Do right-leaning liberals dislike wokes more or traditionalists more?

[Outcast9428]

In spite of intense disagreement between traditionalists and right-leaning liberals, I find that when it comes down to it. Right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer typical traditionalists over the far left, woke, "obey our fake 72 genders" crowd. I suppose the more authoritarian, ideologically fanatical traditionalists (like myself) might get on their nerves just as much as the far left woke people do. But as a rule, right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer the far right over the far left.

@Lucas88, and @Pixel--Dude I know you would hate both systems but if you were forced to choose between living in a Medieval-like theocracy with arranged marriages and strictly enforced monogamy or a woke dictatorship ruled by radical feminists where you must recognize all 72 genders, use ze/zir xe/xar type pronouns and could be thrown in prison if you misgender anyone, even by accident... Which one would you choose?

If I might make one argument before you choose. At least you know exactly what the rules are going to be in the Medieval theocracy. By its very nature, traditionalism does not change. A radical feminist, woke regime on the other hand will change its rules all the time and expect you to completely adapt overnight. Plus, feminists seem to love creating unwritten rules out of thin air and punishing people for behavior that twenty years ago, they didn't have a problem with. At least the Medieval theocracy will be very predictable and stable whereas you never know how far the woke people might take things next year.

[Mew6ix]

That father went through hell because his child was groomed by another adult to become a tranny, yet he is treated worse than a sex offender!

[Lucas88]

In spite of intense disagreement between traditionalists and right-leaning liberals, I find that when it comes down to it. Right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer typical traditionalists over the far left, woke, "obey our fake 72 genders" crowd. I suppose the more authoritarian, ideologically fanatical traditionalists (like myself) might get on their nerves just as much as the far left woke people do. But as a rule, right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer the far right over the far left.

@Lucas88, and @Pixel--Dude I know you would hate both systems but if you were forced to choose between living in a Medieval-like theocracy with arranged marriages and strictly enforced monogamy or a woke dictatorship ruled by radical feminists where you must recognize all 72 genders, use ze/zir xe/xar type pronouns and could be thrown in prison if you misgender anyone, even by accident... Which one would you choose?

If I might make one argument before you choose. At least you know exactly what the rules are going to be in the Medieval theocracy. By its very nature, traditionalism does not change. A radical feminist, woke regime on the other hand will change its rules all the time and expect you to completely adapt overnight. Plus, feminists seem to love creating unwritten rules out of thin air and punishing people for behavior that twenty years ago, they didn't have a problem with. At least the Medieval theocracy will be very predictable and stable whereas you never know how far the woke people might take things next year.

In response to the question posed in the thread's title, I prefer traditionalists way more than the "woke" crowd. There's no doubt about it. At least traditionalists are for the most part decent people whereas wokes and self-styled progressives are all about promoting indecency and subversion. In fact wokes and progressives are among the nastiest and most vile people I've ever met. Many of them are just mean-spirited bullies who use their own purported "compassion" and ideal of "social justice" as a pretext to relentlessly attack others and impose their own warped ideological notions upon everyone else. On top of that a large number of these people are just straight-up mentally ill. I would feel more comfortable with a traditionalist any day.

From a sexual perspective, at least a traditionalist society which tolerates prostitution still allows men an avenue for sex whereas a misandric feminist society which demonizes prostitution under "moral" pretenses only serves to make sexual access for men even more scarce and drive us towards ever greater desperation. I hate feminist societies. They're the absolute worst. Any woman who supports the destructive ideology of feminism should be regarded as an enemy and even denied the privilege of protection from men. Any man who supports the same ideology should be looked upon with total contempt.

I myself am not opposed to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship. I'd be happy to live under the regime of a noble dictator who sought to defend society from subversive groups as long as after that he didn't interfere in people's personal lives too much and just left us alone. In fact I believe that such a form of governance will be necessary if we are to take back our societies and protect our civilization built by generations of our own ancestors. Somebody has to seize power and drive out the Jews, Marxists, wokes and other hostile scum by force. As for the wokes and others pushing all of that degenerate perversion on our societies and even on our children, I'm in favor of rounding them up and lining them up against the wall. I'd pull the trigger myself! I have no qualms about using violence against perverts and other evil people. I believe that it is a noble deed to kill such vile enemies. I have the mind of a Brahmana and the fighting spirit of a Kshatriya. I am not a deplorable, weak, pussified modern man with slave values and a misplaced concern for "human rights" (even for evildoers). Of course, here I'm talking about wiping out those who really deserve it. I'm not talking about indiscriminate violence against innocent beings who don't deserve to be harmed.

