What is Traditionalism? Why does it work? Why all the so called "suffocating rules" create better lives

[fschmidt]

I went to Hungary and found that Viktor Orban has been remarkably successful at crushing degeneracy in Hungary. Even just five or six years ago it seems hookup culture was a lot more common. Not anymore. The country is speedrailing its way towards a traditional society and it’s all because of Orban and Fidesz.

What has Orban done exactly? Do you live in Hungary? My family is from Hungary, so I follow things there a little. Orban has kicked out foreign NGOs and stopped teaching deneracy in schools. None of this is anti-libertarian. As far as changes in Hungarian culture, I can't say because to haven't been there in a while. What evidence do you have that it has improved?

I have yet to see any society that has become more traditional without government pressure to do so. I don’t know if a country can be traditional without government pressure of some kind.

I gave an example, Europe in the Reformation. The change went from religious leaders to the people and then to the government.

Libertarianism has failed. Conservatives have been trying to push a libertarian approach to conservatism for 50 years now and it’s been a total disaster. It’s time to use a different playbook. One that we actually see working in countries like Hungary and Poland.

The problem with western conservatives wasn't Libertarianism, it was their overvaluing politics at the expense of religion. To their credit, Hungarian, Polish, and Russian conservatives seem to understand the importance of religion.

[Outcast9428]

I went to Hungary and found that Viktor Orban has been remarkably successful at crushing degeneracy in Hungary. Even just five or six years ago it seems hookup culture was a lot more common. Not anymore. The country is speedrailing its way towards a traditional society and it’s all because of Orban and Fidesz.

What has Orban done exactly? Do you live in Hungary? My family is from Hungary, so I follow things there a little. Orban has kicked out foreign NGOs and stopped teaching deneracy in schools. None of this is anti-libertarian. As far as changes in Hungarian culture, I can't say because to haven't been there in a while. What evidence do you have that it has improved?

I have yet to see any society that has become more traditional without government pressure to do so. I don’t know if a country can be traditional without government pressure of some kind.

I gave an example, Europe in the Reformation. The change went from religious leaders to the people and then to the government.

Libertarianism has failed. Conservatives have been trying to push a libertarian approach to conservatism for 50 years now and it’s been a total disaster. It’s time to use a different playbook. One that we actually see working in countries like Hungary and Poland.

The problem with western conservatives wasn't Libertarianism, it was their overvaluing politics at the expense of religion. To their credit, Hungarian, Polish, and Russian conservatives seem to understand the importance of religion.

You are right of course that religion is the backbone of traditionalism. In Hungary, a significant number of people who used to claim they had no religion now identify as Christians. The percentage of Hungarians who identified as Christian was only 55% in 2011 but as of 2019, it was 75%. The reason for that is because Christianity is state supported in Hungary. The constitution of Hungary's government was amended in 2014 to recognize "Christianity's nation building role." The Hungarian government has gone to a lot of effort to tie Christianity in with Hungarian national identity. So basically, being Christian is now part of being Hungarian in many ways. In other words, Hungary is pretty much a Christian nationalist government and the laws are increasingly reflecting that. Gender studies has been banned from being taught in Hungarian universities, they have also banned all LGBT propaganda in the country directed towards under 18 year olds. So Netflix got in trouble with Hungary's government recently for having a lesbian kiss in a kid's cartoon. Hungary told them this violated their laws. Hungary also has banned "on demand" abortions. There still is an exception for "socio-economic purposes" that seems like it could be abused to me, but even this is limited to six weeks. After six weeks, unless the mother's health is in danger or she was raped, they do not provide abortions.

A lot of Hungarians also told me they think Fidesz's pro-family policies have cut down on a lot of the degeneracy because the state is rewarding people so much for getting married and staying together that people have lost a lot of interest in one night stands and short term flings. People's views are also rapidly becoming more socially conservative. Five years ago, 46% of Hungarians said they did not believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. Now its 60%. That's a pretty astonishing change for 5 years. Even the people who don't support Fidesz are mostly people who would be considered right-leaning by American standards. My tour guide had opinions/beliefs that would make people consider him a far right radical in most areas of the US and a hardline conservative even in the reddest areas of America, yet he didn't have the energy/vibe of a ideological fanatic. He said things like "I think women belong in the home, its unhealthy for a family to have two careers, and women are not good at being breadwinners." and "homosexuality is unnatural" with a very casual demeanor. He said these things at full volume on a crowded bus full of women in downtown Budapest.

