the “trad wife” archetype is so disempowering, men know this, so they will likely cheat to get their dose of “dark femininity”. Even most disempowering is women staying, thinking that the “gooder” they are the better.
Something I am applying to myself and my life is “Be a total bitch until someone has proven worthy to see your empathy and love”. The key is integration of the shadow and the light. Also not believing for one second that men love submissive tradwives.
I guess the fact that I've never had any problem getting into relationships with them, marriage proposals, being sought after, etc. and I've definitely been one to play hard to get. So just based on that it seems they don't have an issue. They don't like desperate girls or people who seem like they do things just to please others (naturally, everyone gets turned off by someone that seems pathetic or not in control of their own conduct). But legitimately high drive and sexually adventurous/confident women? Never seen a man turn one down or not like them, other than maybe some very bitter or religious guys (but even they probably won't). So I'm saying it based on my life experience.
Being upset about someone else's sexual history or experience is mostly a marker of insecurity, for any gender. Sometimes it's disgust if you think the particular people they've been with or sexual acts they've engaged in are gross, but if it's just purely being upset bc someone else thinks sex with new people is fun, that's insecurity. Understandable insecurity, but that's the driver, fear. Fear you won't measure up and fear you'll be cheated on or left. Like I said, a legitimate fear.
And you're right, men say ALL KINDS of bullshit that doesn't at all reflect their conduct. Most men are waym way more thirsty and willing to act like fools over women than they would EVER admit to. Same as women though...what people say about themselves rarely matches up to their behavior when it comes to sexual behavior. Corner active men are the worst hypocrite slutbag houndogs out there despite whatever appearance they like to give off. I've been hit on easily 10x as much by married with kids supposedly religious family men than I ever have liberal guys (and no I have zero interest in and would never go for a married guy). The amount of times I've had men with pregnant wives make a pass at me is stomach turning.
> Being upset about someone else's sexual history or experience is mostly a marker of insecurity, for any gender.
Keep telling yourself that.
Let’s suppose I am a good guy who wants to settle down with a good woman. It is very hard to know what any person is like in a relationship. So….1. OF account. 2. 100 sex partners. 3. Lived with four guys for various lengths of time for each. 4. Tatted up. 5. Sugared once. IE kept by an older rich guy. Let me think…YEAH FOR SURE, let’s consider her…NOT. Women can like this, or not. Guy’s sexuality does not find that appealing to commit to. A once or twice date. Yeah, maybe. A nice young woman on one of my job sites, cute, heavily tatted, sexy butt, slept with maybe 20 guys on the job site. That’s one job site over about a year!! I liked her. She was charming. Would I date her if I had been 50 years younger? Not seriously.
There's a huge difference between being a prostitute (i.e. having an OF account or being a sugar baby) and sleeping with a bunch of people for fun. I have no idea why a woman who would sleep with multiple guys on one construction crew ..that's truly bizarre if it ever actually happened. Let's not be extreme. There is a world in between having two boyfriends your whole life and selling access to pics of your butthole online. I'm not really sure why you'd be bothered by a woman who lived with four boyfriends...shows she was committed to them at least temporarily and likely thrifty and reasonable enough to know that living together saves money for both. I don't see that as remotely close to sleeping with gross old men just for pocket money and a meal or whatever other things you're talking about here.
You can’t be committed temporarily. But, there are only so many times you can fall in love. You live with four people either you didn’t feel much, a huge no no if you are considering her as a lifetime partner, or you’ve used your quota up. As fas the ‘well, she’s practical’…uh no. Another huge no no. Your pride in being verbally vicious, your previous sluttiness, the fact you continue to be hit on all suggests to me I am glad I am not your husband. But you are likely reasonably good looking.
There were 200 guys on the site. She barely did 10%.
Bleh me can't edit but it should say I've NEVER been one to play hard to get.
But taking them seriously and liking them are two very separate things
I wanted to find this interesting, but its a confused, meandering, almost meaningless article.
Thank you for the feedback. You are right that it is meandering, but I wouldn't say it's meaningless.
One of my biggest faults intellectually is that I am very self indulgent and prone to rhetorical flourishes that can sometimes distract from the point at hand. I am also a very fluid thinker who naturally feels like the world is a contradictory/messy place, so I like exploring possibilities more than I do clearly stating my opinion and defending it.
In my other pieces I tried hard to suppress this tendency. But it's hard to be straightforward on this issue because I am genuinely sympathetic to both "sides" and have a foot in each camp.
My goals in this piece were as follows:
1) Explain why Trads and Degens can find common ground and work together in a "synthesis" position that cordons off separate degen spaces for the elite ("Traditionalist Degeneracy")
2) Argue that slut shaming is a counterproductive tactic for achieving this end, and that letting attractive and charismatic women ostentatiously "reform" when they want to settle down is the best way for trads to increase elite female TFR while promoting traditional femininity.
Do not change your style. It is meandering like a pleasant microdose-tinged stroll and the EHC is going to enjoy and respect your style. Few people can write as well as you do.
Possibly brand-diluting idea:
Your non-paywalled content can be simpler, higher-virality posts with memes, bullet points, and actionables. The willing-to-pay audience is the one interested in longform content.
Love this idea.
Once I get big enough I'll have to find an editor who can help with that. I find it physically painful to force my thoughts into a more linear format.
One caution I'd add is that you want at least some of the longform content to be discoverable without a paywall (And thus attract subscribers who might bounce off the shorter stuff). But that can also be opening up older articles and calling them out in the bullet point works from time to time.