I believe that a noble dictator is necessary for the protection of society from subversive groups who intentionally seek to destroy society from within but I would not want to live under a dictatorship of thought. I'm a freethinker and value the freedom to follow one's own path. I believe that force should only be used in extreme cases such as when our societies have reached Weimar levels of subversive degeneracy (i.e., what we see today).

[Outcast9428]

In spite of intense disagreement between traditionalists and right-leaning liberals, I find that when it comes down to it. Right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer typical traditionalists over the far left, woke, "obey our fake 72 genders" crowd. I suppose the more authoritarian, ideologically fanatical traditionalists (like myself) might get on their nerves just as much as the far left woke people do. But as a rule, right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer the far right over the far left.

@Lucas88, and @Pixel--Dude I know you would hate both systems but if you were forced to choose between living in a Medieval-like theocracy with arranged marriages and strictly enforced monogamy or a woke dictatorship ruled by radical feminists where you must recognize all 72 genders, use ze/zir xe/xar type pronouns and could be thrown in prison if you misgender anyone, even by accident... Which one would you choose?

If I might make one argument before you choose. At least you know exactly what the rules are going to be in the Medieval theocracy. By its very nature, traditionalism does not change. A radical feminist, woke regime on the other hand will change its rules all the time and expect you to completely adapt overnight. Plus, feminists seem to love creating unwritten rules out of thin air and punishing people for behavior that twenty years ago, they didn't have a problem with. At least the Medieval theocracy will be very predictable and stable whereas you never know how far the woke people might take things next year.

In response to the question posed in the thread's title, I prefer traditionalists way more than the "woke" crowd. There's no doubt about it. At least traditionalists are for the most part decent people whereas wokes and self-styled progressives are all about promoting indecency and subversion. In fact wokes and progressives are among the nastiest and most vile people I've ever met. Many of them are just mean-spirited bullies who use their own purported "compassion" and ideal of "social justice" as a pretext to relentlessly attack others and impose their own warped ideological notions upon everyone else. On top of that a large number of these people are just straight-up mentally ill. I would feel more comfortable with a traditionalist any day.

From a sexual perspective, at least a traditionalist society which tolerates prostitution still allows men an avenue for sex whereas a misandric feminist society which demonizes prostitution under "moral" pretenses only serves to make sexual access for men even more scarce and drive us towards ever greater desperation. I hate feminist societies. They're the absolute worst. Any woman who supports the destructive ideology of feminism should be regarded as an enemy and even denied the privilege of protection from men. Any man who supports the same ideology should be looked upon with total contempt.

I myself am not opposed to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship. I'd be happy to live under the regime of a noble dictator who sought to defend society from subversive groups as long as after that he didn't interfere in people's personal lives too much and just left us alone. In fact I believe that such a form of governance will be necessary if we are to take back our societies and protect our civilization built by generations of our own ancestors. Somebody has to seize power and drive out the Jews, Marxists, wokes and other hostile scum by force. As for the wokes and others pushing all of that degenerate perversion on our societies and even on our children, I'm in favor of rounding them up and lining them up against the wall. I'd pull the trigger myself! I have no qualms about using violence against perverts and other evil people. I believe that it is a noble deed to kill such vile enemies. I have the mind of a Brahmana and the fighting spirit of a Kshatriya. I am not a deplorable, weak, pussified modern man with slave values and a misplaced concern for "human rights" (even for evildoers). Of course, here I'm talking about wiping out those who really deserve it. I'm not talking about indiscriminate violence against innocent beings who don't deserve to be harmed.