I was visiting Hungary for a week but I picked up a lot of stuff while I was there. Honestly, Hungary was actually more conservative then I was expecting it to be. I was trying not to get too hopeful because Florida was a huge disappointment for me. But no, Hungary is legitimately conservative and it feels like it when you're there. Its not like the 1950s, but it feels like a society that wants to be the 1950s. In Hungary, Christian imagery is pervasive and I say that as somebody who comes from the Bible Belt in America.

[CaptainSkelebob]

A lot of people don't seem to understand why all the rules of a traditional society are necessary. Why are traditionalists so aggressive about trying to enforce all their rules? Why don't you just live and let live? Well, I'm here to explain all that now in as clear a manner as I can. The truth is, these rules benefit the overwhelming majority of the population if diligently followed.

First off though, the way I see it, there are mainly three competing ideologies in our modern world. Every ideology has one foundation to it. This foundational idea builds a society/civilization into what it is. The rules of this society will revolve around this foundational idea. There are other things which will be considered important, but nothing is superior or is considered more important then the foundational idea. These foundational ideas all come with different rights and entitlements given to its citizens. The three competing ideologies of our modern world are leftism, liberalism, and traditionalism. There are of course, many ways that people mix these ideologies or take them to extremes. Communism for example, is the extreme version of leftism. Liberalism, meanwhile, has a left-leaning version. Pure liberalism is what you've often heard me call "right-leaning liberalism." Liberalism actually has a conservative variant as well called "liberal conservatism." Which I sometimes call "center-right conservatism" to separate it from true traditionalism. Obviously traditionalism is the last of the three ideologies.

The foundational idea of leftism is equality... Equality between the races, equality between men and women, equality between gays and straights. The most extreme leftists will even attempt to create complete wealth equality. Essentially eliminating the categories of rich and poor. This is "marxism" or "communism." However, leftists always seem to define "equality" as "treat people exactly the same regardless of how they are biologically or socially different from other people." So for this reason, equality by the leftist definition pretty much just means sameness. While I do strongly believe in "fairness" I do not believe in equality because treating people the same way is a foolish idea.

The foundational idea of liberalism is individual freedom. This is why I cringe whenever I see mainstream conservatives saying that "individualism is the basis of right-wing ideology." No it is not. Individualism is literally the foundational idea of liberalism. Liberalism actually does have a lot of variants because of this. Left-leaning liberals prioritize individual freedom above everything else, but care a lot about equality too. Pure liberals care about individual freedom most of all, nothing interferes with individual freedom. Liberal conservatives prioritize individual freedom first, but care a lot about traditional values too. Liberal conservatives want a certain level of order in a liberal society and are willing to violate "individual freedom" when they consider it to be very unnecessary and extreme... Abortion being a prime example of such. Liberal conservatives don't go so far as to believes a baby deserves to die for individual freedom, but liberal conservatives will never truly attack the core of feminism and the women's independence movement for example, because deep down they do believe women should be independent.

The foundational idea of traditionalism on the other hand, is love and family. Everything in a traditional society revolves around that. This is why traditionalists consider it offensive when a woman pursues a full time career instead of staying at home, taking care of her family. Plenty of traditional societies have women who work part time, but pursuing a full time career is stigmatized because the most important thing to both men and women, is supposed to be their spouse and their kids. Ideally the woman should be devoting 100% of her energy to that but in most economies around the world, this isn't feasible for the majority of families so part time work is the compromise. Although people don't think it does, the same thing applies to men. A man who is in the office all the time and never sees his wife and kids is violating the principle of traditionalism because he is prioritizing money and achievement over love and family.

This means under leftism, you are entitled to, largely the same outcome in life as everybody else. Under liberalism, you are entitled to do whatever you want so long as your behavior doesn't violate the law. Laws in liberal societies are usually written to be as unrestrictive as possible. Only prohibiting behaviors that society cannot afford to tolerate (like murder). Liberals will advocate for increased liberalism in their society by telling people that certain laws are unnecessary to preserve the functionality of society and that its more important to give people freedom then ensure order/stability. Under traditionalism, you are entitled to love and a family. As a kid, you are entitled to being raised by your mother and father. You are entitled to have them be present in your life, to take care of you, and do everything they ethically can do to ensure your success. You are entitled, upon reaching adulthood, to a loving and loyal spouse, and to have kids of your own.