Indeed, his style is rambling, but quite good -- the fact that I read all the way through is proof of that. When it comes to writing, it's important to always speak in your own voice and express things naturally, and not imitate someone else's style or preferences.
OK great. I appreciate that you have some insight into your style, and some self-awareness. For me the issue is, I don't really follow this area of the Culture War (and its details) - except that I follow Rob Henderson and really think he is on to something with his concept of Luxury Beliefs - and your article was a reference as a defense of Luxury Beliefs, so I was looking for a clear pithy defense, and couldn't find it. I got the point about 'elites' needing an outlet for some of their extreme tendencies, but still didn't really get your point.
Not sure what the above poster saw, but I read a brilliant piece. I agree with your observations about male/female relations and also enjoyed the acid words with which the picture was etched. I know you are not addressing my demographic, but I have also observed some of what you say here. (Open-minded not young wordcel female in case you’re curious)
I found it interesting because it was so astoundingly cynical. He's the gender relations version of the counsellor for a Supermax prison.
It reminds me of Norah Vincent's "Act Like A Man," where the authour dressed and presented as a man for a year to learn about men, and spent time in strip clubs and the like, meeting the dregs of masculinity - and later she committed suicide.
Are men not dawgs? C’mon man.
The world is filled with material targeted at r^tards like steven lightfoot. You're doing something unusual, unique even, and should keep doing that, rather than listening to the r^tards.
If you are going to insult me please spell retard correctly.
See I just found it really enjoyable to read, but I understand your confusion.
ARE YOU JEWISH BISMARCK?
I didn't really get the main point, because it made so many points, it was pretty muddy.
This passage at the beginning is the key to the post.
> One reason for this is that I am a novelty-seeking urbanite with high openness to experience, so these women comprise much of my friend group. I therefore feel a lot of loyalty to this type of person and want people to hear her side of the story.
> I also identify with her more than I do other promiscuous men, because I’m too strange and autistic to ever be seen as a “Chad”. Most of my own relationships have a kind of Elon/Grimes vibe that sometimes pisses people off. When low openness chuds see a weirdo who’s successful with beautiful women they tend to feel he doesn’t “deserve” it, and will go after him in the same way they do sluts (but NEVER will with normie “Chads” they don’t perceive as soft targets).
The rest of the post is basically an attempt at rationalization and cope.
Basically he makes a lot of arguments and desperately tries to ignore the fact that they all point in the opposite direction of his desired point.
Yes, good observations. I don't hate the piece, and it has many interesting points, but its all over the place. It reminds me of sophists I have known in my youth, good at fast talking, but if you have the time to consider what they say, its doesn't necessarily make all that much sense.
Oy vey.
No no I was only joking. Hope Bismarck wasn't offended.
But then again...blindingly high verbal IQ...
Also the mere fact that it's alt-right 2.0 doesn't mean the lindy aspects of the original should be abandoned.
I'm calling false advertising if we can't make Jew jokes on the blog called "Alt Right 2.0."
Haha quite so
Yes :chad.png:
Wouldn’t he be German, not Jewish?
LOL. ok.
Go make me a sandwich
Whaaat? You're getting really mad at me for this. It's a timeless classic, and how god dang hard is it to make someone a sandwich! It's not like I'm asking you to invent calculus, or do any of the other world-changing events which were almost exclusively done by men. Probably why colleges should select for "moids" actually, since most women who go to college just end up going into retarded mickey mouse majors while rigorous majors like Physics and Math are disproportionately male.
You asking me to "go die in a war" as an insult is exactly why 99% of great figures in history were "moids". Dying in a war is a dignified way to go... And we're all gonna die one day! Death is always lurking and can never be avoided forever, read Heidegger!
Here we see the utterly hylic and substance-less worldview of your average cuntoid on display… No, physically giving birth is not what we are talking about when we say invention. A cow is not credited with the well-being of a farm because it tilled its soil. Invention means developing an idea, and implementing it. You’re not inventing a baby, your body is just producing one. And then you grant a second common error of the female mind — the NAXALT argument… “Who cares if men invented 99% of stuff, THIS ONE woman invented THIS ONE thing, so… DURRRR!!!” That’s what u sound like. Why do u even get mad at men for watching porn and playing video games if you think that men are already just intrinsically evil and awful? It’s not like not watching porn will make men up to your standards.
I’m very attractive, in fact we might even make a great couple! Permission to rizz you up, ma’am?
"There is nothing glamorous about this and you’re not “providing” at a level that inspires real submission. In practice she will just feel like a human trafficking victim [...] They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return."
This essay was *definitely* not written for me, but I appreciated the main point nonetheless. I've been complaining about how too few men on the right are willing to call out these types of men and how they contribute directly to the problems they complain about and focus too much on the women and our roles, and I think this essay does this very well.
I especially appreciate the emphasis on the need to *inspire* women to want to submit, if that's what you want from her.
the ratio of women who want to submit vs guys who are even theoretically capable of leading has always been 100 to 1 but nobody wants to admit this or grapple with the implications
In the days of enforced cultural monogamy the man got to lead if he could support a wife and family. And that was not always as easy as it looked. Nor was being supported by a man as cushy as it sounds. Trad was a trap for a lot of people.
In this day and age far more women could handle trad than guys. I make a reasonable amount of money. I have been the sole support for two families. It wasn’t easy. I am glad I did it and I expected it of myself. But I had tough tough years in there. Trad for a woman though is way easier. A few tiring, somewhat frustrating, but very fulfilling years, and a lot of easy years too though.