I believe that a noble dictator is necessary for the protection of society from subversive groups who intentionally seek to destroy society from within but I would not want to live under a dictatorship of thought. I'm a freethinker and value the freedom to follow one's own path. I believe that force should only be used in extreme cases such as when our societies have reached Weimar levels of subversive degeneracy (i.e., what we see today).

I agree that there is no virtue in being soft on evil doers. Excessive pacifism can lead to a nation’s downfall. That’s another reason why living in a woke dictatorship would be a hellhole is that the government would never punish criminals and crime would spiral out of control and make the cities unbearable places to live.

[WilliamSmith]

In spite of intense disagreement between traditionalists and right-leaning liberals, I find that when it comes down to it. Right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer typical traditionalists over the far left, woke, "obey our fake 72 genders" crowd. I suppose the more authoritarian, ideologically fanatical traditionalists (like myself) might get on their nerves just as much as the far left woke people do. But as a rule, right-leaning liberals still seem to prefer the far right over the far left.

@Lucas88, and @Pixel--Dude I know you would hate both systems but if you were forced to choose between living in a Medieval-like theocracy with arranged marriages and strictly enforced monogamy or a woke dictatorship ruled by radical feminists where you must recognize all 72 genders, use ze/zir xe/xar type pronouns and could be thrown in prison if you misgender anyone, even by accident... Which one would you choose?

If I might make one argument before you choose. At least you know exactly what the rules are going to be in the Medieval theocracy. By its very nature, traditionalism does not change. A radical feminist, woke regime on the other hand will change its rules all the time and expect you to completely adapt overnight. Plus, feminists seem to love creating unwritten rules out of thin air and punishing people for behavior that twenty years ago, they didn't have a problem with. At least the Medieval theocracy will be very predictable and stable whereas you never know how far the woke people might take things next year.

I'll take the liberty of weighing in too, though wouldn't describe myself as a "right-leaning liberal" by any means :

Same as the other two answers so far: If forced to make that awful choice, I'd shun the woke sexually perverted homo dystopia and also reluctantly choose a Medieval-like theocracy with arranged marriages and strictly enforced monogamy (assuming you mean between biological men and women only, of course, not homos and transformers marriages!!) even though I think that's a bad idea.

But ideally the theocracy I'd be under wouldn't have anything to do with any of the Abrahamic religions, since they don't have any credibility if one researches their pagan origins stretching far back into the ancient world. That, and knowledge of the fact that most of the traditions Europeans are so instinctually fond of are all actually pagan nature celebrations that have had jewish/Middle-Eastern wallpapering shoddily plastered over them in order to "Christianize" them, has always eroded the peoples' faith in religion, and added fuel to subversive sentiments amongst lots of people in the population who would otherwise would have gladly been staunchly loyal to their own nation.

That's also the main problem with the sexual neuroses of insisting on authoritarian enforcement of strict monogamy: Most of the population, regardless of what they claim publicly, is going to want bedroom action outside of wedlock, and most people under arranged marriages where you don't even choose your own woman won't even have any interest in their spouse, so such a system breeds subversive sentiment from huge numbers of people who'd otherwise have preferred to be loyal and respectful to the nation and its traditions and laws.

A woke dictatorship ruled by radical feminists, on the other hand, is just a fantasy that is going to deteriorate so rapidly if implemented (like what we're seeing now), they will always look like a complete joke. But in the fantasy scenario we did live under one that somehow had the inexplicable power to sustain itself indefinitely, then that'd be a nightmare compared with the unsound but comparably less god-awful theocracy!

That permanent woke dystopian society would never happen though:
When the jews did Weimar, Germany, the Germans fought back and handed them their asses, but it would've just deteriorated if there had been no intervention. When the jews succeeded with the Bolshevik revolution, on the other hand, they did have a period of time where the jews did things like nationalizing women so they could rape whoever they wanted, and other ways they gave expression to their inherent sexual perversions and loathsome sociopathic personalities, but that all fell apart and was replaced with a different type of extreme authoritarianism later on, so all the jews who wanted to revel in a sort of bacchanalia of sexual perversion ran away moaning the usual sob stories of persecution and "antisemitism."
My point being, the screwball clown world woke "cultural marxism" of the present day is just a total aberration that pops up in the process of nation-destroying, but there's no way any actual "society" can sustain itself that way, it's a purely parasitic system that feasts of a host society until it's so degraded and destroyed it collapses or gets overthrown.

