1) You absolutely should not spend time with small children. The only men who enjoy this are paedophiles and if your wife expects you to do this she either doesn't love you or lacks basic empathy for what it is to be a male. Around 5-6 or is when it becomes tolerable, 3-4 if they are precocious, because then you can teach them to read or chop wood or whatever.
2) Cunnilingus is revolting.
3) Your kids *are* horribly behaved and you are a terrible parent.
4) Men's looks are not important. Just grow a beard and trim it every so often. Doesn't matter if you are a 2 or an 8, now you are a 5. Problem solved.
5) Age of consent stuff is meh. Obviously 18 is way too high. In my school, if you were a virgin at 18, you were a loser. I was a virgin, but I was also a loser. More to the point, 20 is the absolute oldest anyone should be getting married if they don't want to have all sorts of weird hangups.
The other stuff is, as you admit, only true of the lower classes, but lower classes suck and what reactionary ever said otherwise? In Judaism it has always been forbidden to harm animals wantonly, and the talmud teaches that to have male children you need to make your wife orgasm first. Much the same is true of any civilized people.
I must say is this REALLY true? Or is it just liberals talking about the 'bad old days'.
I find it quite hard to believe. A lot of movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s don't have such a cold hearted view of women and children, just look at films like 'It's a Wonderful Life'. You often hear compassion for animals going back to Victorian times. Yes there was a taboo about sex outside of marriage, for obvious reasons, but you hear plenty of stories about passionate affairs.
I think these are things that are just part of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. The Woke regime wants to present the pre-60s era as more primitive and barbaric than it really was because it affirms their own narrative.
Even if this does have some truth to it, it is not advantageous to bring up, because it allows the liberals to go on about being on the 'right side of history'. It is in our interests to downplay the negative aspects of the pre-60s period.
I think upper middle class people in northwestern Europe and America basically had the attitude you described for many hundreds of years, and they disseminated it through the normie population very slowly from 1800-1950 and very quickly thereafter.
But poor people in Victorian London or backwoods America in the 1800s were absolute savages. I have some of these people in my immediate ancestry so I can speak to this accurately, some of the stories they passed down are genuine Hills Have Eyes shit.
I can see the appeal of a romantic vision of the past among upper class people and don't necessarily want to discourage that, but the main point of this article was to make Trads realize that they too are modernists and it's just a matter of when you draw the line.
I'm interested to hear that re the stories from poor Victorian London. My own family background is largely working to lower middle class British, with the fallen upper middle class exception (flooded mines bankruptancy). The family stories I hear are much more relaxed - more old fashioned yes, but in more of the typical view. Children were looked down on and disciplined, but also cherished and laughed with. Dogs were not part of the family, but nonetheless treated well. Etc. But a lot of my family background were in villages and towns - I wonder if the extremes of rural US backwoods and what was essentially slum London gave rise to more extreme behaviour with more austere conditions of life.
In my mind old American "Rough and Tumble" fighting sounds like something straight out of the most morally depraved quarters of Haiti, and this is coming from a person not sensitive to harm. No rules. Biting and eye-gouging allowed. I imagine it wasn't limited to America and featured in Europe too, at least Britain.
Right but it seems to arise out of harsh conditions, lack of rule of law and recent movement of people all combined. Comfortable communities with long standing relationships... people find ways to get on. The equilibrium is shifted out if harsh scarcity forces competition. New people to the area mean new pecking orders and conventions have to be established. And volatility in social order incentivises brutal behaviour to rise within. Seems to me these are the factors that lead to more brutality, which apply to deprived city areas and to frontier wilderness, but not to stable hundreds of year old villages and towns.
I just really don't understand the utility of this piece, though I enjoy your writing. Listening to you and Spencer's long podcast right now and finding it very interesting.
It either:
1. Encourages Trads to adopt some of these savage values.
2. Affirms the Woke narrative that they are always on the 'right side of history'.
This could easily have been written by a Woke liberal. They are always trying to slander and demonise the past.
It is in our interests to present a romanticised past, both because it will stop the left from having the moral high ground, but also because it will make 'Trads' behave better.