Agree. I have the easier role than my husband and I recognize this and try and appreciate him.
This is a conflict within most women’s psyches. Speaking as a twice married guy in his 70s, and been married for 46 years of that, most women want someone to be dominant, yet fight it. Don’t be though? And women will walk all over you and disrespect you. Each couple has to come to grips with this push/pull dynamic women impose on the marriage. It is kind of pathetic.
You might already be aware, but some obnoxious liberal Twitter account has screencapped a brief excerpt from your "Why I Am No Longer A White Nationalist" post, the paragraphs about living in the Midwest and finding it boring. "Ha! The white nationalist doesn't like other white people!"
I knew something was up when they didn't include a link back to the original post, which is of course much more nuanced, articulate, and potentially disconcerting to their audience. Fortunately, Google isn't so nerfed (yet) that I couldn't arrive at your blog by googling the first full sentence. Much here to read and contemplate, and to reply to with an opinion-dump that I'll try to keep to a bearable length.
As another commenter already pointed out, "*you* should be trad to make *my* discreet degeneracy more exciting" is a nonstarter. Sexual ethics is a textbook example of a collective action problem, where the hedonic incentives for the winners are too great to voluntarily renounce, and the losers have no ability to change the rules of the game.
I think there's an element of wishful thinking in your analysis here that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. "We get to be hedonists while our subjects live orderly and productive lives" is an arrangement that elites throughout history like to aspire to, since orderly and productive subjects are tractable and taxable, but human nature is more refractory than that. Pre-Victorian Britain had a flagrantly degenerate aristocracy ruling over a riot-prone populace of unwed drunken yobs, and the American white working class prior to suburbanization was no stranger to vice. (There's a lot of insight to be quarried from the work of lefty historians here, even if we disagree with their conclusions.) Vegas wasn't and isn't Monte Carlo or Monaco, an exclusive enclave for the sophisticated rich; it was/is a mass cultural phenomenon in postwar America. The Rat Pack were celebrities whose highly publicized adventures were wish fulfillment for ordinary working class men who were living the postwar suburban dream but had memories of their youthful adventures with vice, as teens in Depression-era inner cities and at overseas ports during the war. And the postwar suburban dream itself was in part an attempt to buy peace between the elites and the masses, at a time when the violent labor battles of the 1930s were a recent memory. There's a strong case to be made that the Fifties arrangement, where an average Joe who keeps his head down and plays by the rules gets to be the sole breadwinner for a suburban family with a rising standard of living, is the historical outlier; we've now returned to something more like the norm, in the grand sweep of industrial modernity.
(Likewise, there's certainly a case to be made that American culture would be healthier if its actually existing elites behaved more like a traditional aristocracy -- but if we had a traditional aristocracy, we wouldn't be the United States of America.)
Regarding the state of the generations, and the question of how redpilled high-IQ white men ought to conduct their reproductive lives (you had an interesting exchange on this topic in the comments to a previous post): I'm in my 40s, from an earlier generation than you. I didn't participate in any of the mid-2010s fun except as an amused lurker, so I enjoyed your recaps of what it felt like to be a hot-blooded young guy in the thick of the action. If I had been single rather than a risk-averse family man at that time, I might have ended up one of the Gen X movement intellectuals, but I'd probably also have ended up doxed and unemployable.
I was redpilled in my late twenties by the mid-aughts manosphere. Like a lot of nerdy guys in that era who came of age in liberal environments, I had to slowly and painstakingly reverse engineer the rules of the sexual marketplace, and figure out some rudimentary game, through real-world trial and error on my own. It was a thrill to discover the manosphere and compare notes with other men who had realized that the college feminism we had been socialized into was a load of nonsense.
This led in due course to redpills on those *other* things which I had quietly noticed but wasn't supposed to talk about in polite company.
And having swallowed that bellyful of redpills, how else to struggle against the lies of the system than to do my duty to the bloodline, take a wife and Put Family First, and do my best to be a trad dad?
So I've done time in those trenches, just as you did yours in corn country, and I've learned how difficult it is to hold frame and maintain your agency even in an ordinary monogamous marriage. Doing all this with an art hoe or an ex-OnlyFans? Nah, that's a headache I wouldn't encourage anyone to take on. If you're a true Dark Triad natural aristocrat who didn't need to consciously study the game in the first place, the strategy you suggest here might not be difficult, but I'm not sure it's wise if you're a high-IQ misfit who's had to devote serious effort to self-actualization.
As above, things might be cleaner if we had an actual Euro-type aristocracy who were frank about the fact that marriage is about bloodline and property, not love and loyalty. Perhaps your experience differs, but I'm not sure American elites really come close to this. I'm a product of the dutiful, rule-following upper middle class, but I have enough privilege (heh) to have had classmates and friends who come from Wall Street wealth or generational old money. My anecdotal sense is that using your wealth to outsource parenting duties, while you incomemaxx and pursue side pieces and the wife goes to gallery openings, is a high risk strategy. After all, you can't spend ninety seconds in a big city art scene without meeting a half dozen trust fund fuckups lashing out at daddy. Often these kids fall prey to the boring, self-destructive kind of degeneracy, hard drug addiction or lowest-common-denominator commie shit, precisely BECAUSE they have no self-preservation incentive not to. Elon himself, with his "daughter" "Vivian," is by no means immune to this.