A Medieval theocracy wouldn't be palatable to me, but would be capable of potentially sustaining itself indefinitely. And while I think the problems I mentioned are enough to oppose such a system (unless a sexually perverted woke dystopia full of homos, pedophiles, and transgenders, etc really was actually the only alternative), the Medieval theocracy wouldn't make it impossible for the population to live a more-or-less healthy life and make progress as a nation, unless the religion the theocracy was based on was too perverse. For example, some of the radical Abrahamic theocracies and other weird theocracies like the Aztecs and their culture of mass-human sacrifice have such !@#$ed religions behind them, their societies were also too dystopian to want to be part of, so they'd only be worth rebelling against or overthrowing if you couldn't escape.

[Outcast9428]

@WilliamSmith

I don’t know what faction of the right you fall into you are definitely swimming in your own waters.

[MrMan]

Why would you want a liberal woman?

[Outcast9428]

Why would you want a liberal woman?

I don't, what made you think I did?

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

You are also right that the old traditional theocracies all had legal prostitution. I was talking with a friend of mine last weekend who's a traditionalist as well and at first he was against prostitution but he changed his mind recently because I think he realized how prostitution actually fits into the traditional model and isn't really "liberal" so to speak.

If men can go to prostitutes there isn't a need anymore for them to seduce other women or coerce other women into promiscuous lifestyles. A big reason why so many women in the US and Europe are promiscuous is because in their formative middle and high school years, girls spend years under coercive pressure from dumb high school boys to put out and be sexually available. The teenage years are very formative and girls can easily start associating sluttiness with being cool because they spend so much time around their dumb, impulsive, young male peers.

Trying to get horny teenage boys to delay sex until they're in their mid 20s or even early 20s when they are able to provide for a family is a fool's errand. Every time a traditional society tries to crackdown on prostitution its an absolute disaster. Even St. Augustine said "you can't remove harlots from society or you will unleash far greater evils." However, letting teenage boys see prostitutes, and additionally letting them work for the money they get to pay a prostitute teaches a lot of valuable lessons that they will need for adulthood.

Teenage boys tend to be two things... They tend to be very lazy and they tend to be very horny. The one thing that can cure a teenage boy's laziness and instill a work ethic in him though is the promise of relieving his horniness. A boy who absolutely despises mathematics and refuses to learn it in school can become motivated to learn math in order to impress a girl. Men don't really change that much from when they are teenage boys, sex is still the most effective way to motivate both boys and men. A teenage boy allowed to go to brothels will become a hard worker overnight and this prepares him for adulthood. He learns to work for what he wants in life and he also learns how to interact with the opposite sex. Learning how to advance in his career, how to maintain his body, and how to interact with the opposite sex I think are the most important lessons of adulthood. Allowing teenage boys to go to brothels helps with two out of three of these. This would help teenage boys mature, and become adults much faster then they currently do.

Some women also really like sex, and this gives them a place for their horniness to be beneficial to society.

[MrMan]

If men can go to prostitutes there isn't a need anymore for them to seduce other women or coerce other women into promiscuous lifestyles. A big reason why so many women in the US and Europe are promiscuous is because in their formative middle and high school years, girls spend years under coercive pressure from dumb high school boys to put out and be sexually available. The teenage years are very formative and girls can easily start associating sluttiness with being cool because they spend so much time around their dumb, impulsive, young male peers.

Separating them might make more sense.

Trying to get horny teenage boys to delay sex until they're in their mid 20s or even early 20s when they are able to provide for a family is a fool's errand. Every time a traditional society tries to crackdown on prostitution its an absolute disaster. Even St. Augustine said "you can't remove harlots from society or you will unleash far greater evils." However, letting teenage boys see prostitutes, and additionally letting them work for the money they get to pay a prostitute teaches a lot of valuable lessons that they will need for adulthood.