The idea is to make Trads understand that some kinds of "social progress" are good and they shouldn't have a reactionary attitude towards anything associated with modernity. You can't have futurism without a theoretical admission that progress can be good.
I think everyone understands this implicitly already. There is no movement of stupid right-wingers calling for pointless animal cruelty to be made acceptable again.
This is the same kind of "don't point out this true thing because it's politically inconvenient" logic that progressive activists at the New York Times use to try and censor the news. Presumably people who are actually interested in the truth should be able to have a more honest conversation than that.
But it worked for them. They brainwashed a whole generation.
One can look at history through an infinite amount of lenses. We need one that triumphantly celebrates the pre-60s West, and presents the post-60s West as cultural suicide. Facts that don’t support that narrative need to be downplayed.
Brainwashing is bad when anyone does it. I don't believe there's anything productive to be gained from discussing with people who support narratives over facts so I suppose we can just agree to disagree.
"In our interest" meta-politicking has always seemed gay and of dubious effectiveness to me. As one writer I've read mentioned, one of the right's drawing points is the truth regardless of political convenience, obscuring the truth is wrong.
You are wrong about so much I don't even know where to begin, that myth about making a dog smell its pee, it's stupid to believe in now, and so it was in the past. Why are you insinuating you can't love your dog/wife/children if you beat them into submission? Sounds like some leftist bullshit.
I grew up in Brazil. When i was 15 i got my first girlfriend who was 13. Not only would guys honk their carnhorn at her to catcall her but the 20-30 dudes at the gym would hit on her on a regular basis. It was seen as absolutely normal, so much so she didn't even see a problem with it. This was only 11 years ago. Admitedly Brazil is a bit of a weird "stuck in the 80s country" but hell, i wager these things are still going on outside the first world.
It does go on but you can't really talk about it in a nuanced way or people will call you a pedophile. Same stigma/prestige dynamic as incel-related issues. Ironically this creates a lot of really negative outcomes for young girls.
Man i also remember when the school passed a "code of conduct" to forbid girls from wearing miniskirts and minishorts because, and i shit you not, it was "messing with the concentration of teachers". Again 11-10 years ago. That would've got the school cancelled today. How dare someone tell 15 year old jessica to stop dressing as a total slut? How dare someone feel natural arousal at that? Lmao culture changes so quickly. The human brain doesn't.
it is now a nation at odds with itself. A society that was deeply catholic for 400 years now facing a fuckload of modern concepts being pushed unto itself. It is a form of incompetent colonization. The top 1% are mimmicking americans and trying to push postmodernism unto the ever more confused masses. Picture Hispania after the roman conquest. Imagine that the local chieftains all adopt the latest fashions from Rome but the natives are slow to adopt roman culture, and retain a lot of their old traditions. It's colonizaiton done by proxy, but it does not work as intended. And this "80's feeling" is because it happens at a much slower pace, as if the internet didn't quite bridge the distance, because it is, deep down, a cultural distance after all.
Brazil couldn't be further apart culturally from neo-puritan USA, and it's not a few beaurocrats that are going to change that just throwing money at the problem. Yes, globalism acceralates this, and the urban youth is deeply fucked up, but something tells me the US Empire and its values will collapse before we are truly colonized. Only the elites posses the capability to insta donwload the latest nonense from the Empire's capital. The fact that most brazilians don't understand english is a blessing in disguise.
i'll adress this point by point: I'm afraid the university scenario is not as optimistic as you think. Sure Faap and Mackenzie are known to focus on producing businessmen and not wokesters, but they do have humanities departments which enforce wokeness and campus culture is very toxic for any male. Even with a machismo brazilian twist. USP is a nutjob's paradise yeah, it's a hive of scum and the fact that it is still regarded as the most respected institution worries me because the alumni there are fucking insane. PUC and FGV are very different. PUC had an episode where the humanities people danced naked on a marble cross and it went viral, with lots of people rightfully condemining it as degeneracy. The fact that it happened dampens my spirits. FGV is hardcore and is not prone to corruption. there are no humanity courses there.
About women: you are correct in this analysis. For every crazy hardcore femminist there are 30 basic bitches dying their hair blonde and getting silicone injections. As vapid as girl culture is in this country, it leans towards beauty and not towards some sort of "liberation". There is a bit of preassure to be woke amongst women but that does not translate to their looks overall. What bothers me is again, how vapid and stupid they all are. It's the "california" effect i suppose.