And if you don't want kids and can already get your needs met, why bother taking a wife? I love my children, but I've ruefully come to understand that my natural way of being is as a promiscuous urban intellectual. (I just don't wanna get mugged by 80-IQ ferals is all, which makes me "radical right.") Forcing myself into normie dad life chafes; my redpills came right as I was finally hitting the income/career sweet spot where life really starts to get fun, and if nothing else, I wish I had spent a few more years enjoying life before I settled down. That said, I do believe that once you've fathered kids, responsible high-investment parenting is the line that separates K from r and Us from Them. A man who can't keep it in his pants for the sake of that project IS a worthless degenerate; that's a hill I'm willing to die on.
Obviously, none of this takes away from your point that incels seething about online roasties are ngmi.
I think you're right about the state of gender relations among the Zoomers. The truths my generation discovered by groping around in the dark, and which were present as a body of knowledge for adventurous young men of your generation to discover and implement while you were still young, have become the conventional wisdom of the generation below yours. I don't necessarily envy you or them, all things considered; swipe-based app dating sounds like hell. But it's satisfying to know that that body of knowledge is out there, so that high-IQ young men can begin from a baseline of actionable facts and don't have to waste time in blind alleys. How to implement this knowledge at civilizational scale, though, is a very hard problem, and experience has made me skeptical of simple solutions.
Excellent post. Too much for me to respond to now, but I enjoyed your thoughts.
I will say I sometimes wonder how my life would have turned out if I'd married my first or second girlfriend and gone all in on the trad thing as a young guy. Sometimes I feel like I could have done it really well and degeneracy has just corrupted me, other times I feel like I would have hated it and been tempted by other women the moment I actually became attractive as an older guy
Ultimately we all fall down our own bagatelle path in life and come up with some narrative to explain/justify everything, but it's probably very rare for the path anybody goes down to be perfectly optimized for their nature. Something kind of existentially horrifying about that and it's prob best not to dwell on it too much.
Yup. I have to consciously curb my own self-destructive tendency to dwell too much on those what ifs.
You ever think that if you plan ahead your life narrative can be a lot easier to explain/justify? Maybe everything you've been through up to now you had to go through to realize that you want a wife and family and you can't have that and be a degenerate unless you're some kind of psychopath, which you don't seem to be.
I find that planning ahead tends to work out rather poorly for me when it comes to women and romance. You need to be flexible and somewhat outcome-independent to be most successful these days.
I can see why you would interpret planning ahead to be focusing on a particular outcome, but it is exactly the opposite of what I meant to communicate. When planning ahead with respect to simplifying your story, you don't focus on outcome other than developing awareness of your preferences so that you can take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. Instead, you focus on doing what you believe to be right given the information you have. This idea that people engaged in degeneracy "know what they're doing" is a complex narrative that you need to spin to justify your path. There is probably little truth in it given the mental health problems associated with this lifestyle and tendency for people to feel much better after "settling down." Maybe there are some who "can handle it" but I'd argue this is less an indication of quality and more an indication of psychopathy. All that to say when I say "plan ahead" in the context I mean preparing to rationalize your actions in the future by engaging in actions that are the simplest to rationalize in the present. When you say you've been "corrupted by degeneracy" I think this is the mechanism of the corruption. You've come to believe stories because you must believe them to rationalize the path you continue along, not because you have some deep conviction that they are true. The existential horror you experience reflecting upon this should be a clue.
I really enjoyed this response to the essay.
I’m a SAHM of three kids; UMC; married to my college sweetheart. He doesn’t seem to mind that he never had a ho-phase. He is certainly happy I never did.
The idea that the most visible and vocal SAHM’s should only be the super wealthy, highly charismatic, cultish ones who have housekeepers and nannies and treat their children like another lifestyle item to flaunt on socials is very off-putting to me.
I never had or wanted a nanny. I did the natural birthing, breastfeeding, baby wearing, scratch cooking, hippy mama thing before I was ever aware there was a cultish TradWife movement online.
I wasn’t online except for FB to organize events for my local natural mama group (I led meet ups at local libraries and metroparks and clothing swaps and other social events) or later for my homeschooling projects. In theory I may enjoy a housekeeper but it’s certainly not necessary for me. I can watch silly shows and fold laundry or listen to podcasts and scrub out bathtubs as well as anyone else.
This essay describes a big city coastal kind of value system. I’m a Gen X Midwesterner. I’m just normal. I remember when I was teaching middle school and pregnant with my oldest my colleague asked me when I would be coming back to work. I told him “I am hoping that if I keep the house tidy, cook dinner every night, and put-out regularly my husband will like me being at home enough to not send me back to work.” And he busted up laughing and said “That would work on me.”
I grew up working class. The moms I most looked up to - the ones who seemed more relaxed and less stressed, who were patient and kind - they were the moms who didn’t have to work. I always felt like this would be ideal. My own mom was not very patient and always had to work. My parents clawed out of poverty into the working class through sheer grit and because they were an awesome team. None of the Moms I looked up to were wealthy. None had nannies or cleaning ladies. Heck, my aunt WAS a SAHM and a cleaning lady for a few working women.
My husband has always seen the value in not adding extra stress to my plate. And I have always tried to be a high utility wife for him to the best of my abilities. He’s a practical man who is wise with money and investments and there is no strange kitty in the world he would trade for half of his net worth. Luckily for us - after 29 years together he still likes and loves me and I still like and love him. I stayed fit after babies as well. As did he.
We are raising both boys and girls. My greatest hope for them is that they are also just normal, and content being normal. We have a good life. I hope they would want similar for themselves. The original essay seems to ignore that there are plenty of plain old normal wholesome families living normal lives — not online. Maybe we are just too concentrated in flyover states and not coastal elites … but we are not all exhausted and overwhelmed and miserable because we don’t outsource our roles to low income women. I don’t love cleaning toilets but I get satisfaction from cooking healthy meals that my family enjoys.