So keep in mind that because the foundational idea of traditionalism is that love and family is the most important thing in life, any behaviors which conflict with that goal are going to be prohibited. This is because equality and individual freedom are, quite frankly, not as important to us as assisting people in finding, as well as maintaining long term love and to make sure the biological parents of kids remain their parents. Marriage is sacred to us, so if you have sex with a married woman, it doesn't matter if you say "but she chose to do it!" If you have sex with someone other then your wife, it doesn't matter if you say "but she's okay with it!" Remember that we do not prioritize individual freedom above everything else the way that liberals do. This is why traditionalists and liberals feel like they're speaking different languages to one another. Under traditional morality, You get individual freedom when it doesn't interfere with your ability to maintain a lasting relationship with your wife and keep your family together. If something could potentially harm that, even if you are unable to see how it could do so, then you will not be allowed to do it. So that's why traditionalists typically let people have economic freedom and a certain degree of political freedom but are strict about sexual/social behavior.

You also will not be allowed to engage in conduct that interferes with other people's ability to find love and maintain their marriage and family. It doesn't matter if you like having "sexual variety" because hooking up and having casual sex makes it significantly more difficult for single people who are doing the right thing to find long term relationships and get married because hookups are like a weed. It has to suffocate love and long term relationships in order to exist. If too many people decide to just sleep around until they are 30 years old, then it harms everybody's ability to find love and get married because casual sex becomes the norm instead of sex in serious, exclusive relationships. In a traditional society, marriage and family is the #1 goal of life that you are supposed to be pursuing starting in your adolescent years, not when you are 25 or 30 years old. It also potentially threatens the long term stability of their marriage because the woman became too used to the idea of sleeping with men she did not consider to be father/husband material. This makes adultery and divorce easier to commit in the future.

Sadomasochism is prohibited because it is destructive to the soul of the person who gets hooked on such fetishes. Dating a sadomasochistic woman is like dating a heroin addict. They will do whatever it takes to satisfy their disgusting fetish. It doesn't matter how good of a husband or father you are. If anything being a good husband or father is probably making her angry with you. It doesn't matter if, by the standards of any normal woman, you are fantastic in the bedroom. A sadomasochist will destroy everything around her in order to pursue her fetish. I question whether anybody thinks it would be okay for our television channels to be flooded with advertisements for heroin? That's how I feel about violent/extreme pornography being legal. Why do we allow the internet to be teeming with such destructive content that is even accessible to teenagers and even children?

So this is why all the rules are in place. You cannot do anything that will impede other people's ability to find a spouse and you cannot do anything that threatens the long term stability of your own, or other people's marriage and families. Leftists hate us because we don't believe men and women should be treated the same. Liberals dislike us because we do not believe in male or female independence. Refusing to marry is equivalent to depriving a member of the opposite sex of love because you wanted to pursue sexual variety (or other reasons).

So what is our justification for doing all this? How do we justify violating gender equality and individual freedom in order to guarantee as many people the opportunity to find love, form families, and keep the whole project together as we can? Well, it is our strong belief that not only is marriage and family the most important ingredient to human happiness, but that it is impossible or borderline impossible to find true happiness without it. Life long love is a much stronger generator of human happiness then the freedom to sexual variety or a fulfilling career is. Almost everybody who does live as lifelong bachelors, pursuing sexual variety, money, or achievement over love/family eventually regrets it. Roosh V regrets it and so did Wilt Chamberlain. Most Hollywood celebrities who pursue selfish lifestyles are depressed, struggle with substance abuse problems, some even commit suicide. Substance abuse and suicide are huge problems in every single liberal and leftist society out there. These problems are almost non-existent in traditional societies. The Philippines and Indonesia for example have a suicide rate of 2.4 per 100,000 and only 1 per 100,000 when it comes to fatal drug overdoses compared to suicide rates of between 10-15 in the US and Europe as well as drug overdose rates of 10 to as much as 30 per 100,000 in the United States and Iceland. People who get married and have their marriages fall apart may regret getting married. But this really just reflects that they accidentally married the wrong person. Their suffering comes from having failed to achieve life long love. It is not a judgment on the value of life long love itself, nobody who successfully finds life long love regrets having pursued it. Not a single story exists of somebody who says "I found the love of my life but I really wish I had spent it sleeping with hundreds of different men/women instead" or "I found the love of my life but I really wish I had spent more time in the office working instead of being with my family." The vast majority of people who successfully find sexual variety in their life, on the other hand, do end up regretting it.