Rede Globo has gone woke since 88'. But thankfully most people don't watch it. anymore. Most brazilian men only watch sports and most brazilian woman watch telenovelas. No one cares about the news. Again, their ignorance is their bliss when it comes to globalization.
What worries me is the rise of middle class midwits both left and right. It's getting insufferable these days.
When I think about what "traditionalist" means today, I think it means that someone just wants enforced monogamy, with norms that are pro-marriage and pro-family, and containment of sexual deviancy. The rest they could take or leave depending on the person. I think you are probably correct that few if any of today's "traditionalists" want to go back to a time when marrying 13 year olds was legal and acceptable, but I'm not really sure how useful or insightful that observation is. Obviously when people identify as "traditionalist" what they mean is that they desire to reclaim some of the good aspects of the past that have been lost, not that they literally want to go back in time in every single aspect.
I don't think everyone on the right would just take all of these statements for granted or automatically push back against challenges to them, either. I'm sure there are plenty of "trad" men who would be totally happy to not spend much time with small children, or to be allowed to discipline their children harshly when they feel it's warranted, for instance.
I am admittedly being a bit of a troll with this article. My point is to get traditionalists who stop taking a rigidly modernist vs traditionalist stance on everything and admit that they are modernists in a lot of important ways. That is a necessary precondition to agreeing on other facets of "social progress" IMO.
And you are right, plenty of men would want to not spend time with small children, but are they going to openly express this to wifey or their parish community? That is the tension I am poking at.
1) You absolutely should not spend time with small children. The only men who enjoy this are paedophiles and if your wife expects you to do this she either doesn't love you or lacks basic empathy for what it is to be a male. Around 5-6 or is when it becomes tolerable, 3-4 if they are precocious, because then you can teach them to read or chop wood or whatever.
2) Cunnilingus is revolting.
3) Your kids *are* horribly behaved and you are a terrible parent.
4) Men's looks are not important. Just grow a beard and trim it every so often. Doesn't matter if you are a 2 or an 8, now you are a 5. Problem solved.
5) Age of consent stuff is meh. Obviously 18 is way too high. In my school, if you were a virgin at 18, you were a loser. I was a virgin, but I was also a loser. More to the point, 20 is the absolute oldest anyone should be getting married if they don't want to have all sorts of weird hangups.
The other stuff is, as you admit, only true of the lower classes, but lower classes suck and what reactionary ever said otherwise? In Judaism it has always been forbidden to harm animals wantonly, and the talmud teaches that to have male children you need to make your wife orgasm first. Much the same is true of any civilized people.
I must say is this REALLY true? Or is it just liberals talking about the 'bad old days'.
I find it quite hard to believe. A lot of movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s don't have such a cold hearted view of women and children, just look at films like 'It's a Wonderful Life'. You often hear compassion for animals going back to Victorian times. Yes there was a taboo about sex outside of marriage, for obvious reasons, but you hear plenty of stories about passionate affairs.
I think these are things that are just part of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. The Woke regime wants to present the pre-60s era as more primitive and barbaric than it really was because it affirms their own narrative.
Even if this does have some truth to it, it is not advantageous to bring up, because it allows the liberals to go on about being on the 'right side of history'. It is in our interests to downplay the negative aspects of the pre-60s period.
It's complicated.
I think upper middle class people in northwestern Europe and America basically had the attitude you described for many hundreds of years, and they disseminated it through the normie population very slowly from 1800-1950 and very quickly thereafter.
But poor people in Victorian London or backwoods America in the 1800s were absolute savages. I have some of these people in my immediate ancestry so I can speak to this accurately, some of the stories they passed down are genuine Hills Have Eyes shit.
I can see the appeal of a romantic vision of the past among upper class people and don't necessarily want to discourage that, but the main point of this article was to make Trads realize that they too are modernists and it's just a matter of when you draw the line.