This type of defeatist attitude leads to immorality and STDs. Not everyone went to prostitutes. Do you really think America in the early 1900s was so wicked? Have Protestant societies that outlawed prostitution turned out all to be wicked?

Teenage boys tend to be two things... They tend to be very lazy and they tend to be very horny. The one thing that can cure a teenage boy's laziness and instill a work ethic in him though is the promise of relieving his horniness. A boy who absolutely despises mathematics and refuses to learn it in school can become motivated to learn math in order to impress a girl.

The math thing isn't a typical scenario in the US. Maybe with nerdy Asians in Asia it works. But I don't know of sex as a typical reward for doing well at math. If boys know they have to work hard to prepare to marry and with marriage comes sex, that better aligns motivations. Prostitution in this case is a short cut that rewards overall laziness and creates social ills.

A prostitute is a bad thing to be, too. Having a niche in society for prostitutes mean some girls throw their lives away in that niche.

A teenage boy allowed to go to brothels will become a hard worker overnight and this prepares him for adulthood.

How do you get that? He learns he flip burgers or cut grass (or sell grass) to scrape up enough for a trip to the ho house. That promotes laziness.

Whorring/fornication is the one thing I know of where it says that God will punish or get vengence... depending on your translation... on Christians for doing it. For the Christian, the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost and one must not join Christ with a harlot.

[Outcast9428]

@MrMan

Most Protestant societies haven’t banned prostitution. If you look at the past 1,000 years of our history you will struggle to find any times when it was outlawed. Even the most extreme conservative societies and time periods in history have had legal prostitution. Some time periods tried to restrict access to it more then other times but the US itself didn’t really outlaw prostitution until the early 1900s and society almost instantly started becoming more liberal. I read a stat though saying some 40-50% of young men in the 1800s had been to a prostitute. This is evidenced from the fact that a very low number of women reported having premarital sex in 1900 when the survey was taken. Only 10% approximately. Among men, however 50% of them had had premarital sex.

People can dream but if we want an actual traditional society we have to be practical about it. It’s easy to get people to shun hookup culture, we can certainly control adultery, but trying to eliminate fornication entirely is extremely hard. The only way you can really do it is if you stone people to death and I think most traditionalists agree that’s going too far. Many people would say what I’m trying to do with eliminating one night stands, adultery, and bdsm is already unrealistic.

I strongly suspect a major reason why so many girls were able to restrain themselves is only because traditionally, most girls got married when they were teenagers. In the Medieval/Renaissance era, 25% of girls were married by the age of 18 and 50% were married by the age of 20. In Italy during 1500, 50% of girls were married by the age of 18.

Unless you have a country where arranged marriages are the norm and people marry at very young ages, avoiding premarital sex is pretty much impossible.

As for teenagers flipping burgers. Obviously they would advance to better jobs as they get older and handle more responsibility. But most people in general start as burger flippers. My first job was being a cashier at a mall. A lot of teenage boys nowadays just don’t have jobs at all. It would be difficult to get companies to agree to let 15 and 16 year old boys work jobs that pay medium level wages and involve a lot of responsibility. Growing up is taken one stage at a time.

Some boys might be ready to get married already in their teenage years as well. They would likely be the more fortunate ones though.

[MrMan]

@Outcast9428 A number of cities did ban prostitution during the Reformation like Augsburg, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4288621or Geneva.

[Lucas88]

You see this, @Outcast9428? Here you have it straight from the horse's mouth. I think now you can see why so many red-blooded guys here on the forum dislike puritanical Protestant societies so much.

The Protestant tradcons are just the "traditionalist" counterpart of the misandric Anglo feminists. Both of these groups seek to restrict male sexual access albeit for very different reasons. Both make it much harder for ordinary guys to get laid through their fanatical ideologies. Because of its attempt to restrict male sexual access, Protestant tradconism has always bred resentment in many healthy, testo-driven, red-blooded men. We see what it has done and prefer to escape from its unnatural tyrannical grip.

So many of us flee from the wicked Protestant wastelands of the Anglosphere! We take flight to the less puritanical and uptight Catholic countries of the South such as Spain, Italy, Latin America and the Philippines and there we merrily cavort with the sexier and more free-spirited Mediterranean ladies, big butt Latinas and cute little pinays who haven't been tainted by the Judaic perversion of (((Protestantism))).