The same thing applies to women's independence. The vast majority of women who pursue full time careers, shun marriage and children, and just live for themselves their whole lives, also regret it. Male celebrities who are life long bachelors, regret it just as much. Many people fall into deep depressions in their older years because of this. Liberals keep trying to say "oh are you jealous because I can sleep with all these different men/women." No, we're not jealous. We know exactly where that path leads and we know it ends in misery. If you seem like a lost soul we'll try to reform you but if you seem like a stubborn bull who will never understand where the path leads, then our goal is harm/damage reduction. How do we reduce the amount of damage you'll cause as much as possible? To us, claiming that you are successful because you slept with 100, or 250, or 500 girls is like a heroin addict telling us he's successful because he managed to find drug dealers and make enough money to finance his addiction. In other words, you are competing for a stupid prize that we know is going to make you miserable at some point, it may not be now, in five years, ten, or twenty, but it will eventually. We're just trying to make sure your self-destruction doesn't result in our destruction too. For this reason, I think there is a much stronger case to be made that people are entitled to having their marital/family life protected by the power of the community and government then that people are entitled to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate, often very loose laws that do not adequately cover the broad range of ways people can seriously harm one another. Liberalism is really just the freedom to pursue your preferred method of self-destruction. It does not contribute anything meaningful to human happiness.

Marxism and leftists are just the lowest of the low....
They are just reprabates who are jealous of those with class and success.... they want to drag everyone down to there level....
Why have you compared banging women to heroin like its a bad thing??? Ppl should be proud if they consider themselfs a sword of many sheaths
Banging over 100s of chicks and drilling all that p***y isnt something bad for society really.... expecially if everyone walks away feeling satisfied
I dont like ur idea of traditionalism...
Sounds like a condom, too restrictive
Yknow what I think fella???
I think ur the type who likes to lord it over everyone else and that shows in ur post about traditionalism
You proved that to me by getting all pissy and holding a grudge for weeks because I said I would bang 100s of women even if I was married to a hypothetical wife.... really???
Ur passionate about a traditionalist society beacuase ppl like you fear competition in the sexual marketplace because you know deep down you could never compete with a p***y splitter like me....
So in a way you are just like a Marxist who opposes the free market of alpha fellas like yours truly nailing all the hot chicks and leaving you all the scraps

I do agree with Marcos that some of the right-leaning liberals on this forum I can have a beer with and get along with. Some of them aren’t even living objectionable lifestyles they just aren’t strict like I am. There are others, like you though, who make it exceedingly obvious the moment they post that the only person they care about is themselves. Why should I even bother being polite to someone like you? If it was legal for you to do so you’d commit all sorts of crimes and then say anybody criticizing you just fears competition. You project your own selfishness onto everyone and assume whoever is criticizing you is simply jealous. I’m no more jealous of you then anyone would be of thieves, drug dealers and criminals. Yes being promiscuous is like being a heroin addict because heroin addicts, similar to promiscuous people, fool themselves into thinking that their foolish choices are just as legitimate of a path to happiness as any other choice when it is actually the path to misery. Nothing destroys sex like perverting it does. The only thing worse then promiscuity for sex is the fetish/kink crowd. The sadomasochists are truly the lowest of the low.

Here fella.....
Im calling you out
Tonight is the gunslinging showdown at sundown
Ur a hypocrite
You think Im not even worthy of basic curtesy or respect just because I said I would bang other women even when I get my hypothetical Thai Bride
@Cornfed wishes death on others yet you dont target him for his views
You call me selfish when ppl in the covid thread dont give a shite about passing a deadly disease onto others....
So does ur traditional idea of marriage have more value than the life of other ppl?
Your crazy

[Outcast9428]

Here fella.....
Im calling you out
Tonight is the gunslinging showdown at sundown
Ur a hypocrite
You think Im not even worthy of basic curtesy or respect just because I said I would bang other women even when I get my hypothetical Thai Bride
@Cornfed wishes death on others yet you dont target him for his views
You call me selfish when ppl in the covid thread dont give a shite about passing a deadly disease onto others....
So does ur traditional idea of marriage have more value than the life of other ppl?
Your crazy

I had a major argument with Cornfed just two weeks ago over the exact same topic I argued with you about.

viewtopic.php?style=11&f=1&t=46290

COVID is a nothingburger. Should people stop driving cars because there's a chance of getting into an accident? We all know that's not practical, anymore then it is practical for everybody to stay indoors for years on end because of a virus that kills less then 0.1% of the people infected.

That isn't a similar argument though. A similar argument would be am I willing to punish murderers as much as adulterers? I would advocate a much harsher punishment for murderers, who I think should be imprisoned for life and made to work 8 hours a day like the rest of us do, but for no pay. That's the life debt of taking another person's life is that you lose all meaning to yours.

I do advocate a fairly harsh penalty for adultery though because it is somewhat life ruining. Of course its not the same as murder. But when someone commits adultery, the victim will never truly get their life back. They can pick up the pieces and try to move on, but it'll never be the same as it once was. Marriage is supposed to be a pledge for life. You spent the rest of your life with someone, you mix your genes together to make however many unique different persons you feel you can take care of or want to take care of. You are in charge of one another's needs and happiness and have pledged to take care of one another. The pledge you make when getting married is that you will support each other when times are good and when they are rough and you will find a way to get through it together. This is a commitment you make to each other, that you will do everything in your ability to make the other person happy, and they will do the same for you.