I'm interested to hear that re the stories from poor Victorian London. My own family background is largely working to lower middle class British, with the fallen upper middle class exception (flooded mines bankruptancy). The family stories I hear are much more relaxed - more old fashioned yes, but in more of the typical view. Children were looked down on and disciplined, but also cherished and laughed with. Dogs were not part of the family, but nonetheless treated well. Etc. But a lot of my family background were in villages and towns - I wonder if the extremes of rural US backwoods and what was essentially slum London gave rise to more extreme behaviour with more austere conditions of life.
In my mind old American "Rough and Tumble" fighting sounds like something straight out of the most morally depraved quarters of Haiti, and this is coming from a person not sensitive to harm. No rules. Biting and eye-gouging allowed. I imagine it wasn't limited to America and featured in Europe too, at least Britain.
Right but it seems to arise out of harsh conditions, lack of rule of law and recent movement of people all combined. Comfortable communities with long standing relationships... people find ways to get on. The equilibrium is shifted out if harsh scarcity forces competition. New people to the area mean new pecking orders and conventions have to be established. And volatility in social order incentivises brutal behaviour to rise within. Seems to me these are the factors that lead to more brutality, which apply to deprived city areas and to frontier wilderness, but not to stable hundreds of year old villages and towns.
I just really don't understand the utility of this piece, though I enjoy your writing. Listening to you and Spencer's long podcast right now and finding it very interesting.
It either:
1. Encourages Trads to adopt some of these savage values.
2. Affirms the Woke narrative that they are always on the 'right side of history'.
This could easily have been written by a Woke liberal. They are always trying to slander and demonise the past.
It is in our interests to present a romanticised past, both because it will stop the left from having the moral high ground, but also because it will make 'Trads' behave better.
The idea is to make Trads understand that some kinds of "social progress" are good and they shouldn't have a reactionary attitude towards anything associated with modernity. You can't have futurism without a theoretical admission that progress can be good.
I think everyone understands this implicitly already. There is no movement of stupid right-wingers calling for pointless animal cruelty to be made acceptable again.
Exactly, they understand it implicitly. I want to force them to understand it *explicitly* so they will come along with me on other issues.
Which issues?
Yes but who defines what 'progress' means?
I do understand what you're saying. I wrote an article about this: https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/anglofuturism-is-not-conservative
A lot of the cultural left's views about 'progress' I abhor. I don't want to give them any credit, any feeling of victory that they can taunt us with.
You're opening a can of worms that is not particularly helpful, it is either ammunition or it encourages savagery.
This is the same kind of "don't point out this true thing because it's politically inconvenient" logic that progressive activists at the New York Times use to try and censor the news. Presumably people who are actually interested in the truth should be able to have a more honest conversation than that.
But it worked for them. They brainwashed a whole generation.
One can look at history through an infinite amount of lenses. We need one that triumphantly celebrates the pre-60s West, and presents the post-60s West as cultural suicide. Facts that don’t support that narrative need to be downplayed.
Brainwashing is bad when anyone does it. I don't believe there's anything productive to be gained from discussing with people who support narratives over facts so I suppose we can just agree to disagree.
"In our interest" meta-politicking has always seemed gay and of dubious effectiveness to me. As one writer I've read mentioned, one of the right's drawing points is the truth regardless of political convenience, obscuring the truth is wrong.
You are wrong about so much I don't even know where to begin, that myth about making a dog smell its pee, it's stupid to believe in now, and so it was in the past. Why are you insinuating you can't love your dog/wife/children if you beat them into submission? Sounds like some leftist bullshit.
I grew up in Brazil. When i was 15 i got my first girlfriend who was 13. Not only would guys honk their carnhorn at her to catcall her but the 20-30 dudes at the gym would hit on her on a regular basis. It was seen as absolutely normal, so much so she didn't even see a problem with it. This was only 11 years ago. Admitedly Brazil is a bit of a weird "stuck in the 80s country" but hell, i wager these things are still going on outside the first world.
It does go on but you can't really talk about it in a nuanced way or people will call you a pedophile. Same stigma/prestige dynamic as incel-related issues. Ironically this creates a lot of really negative outcomes for young girls.