BTW; I’m not religious. I did a minor in women’s studies (🤣) during undergrad. I have 2 degrees and had a career before becoming a SAHM. I have voted for Dem, Greens and Independent mostly. But I wanted a very traditional life and am content to be in my traditional gender role because I always wanted - more than anything else - to be a mom. I selected my major as teaching because it seemed like a great job for a mom once her kids were in school. But I always hoped to be home when my kids were small.
I’m not trying to reopen the can of worms about the WQ on the right; but I don’t think your two choices as a SAHM are drudgery and misery and performative trad-wifery while you live the high, coastal elite life when the cameras are not rolling. Neither of those things resonate with my experience as a SAHM.
I'm fine with normal people living normal lives.
But elite women shouldn't think a normal life is what they'd need to accept.
What is an elite woman to you? It seems to be correlated with materialism and being a coastal or big city striver. My brother married a materialistic woman who wanted all of the designer handbags, shoes, and clothing, vacations, salon and spa treatments, and fancy meals out all the time. She became an “elite” stripper and eventually an “elite” escort (while they were still married) to afford the material things she wanted (never children — she didn’t want to wreck her body which was her money maker!) Is she “elite” bc she was 10/10 beautiful and could fuck high-status men for money? I’m biased but I think my husband got the better wife, and I think I have the better life. And a Twitter 🐸 micro-celebrity once told me that the real privilege these days is growing up in a household where your parents love one another / still liking your parents when you are an adult.
It’s a value system difference for me. My normal cushy life is great. I have a handsome C-Suite husband, 3 really great kids, we are a tight knit family because we are both extremely family oriented, a nice suburban home, vacations when we want (or need) them, a closet full of Boden and Reformation dresses (which I got on super sale bc that’s who I am as a person.) I’m living my best life, balling at the local Costco and buying too many books.
I suppose I could make my life seem very glamorous on a public IG page - but I am just normie-mom posting on occasion on my locked down IRL friends / family / former students only page bc I am careful about who sees photos of my kids (and me) online. I’m just living life not pushing a lifestyle. I am raising three kids who seem to be pretty happy and well adjusted. So I am an influencer of sorts. They just have traditional values not materialistic ones. Happy Normie Traditional Moms probably just don’t have much interest in being social media trad-wife influencers. These are entirely different types of women.
There are some decent women writers who are RW adjacent. I know that younger people seem to consume more video content. I am older and I prefer reading and audio content — so possibly I just don’t have a good grasp of the TikTok trad mom thing. The Twitter Trad-Moms seem to be more irony posting from what I see.
I'm sure you're a lovely woman. But you're also rich yourself. Your life doesn't contravene my point. I am criticizing poor fat women in ill-fitting clothes who make housewifery seem like cleaning up puke/shit all the time.
If the only video content out there showing stay at home moms is pity content from poor women who are exhausted and overwhelmed and highly curated fake-Trad content from charismatic reformed party girls, I am not sure my daughter ever needs to go on TikTok.
We both came from poor/working class families and were very normal middle class the majority of the way due to sacrificing my income. My husband is nearly 50 at this point and is rather financially savvy and we both have a similar mindset about money.
I also wondered what your definition of “elite” women is. You kind of take it for granted that it’s something grand and valuable but much like you said femininity needs to be made appealing, so does eliteness. If only for the sake of those who have the wherewithal to pursue or to know they are it. Based on the piece (which I mostly liked; will write another comment on it) it sounds like elite woman to you is a high in openness, promiscuous, well educated, attractive woman who is willing to trade on her looks or any of her other qualities for material gain. Something like that. At least that’s what came out from the piece.
And if that’s the case, that doesn’t describe a woman many people want and not one that many women want to be. I’d guess the trad/femininity movement is virtue signaling against those because those aren’t women they want in their camp.
Your husband is a lucky guy, Carrie.
He does so much for us. It’s crazy how lucky I am that I met this man at 15 and we started dating when I was 17 and I basically landed an elite husband in the making. We’ve been through things as well, so I try to never take him for granted.
Look man I like some of your content but you really should have been shoved in a locker more as a kid. Swirlies, wedgies, something.
Some of the stuff you say, specifically about elitism, is just retarded.
Like what?
Like saying you want to devalue labor to "push the middle and lower classes down" who says something like that???
Also I think many of your claims about the lower classes are unfounded, probably because you don't interact with them. Like yeah I agree they are usually pretty stupid, but you are treating them like they are not much different than animals.
lol I said the exact opposite of that. I said that I want to help the middle and lower classes by making underclass labor cheaper. I want every guy who makes 60-70k to easily afford a maid/babysitter/nanny, which is very much not the case since covid.
That is the exact opposite of the problem we have today. Inflation and lowering value of labor is what messed up the cost of living in the first place. That's why the 50s and 60s were the golden age of America; because labor was high value compared to the cost of living.
Making nannies cheaper isn't going fix anything anyways. Middle and lower class people don't hire nannies. They hire neighborhood girls to babysit for them, or they outsource to family members (like grandparents, or they send them to a daycare. If anything, devaluing the labor of nannies will just make it harder for them to earn a living.
That also brings me to my other point; you have a retarded view of babies and it makes me feel like you've never even seen one. I am a germaphobe, I have every reason you have and more to be grossed out by babies because it is ingrained in my individual psychology to have a low disgust threshold and a harsh disgust response. And yet, I plan to spend most of my 22nd birthday babysitting my 2 identical twin cousins (<1 year old) because I think they are swag.