At least you're a honest and realistic traditionalist, Outcast. I respect you for that.

[jamesbond]

I think now you can see why so many red-blooded guys here on the forum dislike puritanical Protestant societies so much.

The Protestant tradcons are just the "traditionalist" counterpart of the misandric Anglo feminists. Both of these groups seek to restrict male sexual access albeit for very different reasons. Both make it much harder for ordinary guys to get laid through their fanatical ideologies. Because of its attempt to restrict male sexual access, Protestant tradconism has always bred resentment in many healthy, testo-driven, red-blooded men. We see what it has done and prefer to escape from its unnatural tyrannical grip.

So many of us flee from the wicked Protestant wastelands of the Anglosphere! We take flight to the less puritanical and uptight Catholic countries of the South such as Spain, Italy, Latin America and the Philippines and there we merrily cavort with the sexier and more free-spirited Mediterranean ladies, big butt Latinas and cute little pinays who haven't been tainted by the Judaic perversion of (((Protestantism))).

Great points, Rookh Kshatriya who writes the blog called, "Anglobitch" goes into depth regarding puritanism in Anglo countries. It's rooted in the protestant belief that male sexuality is 'vulgar' and 'disgusting' and 'oppressive' to women. It's really a sick ideology (puritanism) and causes much harm to men.

Here is the link to his blog, check out his articles that he has written over the years. I bought his first book that he wrote called, "Havok: How Anglo American Feminism Ruined Society." It's an awesome book and explains how puritanism started in Anglo countries hundreds of years ago.

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/

[Outcast9428]

@MrMan A few cities doesn't really reflect a societal trend. But let's say you, @Lucas88 and @jamesbond are correct that historically Protestant societies criminalized or did not tolerate prostitution on a more frequent basis. If that is the case, then that does not reflect well on the successfulness of banning prostitution. All of the historically Protestant societies are now the ones that have gone the furthest to the left. The UK, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Denmark are all very leftist.

If historically Protestant societies were more harsh on prostitution, then this would explain a lot of that. If you want your traditional society to remain a traditional society, you have to allow prostitution or else people will fall into liberalism. Look at what happened in the United States? They started cracking down on prostitution during the 1910s and then women won voting rights, started entering the workforce, and hookups almost immediately became more common. The Great Depression set that back a little and so did WW2. After WW2 America had a bit of a conservative revival in the 50s, but that quickly fell apart in the 1960s.

You cannot maintain traditionalism without prostitution. It angers a lot of men and then feminists exploit men's sexual frustration and say "See! Its those religious, traditional, patriarchal people's fault that you have to wait until you are 25 and married before you can have sex. If you support us on the other hand, we'll let you get laid whenever you can convince a woman to let you sleep with her."

Sexuality is like a river, trying to stop it is the most idiotic thing anyone can do. Traditionalism should never attempt to stop the river from flowing. What we ought to do is dam certain parts of the river, control and direct it so that it doesn't flood our cities and becomes a beautiful thing to be enjoyed and admired rather then a dangerous threat to the security and stability of our lives.

An example would be how I support outlawing a lot of harmful types of pornography like violent, extreme, and fetishistic porn but I do not support banning all erotic material entirely. The reason is simple, if you ban all pornography, then all porn, including the violent, extreme, and fetishistic porn, becomes an equal part of the black market. The black market will have violent torture porn, pedophilia, and bestiality side by side with a topless woman showing her boobs.

If you keep the photo of the girl's boobs legal, however, but ban the violent torture porn, the child porn, and the bestiality porn, then only those types of pornography become black market material whereas pornography that appeals to much healthier and more natural sexual interest absorbs the vast majority of the demand for pornographic material. This means it is easy to find a photo of a girl's boobs but it becomes difficult to find porn containing bestiality or violent/rough sex and people have to risk being arrested and going to prison in order to obtain that kind of stuff.

Again, control and direct the river, dam the portions that threaten to flood your home, but do not attempt to stop the river. Trying to stop the river will guarantee that your home is flooded.