Adultery is a huge betrayal of that. It is an act of extreme selfishness. All because you want "variety?" That's disgusting. You guys are the male equivalent of women who divorce rape men. Your woman is not providing sufficient entertainment for you so you run off to somebody else. I would never want to be treated that way and I would be furious if I was treated that way so it makes me furious to see y'all talking about committing such a destructive act with such blase, casualness. But why should I be surprised given that you believe in the law of the jungle and might makes right.

One thing I am not is a hypocrite. When I was dating my ex girlfriend, I stopped watching porn, I refused to fantasize about any other woman, I tried not to even look at other attractive girls too much. Because to me, loyalty means everything. I expect it from my woman and I will give it, wholeheartedly, to her. I guess concepts like that aren't something you are able to understand though.

[CaptainSkelebob]

Here fella.....
Im calling you out
Tonight is the gunslinging showdown at sundown
Ur a hypocrite
You think Im not even worthy of basic curtesy or respect just because I said I would bang other women even when I get my hypothetical Thai Bride
@Cornfed wishes death on others yet you dont target him for his views
You call me selfish when ppl in the covid thread dont give a shite about passing a deadly disease onto others....
So does ur traditional idea of marriage have more value than the life of other ppl?
Your crazy

I had a major argument with Cornfed just two weeks ago over the exact same topic I argued with you about.

viewtopic.php?style=11&f=1&t=46290

COVID is a nothingburger. Should people stop driving cars because there's a chance of getting into an accident? We all know that's not practical, anymore then it is practical for everybody to stay indoors for years on end because of a virus that kills less then 0.1% of the people infected.

That isn't a similar argument though. A similar argument would be am I willing to punish murderers as much as adulterers? I would advocate a much harsher punishment for murderers, who I think should be imprisoned for life and made to work 8 hours a day like the rest of us do, but for no pay. That's the life debt of taking another person's life is that you lose all meaning to yours.

I do advocate a fairly harsh penalty for adultery though because it is somewhat life ruining. Of course its not the same as murder. But when someone commits adultery, the victim will never truly get their life back. They can pick up the pieces and try to move on, but it'll never be the same as it once was. Marriage is supposed to be a pledge for life. You spent the rest of your life with someone, you mix your genes together to make however many unique different persons you feel you can take care of or want to take care of. You are in charge of one another's needs and happiness and have pledged to take care of one another. The pledge you make when getting married is that you will support each other when times are good and when they are rough and you will find a way to get through it together. This is a commitment you make to each other, that you will do everything in your ability to make the other person happy, and they will do the same for you.

Adultery is a huge betrayal of that. It is an act of extreme selfishness. All because you want "variety?" That's disgusting. You guys are the male equivalent of women who divorce rape men. Your woman is not providing sufficient entertainment for you so you run off to somebody else. I would never want to be treated that way and I would be furious if I was treated that way so it makes me furious to see y'all talking about committing such a destructive act with such blase, casualness. But why should I be surprised given that you believe in the law of the jungle and might makes right.

One thing I am not is a hypocrite. When I was dating my ex girlfriend, I stopped watching porn, I refused to fantasize about any other woman, I tried not to even look at other attractive girls too much. Because to me, loyalty means everything. I expect it from my woman and I will give it, wholeheartedly, to her. I guess concepts like that aren't something you are able to understand though.

Ur wrong. I understand these concepts perfectly but I just think they are bullshit
Lets start with ur defence. You repressed natural urges to take a look at women you acknowledge are attractive because of some preconceptions you have about loyalty which are based on what exactly???
My might is right philosophy is based on the laws of nature
The strong prey upon the weak and life is a compotition of survival
The weak are meat and the strong must eat
Marriage is just a social contract.... women have financial needs that need to be satisfied and men have biological needs which need to be satisfied....
That is the essense of marriage....
Ur idea of traditionalism is based on nothing other then ur own whimsical fantasy.
I stand by my argument that you Outcast are a social Marxist who fears competition from strong alpha males as what you describe is sexual communism!!
How are you any different to these leftwin sjws who are trying to enforce their ideology onto everybody else???
The only difference between you and them is that they have the government backing them up and you dont....
What you have described is a utopia for beta males who are too weak to get girls for themselfs and need the government to arrange marriage for them to ensure they can get some p***y!!!
For everyone else this sounds like a complete nightmare but you dont give a f**k about what everyone else wants or feels do you???
That is why you are a hypocrite because you criticise me and others for not wanting to live life by ur own standard..
Like you have been ordained by god himself to uphold such strict standard of traditionalism
Time to leave ur ivory tower and join the rest of us in the real world!!