But my main point here anyways is that this general elitism that is so pervasive in your writing (and is generally very typical of Millennial RWers in general) is absolutely God awful. It's inherently anti-aristocratic. It's just the remnants of your (speaking more generally of Millennial RWer's) upbringing from generally snobby liberal backgrounds. Millennial RW politics is not the solution. It's a transitional stage from before that brings all the baggage that entails.
Yes. Bc I am not even RW, per-se, but babies are not things we just outsource to other people. You cannot even raise a baby in a traditional way with a nanny. I breastfed my kids for 18 months, 2 years and 3 years. They never had formula. You cannot do this with a nanny. Most women cannot pump breast milk like that. And on the germaphobe point; when I wanted to test out a gym membership, all that happened was that my boys would get sick from the gym daycare. It was just easier to put them in a sling and stroller and take a brisk walk around the neighborhood rather than constantly battling daycare germs.
Are you saying you want policies that subsidize this cost for your average $70k family, or that you'd want to lower the total earnings of domestic help? Many people would support the former. Trying to get even normie conservatives to accept the latter seems pretty impossible. Most people would see that as needlessly cruel.
I think you could do it with mass Russian immigration. Wrote an article about that yesterday.
If you import young Russian women to be nannies they are all going to end up being SAHM’s because smart men will wife them up. My Russian friend is the ideal housewife and I am always trying to get her to fix up her Eastern European transplant friends with my RW former students who want to get married to more traditional women. This isn’t a bad outcome though.
If you want the average $60K guy to be able to afford a maid WHAT ARE THE MAIDS BEING PAID? How is that statement not holding down the lower classes?
I don't see "traditionalist degenerate" being an "ideology" that takes off anytime soon. "I want everyone else to play by conservative rules so I can have more fun breaking them." Are the people who bully women for having an OnlyFans going to hear that and listen to you? I doubt it.
On the topic of being mean to women, I agree that men being mean to women in public is probably not useful, as the men who do that will be seen as the Bad Guy regardless of who is actually right or wrong about anything. But low status/low IQ men will always be lashing out in this way about something towards someone, and the same traits that cause them to do this in the first place will probably also prevent any attempts to persuade them to stop.
In the meantime, men more generally can definitely influence cultural norms through less obnoxious expressions of their preferences, for instance by refusing to date or commit to women that are marred by "sex work." Women don't respond to direct aggression by low status incels, but they will respond to changing social norms overall. If it becomes the case that having an OnlyFans destroys a woman's marriage prospects, women will stop hopping on that train quite so eagerly. Hopefully this is the direction things are headed in, but only time will tell.
I don't see OnlyFans ruining a woman's prospects unless she is very uneducated or not that attractive. It's not the sort of thing that high status guys care about--they might even like it. Recall that even Trump's wife famously posed nude in a magazine.
Certainly middle class girls might be more persuadable with this kind of thing, but any girl who has the social intelligence to become big on OF (such that she couldn't hide it) probably could also land an elite degenerate man.
>Certainly middle class girls might be more persuadable with this kind of thing, but any girl who has the social intelligence to become big on OF (such that she couldn't hide it) probably could also land an elite degenerate man.<
Yeah, I'm talking about women in general, not just the most successful top percent. That's your goal, right? You want the bottom 80% to be conservative again? I agree that having an OF probably doesn't hurt a woman's prospects all that much even among that lower 80% right now. But that's the sort of change that might bring about what you want--if the majority of women who don't become social media superstars start to perceive that making an OF will ruin their prospects. If Gen Z is any indication, things maybe moving in this direction. One can only hope.
Mosquito terf goes buzz buzz buzz.
Well. Fucking. Said.
Hey some women like sex a lot and will do it with lots of men, and some won’t. It’s so tiresome to have no access to a shorthand word like promiscuous. Although it’s true that promiscuity is more natural to men. It may be their default, not sure. But look at the ahem spread between homo extremes - the guy that visits glory holes and the homebody fat lesbian with her cat or small dog. There is something to biological differences. Men are dawgs, and the ones that aren’t wish they were. Believe me, I didn’t start out in life knowing this.
Yes, I remember watching this video as a kid and feeling disgusted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OirKqBY0Wj4
Also my third serious gf had a partner count of 17 when mine was 6 and I was kind of put off by that. But then we dated more recently when she was at 23 and I was in the triple digits and she seemed very innocent to me.
These days i still feel that way about high volume escorts and pornstars but pretty much no other type of woman. I would definitely marry a woman who had a past in stripping or sugaring.
This is messed on so many levels. It reads to me like you aren’t capable of feeling anything. Sorry, dude. You’ve missed the point. All these categories you talk about are written about very superficially. I am reasonably successful and I agree with your high ambition drive - likely high sex drive. If I dated a woman and found she had done some lighter sex work/Only Fans stuff she’s gone. If she is super fun I could see me having coffee with her. But date her? No way. When you write this sort of stuff you might be correct if you are talking about a sociopath. But people who prefer intimacy aren’t interested in those who have put time into sex work. It is hard to make a relationship work. When you see a giant red flag only a fool would move forward on it. Who knows? Maybe she has transformed and could make a great wife. But the odds…? Not good.
And most successful business men are good at assessing odds. You gotta be.
Whether you’re a traditional Christian conservative or a traditional degenerate, the fact is that you cannot reverse time and go back to a culture and a system that used to be. People moved on from it because something about it did not work as time passed and situation changed. In essence, you sound just like the people romanticizing the 50s without ever questioning why such a culture could exist at all.