Man i also remember when the school passed a "code of conduct" to forbid girls from wearing miniskirts and minishorts because, and i shit you not, it was "messing with the concentration of teachers". Again 11-10 years ago. That would've got the school cancelled today. How dare someone tell 15 year old jessica to stop dressing as a total slut? How dare someone feel natural arousal at that? Lmao culture changes so quickly. The human brain doesn't.
it is now a nation at odds with itself. A society that was deeply catholic for 400 years now facing a fuckload of modern concepts being pushed unto itself. It is a form of incompetent colonization. The top 1% are mimmicking americans and trying to push postmodernism unto the ever more confused masses. Picture Hispania after the roman conquest. Imagine that the local chieftains all adopt the latest fashions from Rome but the natives are slow to adopt roman culture, and retain a lot of their old traditions. It's colonizaiton done by proxy, but it does not work as intended. And this "80's feeling" is because it happens at a much slower pace, as if the internet didn't quite bridge the distance, because it is, deep down, a cultural distance after all.
Brazil couldn't be further apart culturally from neo-puritan USA, and it's not a few beaurocrats that are going to change that just throwing money at the problem. Yes, globalism acceralates this, and the urban youth is deeply fucked up, but something tells me the US Empire and its values will collapse before we are truly colonized. Only the elites posses the capability to insta donwload the latest nonense from the Empire's capital. The fact that most brazilians don't understand english is a blessing in disguise.
i'll adress this point by point: I'm afraid the university scenario is not as optimistic as you think. Sure Faap and Mackenzie are known to focus on producing businessmen and not wokesters, but they do have humanities departments which enforce wokeness and campus culture is very toxic for any male. Even with a machismo brazilian twist. USP is a nutjob's paradise yeah, it's a hive of scum and the fact that it is still regarded as the most respected institution worries me because the alumni there are fucking insane. PUC and FGV are very different. PUC had an episode where the humanities people danced naked on a marble cross and it went viral, with lots of people rightfully condemining it as degeneracy. The fact that it happened dampens my spirits. FGV is hardcore and is not prone to corruption. there are no humanity courses there.
About women: you are correct in this analysis. For every crazy hardcore femminist there are 30 basic bitches dying their hair blonde and getting silicone injections. As vapid as girl culture is in this country, it leans towards beauty and not towards some sort of "liberation". There is a bit of preassure to be woke amongst women but that does not translate to their looks overall. What bothers me is again, how vapid and stupid they all are. It's the "california" effect i suppose.
Rede Globo has gone woke since 88'. But thankfully most people don't watch it. anymore. Most brazilian men only watch sports and most brazilian woman watch telenovelas. No one cares about the news. Again, their ignorance is their bliss when it comes to globalization.
What worries me is the rise of middle class midwits both left and right. It's getting insufferable these days.
Sao Paulo. i suggest my most recent article:
https://riderwisdom.substack.com/p/in-a-pluralistic-society-being-high?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
When I think about what "traditionalist" means today, I think it means that someone just wants enforced monogamy, with norms that are pro-marriage and pro-family, and containment of sexual deviancy. The rest they could take or leave depending on the person. I think you are probably correct that few if any of today's "traditionalists" want to go back to a time when marrying 13 year olds was legal and acceptable, but I'm not really sure how useful or insightful that observation is. Obviously when people identify as "traditionalist" what they mean is that they desire to reclaim some of the good aspects of the past that have been lost, not that they literally want to go back in time in every single aspect.
I don't think everyone on the right would just take all of these statements for granted or automatically push back against challenges to them, either. I'm sure there are plenty of "trad" men who would be totally happy to not spend much time with small children, or to be allowed to discipline their children harshly when they feel it's warranted, for instance.
I am admittedly being a bit of a troll with this article. My point is to get traditionalists who stop taking a rigidly modernist vs traditionalist stance on everything and admit that they are modernists in a lot of important ways. That is a necessary precondition to agreeing on other facets of "social progress" IMO.
And you are right, plenty of men would want to not spend time with small children, but are they going to openly express this to wifey or their parish community? That is the tension I am poking at.
What shifts in behavior or preferences would you want to see from trads as a result of taking your perspective here?
You'll find out in the coming weeks ;)
Or just called "reactionary modernists." "Reactionary" because they just want modernism without the French, or what happened in the 60s.
Woa where did the last 2 sentences come from
Great work!