[Outcast9428]

Here fella.....
Im calling you out
Tonight is the gunslinging showdown at sundown
Ur a hypocrite
You think Im not even worthy of basic curtesy or respect just because I said I would bang other women even when I get my hypothetical Thai Bride
@Cornfed wishes death on others yet you dont target him for his views
You call me selfish when ppl in the covid thread dont give a shite about passing a deadly disease onto others....
So does ur traditional idea of marriage have more value than the life of other ppl?
Your crazy

I had a major argument with Cornfed just two weeks ago over the exact same topic I argued with you about.

viewtopic.php?style=11&f=1&t=46290

COVID is a nothingburger. Should people stop driving cars because there's a chance of getting into an accident? We all know that's not practical, anymore then it is practical for everybody to stay indoors for years on end because of a virus that kills less then 0.1% of the people infected.

That isn't a similar argument though. A similar argument would be am I willing to punish murderers as much as adulterers? I would advocate a much harsher punishment for murderers, who I think should be imprisoned for life and made to work 8 hours a day like the rest of us do, but for no pay. That's the life debt of taking another person's life is that you lose all meaning to yours.

I do advocate a fairly harsh penalty for adultery though because it is somewhat life ruining. Of course its not the same as murder. But when someone commits adultery, the victim will never truly get their life back. They can pick up the pieces and try to move on, but it'll never be the same as it once was. Marriage is supposed to be a pledge for life. You spent the rest of your life with someone, you mix your genes together to make however many unique different persons you feel you can take care of or want to take care of. You are in charge of one another's needs and happiness and have pledged to take care of one another. The pledge you make when getting married is that you will support each other when times are good and when they are rough and you will find a way to get through it together. This is a commitment you make to each other, that you will do everything in your ability to make the other person happy, and they will do the same for you.

Adultery is a huge betrayal of that. It is an act of extreme selfishness. All because you want "variety?" That's disgusting. You guys are the male equivalent of women who divorce rape men. Your woman is not providing sufficient entertainment for you so you run off to somebody else. I would never want to be treated that way and I would be furious if I was treated that way so it makes me furious to see y'all talking about committing such a destructive act with such blase, casualness. But why should I be surprised given that you believe in the law of the jungle and might makes right.

One thing I am not is a hypocrite. When I was dating my ex girlfriend, I stopped watching porn, I refused to fantasize about any other woman, I tried not to even look at other attractive girls too much. Because to me, loyalty means everything. I expect it from my woman and I will give it, wholeheartedly, to her. I guess concepts like that aren't something you are able to understand though.

Ur wrong. I understand these concepts perfectly but I just think they are bullshit
Lets start with ur defence. You repressed natural urges to take a look at women you acknowledge are attractive because of some preconceptions you have about loyalty which are based on what exactly???
My might is right philosophy is based on the laws of nature
The strong prey upon the weak and life is a compotition of survival
The weak are meat and the strong must eat
Marriage is just a social contract.... women have financial needs that need to be satisfied and men have biological needs which need to be satisfied....
That is the essense of marriage....
Ur idea of traditionalism is based on nothing other then ur own whimsical fantasy.
I stand by my argument that you Outcast are a social Marxist who fears competition from strong alpha males as what you describe is sexual communism!!
How are you any different to these leftwin sjws who are trying to enforce their ideology onto everybody else???
The only difference between you and them is that they have the government backing them up and you dont....
What you have described is a utopia for beta males who are too weak to get girls for themselfs and need the government to arrange marriage for them to ensure they can get some p***y!!!
For everyone else this sounds like a complete nightmare but you dont give a f**k about what everyone else wants or feels do you???
That is why you are a hypocrite because you criticise me and others for not wanting to live life by ur own standard..
Like you have been ordained by god himself to uphold such strict standard of traditionalism
Time to leave ur ivory tower and join the rest of us in the real world!!

What you are describing as “sexual communism” is the system that all of Europe lived by for almost 1,000 years. You are calling it “sexual communism” in order to discredit it but implementing communism results in places like North Korea, Mao’s China, and the Soviet Union to form. Places that had no beauty or anything positive at all to say about them.

There is no comparison between North Korea and the spectacular culture of Old Europe. What you are calling sexual communism created a civilization that the entire world has envied for centuries. People’s admiration for Europe today has nothing to do with the mess that it is now. That’s not why tens of millions of people travel to Europe. They travel there because of Old Europe. Because old Europe built everything that is great. Nobody thinks Soviet architecture is superior to Gothic cathedrals. Nobody even thinks modern architecture from liberal countries is superior to Gothic cathedrals.