I disagree, I view the 50s suburban normie stability and Rat Pack culture as going hand in hand and enabling each other.
I predict that as normie society continues to grow more sex negative we will revert back to a similar dynamic and it will be mostly for the best.
Suburban stability of the 50s was the result of a very unique set of global circumstances that won’t ever be repeated.
I don’t disagree that when the overall culture is less degenerate, the actual degeneracy can stay more tasteful, but its new version will look entirely different when it rolls around. You definitely sound as if you would turn your nose up and say “It was so much better back in my day”, when it does.
Mostly mythological too. I think in Canada we had 500,000 returning war vets. Everyone of them with PTSD. The ‘Leave it to Beaver’ ‘Father knows Best’ TV show was NOT the reality for any but a few. The world had gone through a trauma unlike anything ever seen, which followed a massive depression. Above all else it needed stability. I was born in 1951. It was far less stable than people wish to portray. And people were poor. Much much poorer than now.
That is certainly possible. But I hope to help define what the new version looks like.
Ok boomer;)
> Such behavior horrifies middle class finger-waggers and Dave Ramsey enjoyers who could never afford to do this and pretend it has no appeal to decent people like themselves.
It was those very finger waggers that kept the degeneracy contained.
It has no appeal to anyone who loves deeply.
Ironically, the same self-awareness of how social dynamics actually work which makes this piece insightful stand directly in the way of the author achieving his vision for society, were it to be adopted en masse. It's what Spengler calls "ornamentation," that which occurs when a culture becomes conscious of its own stylistic trappings and rigidly follows them, instead of fluidly moving to some unspoken intuition. When a culture's art takes on ornamentation, that culture ossifies and begins to die.
Similarly, The "Baccanale playpen" model Bismarck wishes to bring back only worked because it was an organic growth within a culture that actually believed in its own moral precepts, and the members of that culture understood, tacitly, that many people they knew fell well short of those precepts. This is why Vegas and its historical antecedents were isolated from polite society, and this is why everyone understood that we cover up the nakedness of our fathers, and we do not talk about such things in polite spaces. Cultures of ages past also only had the social capital to burn on these kinds of base indulgences because it was built up by high-functioning, elite true believers.
Men who take this view cannot rebuild a functional civilization. Cynical sociologists laying bare the sacred and profane alike for all to see can do no more than provide a diagnosis (or an autopsy) of the patient, and have no hope of curing him. If you wish to see a culture sturdy enough to afford the social cost of a Las Vegas, you will need true believers to build it first; high-IQ cynics playing the part won't cut it. On a micro level, we've seen this dynamic play out in the churches time and time again. A certain kind of young man disaffected with modernity returns to the church for similar reasons: playing the autodidact sociologist, these recognized that a culture where the church was dominant was better than one where it wasn't, and entered the narthex with pretensions of social engineering. These people either learned to believe for real, or left the church frustrated and unsatsified.
Besides, there's a much simpler reason not to be mean to roasties online: Finger-wagging promiscuous girls is a job for old women, and young men should not act like old women.
I admire your ability to take feedback and you are an excellent writer. The amount of astute cultural references and snapshot metaphors (i.e. “i was a mattress on the floor guy”) indicate you as a certain type of person who has a high level of sensory receptivity to subtle yet impactful shifts in the zeitgeist that most people merely feel but find ineffable. This ability to do this is both impressive and delegitimating. You are embroiled in a r/redscare myopia in which everything that happens in society can be reduced to some Freudian frequency or mapped out on some cause and effect chain that starts in a vanity fair article and ends in a hang-gliding Palestinian. The truth is that you are a degenerate (self-avowed), and as a degenerate you will always tend to see social good as a matter of strategy rather than morality. A person who believes in any sort of higher order divinity is not concerned with grand strategies and certainly not by way of “do the wrong things for awhile so that eventually the right things happen.” To be honest, no one should have to think like this. People should be able to live happily without having to toggle their behaviors to align with a grand social structure that properly vents society’s libidinal urges. I agree with you that this contractual, high availability of smutiness is gross - as I often say “everyone is having sex but no one is sexy.” But the diagnosis of this doesn’t mean that those who identify as self-appointed elites get to move the pieces around on the table until their orgies are exciting again. The truth is that my critique of this is not at all stylistic, but personal. You do not have to be a degenerate. Men should not have to cheat on their wives to properly diffuse their biological frustrations. Happiness isn’t found in any of these things, and replacing many of these behaviors with actual love and joy and happiness makes so much of this irrelevant. You won’t agree with this, that is fine. But i do think it’s worth considering that this whole schema here is an extremely complicated Rube Goldberg machine you’ve set up here when finding real joy and fulfillment (as i hope you and everyone on this thread will) will make a lot of this feel very trivial.
>A person who believes in any sort of higher order divinity is not concerned with grand strategies and certainly not by way of “do the wrong things for awhile so that eventually the right things happen.”
>Happiness isn’t found in any of these things, and replacing many of these behaviors with actual love and joy and happiness makes so much of this irrelevant.
But that's the paradox of sexual modernity, the disjunction between the micro and the macro scales. I agree that society as a whole would likely be better off if more people followed traditional sexual ethics. But that's not the same as the proposition that any given individual will be happier by voluntarily choosing to restrain himself, in an environment where those behaviors are no longer hedonically adaptive. Trad arguments often proceed from the assumption that these two things are identical, but experience suggests this isn't always the case. (And it's not a new problem; the debate over whether true happiness consists in virtue or hedonism goes right back to Plato.)
I appreciate that sincere religious faith resolves this paradox by making sexual ethics a deontological rather than utilitarian obligation. But even so, when we think of the Old Days we we remember the success stories rather than the failures. If you were a husband married to a frigid shrew, a wife putting up with a drunken bum, or just an incompatible shotgun marriage paying a lifelong bill for a momentary bad decision in your youth... there was nothing you could do but grit your teeth, do your duty, and "offer it up to Christ." The explosion in divorce rates when the legal environment changed suggests a lot of pent-up demand.
Even within the canonical Western tradition we have an alternative option, the Nietzschean or classical pagan argument (spoken for in the online right by BAP and his followers) that true fulfillment is found in struggle and great deeds, not the perpetuation of "mere life."
I'm comfortable living with ambiguity here and don't think either side is straightforwardly "correct," but I do think the paradox needs to be made explicit. I'm skeptical of answers that purport to apply to everyone at all times, not least because a young man can mess his life up by choosing wrongly for his own concrete circumstances.
Touch grass
As expected you are getting a lot of pushback, but you are on point. The online slut shaming is low status cringe, drips with nicely resentment.
You correctly identified the problem that degeneracy for the masses is lame. That's my problem with onlyfans, the whole thing is low status trailer park vibes.
He thinks he can have degeneracy only for himself and not have it spread to everyone else.
This has very much the "There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night." vibe of the old French Aristocracy. Didn't work out so well for them.
One of the biggest misanthropy starters is finding out how much money is made by the creators of those youtube shows where some ugly mutt "invites" onlyfans girls on air and then proceeds to pretend bully them and they pretend to cry
It's WWE diehard fans but even gayer
I get the vibe reading this article that you're a pretty liberal 115 IQ guy with high openness, you were only on the alt right because it was transgressive and edgy and now you're bored with it, inevitably as movements expand they become about substance and not about their relation to broader society -- the goal of the movement is to become broader society. As a liberal edgelord, you need liberal substance and edge which is edgy in relation to liberalism. So, your article basically understands the world through a thoroughly liberal frame, and is edgy with respect to liberal feminist morality only. For example, your understanding of marriage is that it is "BDSM." You have the relation reversed, BDSM is not "real" with marriage being a simulation of BDSM, BDSM is a simulation of marriage, which is the organic bedrock of human sexual relationships. It's where babies come from, and all fetishes are really just degenerated forms from the marriage ideal.
>And this is why elite women like Radfem Hitler who understand the world in a nuanced way have such contempt for “Trad” guys who support things like Marital Debt. They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return.
I don't know if marital debt is some fetish term but if you mean a wife should cost millions of dollars, no lol. Women are not naturally entitled to much, just 3 meals a day and pregnancy, this is the natural way. It is feminist in fact to be concerned with the woman feeling glamorous ... what about men's feelings? A thought experiment I like to use is to raise myself to similar levels of entitlement. If women shall not give birth (as is their natural job) for less than millions per year, than neither shall men work for less than that! I guess that throws away your complaint about there being a middle class. By your standard what man can submit to working for some loser middle manager who can hardly afford to pay their infinitely worthy soul 5 figures per year? As we all know, all men are highly deserving of everything, just as all women are deserving of equality and a rich husband and so on.
>And they never go after elite women who are very Faustian / BPD and crave this intensity, because they know they aren’t nearly impressive enough to dominate such women. Instead they expect dumb normie girls who listen to Taylor Swift to go along with this insane shit. They’re basically just incels trying to scam girls into sexual slavery with scripture—just one step above the Rotherham grooming gangs. .
BPD hos are not Faustian, only men can be Faustian on their own in fact, it is a category error and feminist to think women can be Faustian except through a man.
“The sort of men who rise to the top of society have an enormous desire for conflict and risk-taking. If you don’t give them a Vegas they will start a war and send your son into the trenches.”
Seems to happen anyway.
I lurk on this FB group that's aimed at conservative women who are anti-seed oil, Trad wannabes and predominantly evangelical Christian. They have this leader who is a pretty YouTuber who has no children, no husband and works constantly. It's very weird.
Walt, you have these women dead to rights. The Dave Ramsey worship, the modest is hottest baloney, the constant eye narrowing at sluts.
But what seems to unite them is a seething hatred for women who have it better than them. Most of them are lower income married to low IQ schlubs (again, nailed it) and they comfort themselves with sour grape proclamations.
Things like, "personally, I don't even want manicures. I think they show that you don't work hard"
"Honestly, I wouldn't even want my husband to make more money, he'd never be around to be with the kids".
And on and on. But you scratch the surface even slightly and the women are desperate for more money. All trying to exchange ideas of how to bring in extra income without compromising their SAHM status which they feel elevates them.
So many posts are women at their brink with a husband who won't chip in at all and they are poor, that Marriage Debt™ thing comes up a lot.
They brag about never saying 'no' to their husband's every boner. Some have even said, 'I just let my husband talk for me. He's the household leader in Christ'.
I said to my husband, "This is just conservative BDSM"
The women are really earnest and naive about how the world works (or should work). And they are terrible at converting others because they are so judgemental and unglamorous.
Excellent article! This is my first introduction to your work and I'm very impressed.
That is genuinely tragic. Ironically these are exactly the sort of women who get exploited by a shifty fast talker into having an affair in their early 30s.
I want to Google what “Marriage Debt” is but I am scared to
This post is so insane I was convinced it was an April fools post until I saw the date