The 1950s is considered to be America’s golden age. The best time to have been alive. Surveys show both men and women were happier in the 1950s then in the following decades.

You know what kind of societies were built off of your ethics and way of thinking? African countries, Ancient Rome, Viking society, the Middle East. Might makes right and “the strong shall eat the weak” creates dystopian hellholes where 80% of the population lives in poverty and misery while the top dogs in society basically enslave everyone else. Your way of thinking is what creates nightmares. My way of thinking creates what many consider to be the best civilizations in history.

[Pixel--Dude]

A lot of people don’t seem to understand why all the rules of a traditional society are necessary. Why are traditionalists so aggressive about trying to enforce all their rules? Why don’t you just live and let live? Well, I’m here to explain all that now in as clear a manner as I can. The truth is, these rules benefit the overwhelming majority of the population if diligently followed.

First off though, the way I see it, there are mainly three competing ideologies in our modern world. Every ideology has one foundation to it. This foundational idea builds a society/civilization into what it is. The rules of this society will revolve around this foundational idea. There are other things which will be considered important, but nothing is superior or is considered more important then the foundational idea. These foundational ideas all come with different rights and entitlements given to its citizens. The three competing ideologies of our modern world are leftism, liberalism, and traditionalism. There are of course, many ways that people mix these ideologies or take them to extremes. Communism for example, is the extreme version of leftism. Liberalism, meanwhile, has a left-leaning version. Pure liberalism is what you’ve often heard me call “right-leaning liberalism.” Liberalism actually has a conservative variant as well called “liberal conservatism.” Which I sometimes call “center-right conservatism” to separate it from true traditionalism. Obviously traditionalism is the last of the three ideologies.

Hey @Outcast9428, I’ve been meaning to respond to this thread for a while now, but haven’t had the time or the motivation to do so. I am interested in having this conversation though, so let’s go through what you said and I’ll give you my honest feedback.

The foundational idea of leftism is equality... Equality between the races, equality between men and women, equality between gays and straights. The most extreme leftists will even attempt to create complete wealth equality. Essentially eliminating the categories of rich and poor. This is “marxism” or “communism.” However, leftists always seem to define “equality” as “treat people exactly the same regardless of how they are biologically or socially different from other people.” So for this reason, equality by the leftist definition pretty much just means sameness. While I do strongly believe in “fairness” I do not believe in equality because treating people the same way is a foolish idea.

I agree with you about leftism. Equality, as presented today, is an unobtainable goal as the far left are trying to enforce something which simply does not exist. True equality is a complete lie and it undermines people who have talents and skills in specific areas. I even mentioned this in my Aesthetics thread to a degree with how post modern art elevates itself to the same level as masterful pieces of art from the Renaissance like the Mona Lisa for example. The ideology takes degenerate talentless hacks who shit in a jar and elevates them to the status of artists when they are no such thing!

The same can be said about feminism. Men and women are not equal at all. We are different beings of the same species. I think Jordan Peterson argued this point very well in a debate with a feminist who was talking about women being oppressed and not having any equality to men because very few women are in positions of power. Jordan Peterson asked her why women only care about equality when it comes to positions of power. Why don’t women fight to become brick layers? Or work on the bins? Why does equality only matter when it comes to political power? That highlights the hypocrisy of feminism and why it is a toxic ideology. Jordan Peterson also points out that most suicides are men, men are conscripted to fight, most homeless people are men. The list goes on and on.

I think women should get free sanitary products, I think it’s disgusting that they don’t. But things like this and other talking points they use are not indicative of a patriarchal society. A lot of men suffer in this society as well, and this is only exacerbated through the majority of western women adopting the ideology of feminism and using it to usurp any power from men and therefore have dominion over them. Is it truly equality they fight for? Or are they just another group of ideologues who are competing in the ideological battleground of society to have their own values imposed on everyone else?

As for the equality of wealth, I don’t agree with trickle down economics. I am not a communist but I despise capitalism and see it as a way for rich assholes to keep their power when the ideology is obviously obsolete. We could automate most if not all menial labour and emancipate the entire human race from their clandestine slavery. They know this is the next logical step, but they cling to their power and refuse to let it go. So do I believe in the equality of wealth? I don’t even think wealth in a financial sense should even exist anymore. Or at the very least we should be attempting to transition away from it. I’m writing out a draft for a thread on capitalism which highlights all the reasons I hate it so much, so I won’t derail the topic of traditionalism too much with a divergent rant about capitalist systems.

The foundational idea of liberalism is individual freedom. This is why I cringe whenever I see mainstream conservatives saying that “individualism is the basis of right-wing ideology.” No it is not. Individualism is literally the foundational idea of liberalism. Liberalism actually does have a lot of variants because of this. Left-leaning liberals prioritize individual freedom above everything else, but care a lot about equality too. Pure liberals care about individual freedom most of all, nothing interferes with individual freedom. Liberal conservatives prioritize individual freedom first, but care a lot about traditional values too. Liberal conservatives want a certain level of order in a liberal society and are willing to violate “individual freedom” when they consider it to be very unnecessary and extreme... Abortion being a prime example of such. Liberal conservatives don’t go so far as to believes a baby deserves to die for individual freedom, but liberal conservatives will never truly attack the core of feminism and the women’s independence movement for example, because deep down they do believe women should be independent.

I think individual freedom is important. Fundamental freedom is one of my core values. I’ve always been of the frame of mind that people should be able to live as they desire, to carve their own path through life without impediment. So long as their chosen path does not jeopardise the freedom of another.

Obviously I think there should be laws in place that stop people from doing things harmful to others such as murder, theft, rape and paedophilia. These should remain criminal activities. But victimless crimes like smoking weed or taking shrooms should be scrapped.

I don’t know where I stand on abortion as a moral issue if I am honest with you. If the foetus is barely even developed when it is aborted is it wrong to have it aborted? If the reason is because you’re a liberal who wants to get rid of the baby because it would impede on your personal freedom then yeah that is pretty selfish. But what about those who have abortions because they cannot provide a reasonable standard of living for their child, or they’re too young and immature to raise a child? Should rape victims be made to give birth to a child that was conceived through rape? The world is a cruel place and some people wouldn’t want to bring a child into this life of endentured servitude. These are not my personal thoughts. But some arguments I’ve heard from people who I know who are liberals. Mostly women. As a man I don’t know how I feel about it. It’s something I haven’t quite figured out yet as I think the topic of abortion has many factors to consider both in favour and against.

The foundational idea of traditionalism on the other hand, is love and family. Everything in a traditional society revolves around that. This is why traditionalists consider it offensive when a woman pursues a full time career instead of staying at home, taking care of her family. Plenty of traditional societies have women who work part time, but pursuing a full time career is stigmatized because the most important thing to both men and women, is supposed to be their spouse and their kids. Ideally the woman should be devoting 100% of her energy to that but in most economies around the world, this isn’t feasible for the majority of families so part time work is the compromise. Although people don’t think it does, the same thing applies to men. A man who is in the office all the time and never sees his wife and kids is violating the principle of traditionalism because he is prioritizing money and achievement over love and family.

I think the idea of traditionalism is nice. As a father, one of my biggest regrets is not being able to be there for my daughter 24/7 it’s one of my biggest sources of pain as I miss her and I fear for her future and I feel guilty that there are so many important moments of her life I will miss out on as I live hundreds of miles away. However, I was so thankful to get away from her mother. The two of us together would have been much worse for my daughter’s wellbeing than us separating. She’s still got both her parents there for her, it’s just not in the traditional family setting.

Unfortunately I don’t think the family dynamic is possible to sustain in this context, particularly in a capitalist society which keeps putting increasing financial demand upon both men and women (thanks feminism!). In the past it used to be that the husband could go out and earn a paycheck to sustain the family whilst the woman stayed at home and focused on tending to the home and raising the children etc. But nowadays both the man and the woman have to work full time to make ends meet and a stranger ends up bringing up the child. The cost of living, especially recently, has become unrealistic and ridiculous.

Feminism has tricked women into joining the workforce and becoming endentured servants the same as men. They wanted equality! They got it! Now they’re expected to go out and work full time the same as men. Since then traditional family values have eroded and people rarely stay together these days.

This means under leftism, you are entitled to, largely the same outcome in life as everybody else. Under liberalism, you are entitled to do whatever you want so long as your behavior doesn’t violate the law. Laws in liberal societies are usually written to be as unrestrictive as possible. Only prohibiting behaviors that society cannot afford to tolerate (like murder). Liberals will advocate for increased liberalism in their society by telling people that certain laws are unnecessary to preserve the functionality of society and that its more important to give people freedom then ensure order/stability. Under traditionalism, you are entitled to love and a family. As a kid, you are entitled to being raised by your mother and father. You are entitled to have them be present in your life, to take care of you, and do everything they ethically can do to ensure your success. You are entitled, upon reaching adulthood, to a loving and loyal spouse, and to have kids of your own.

So keep in mind that because the foundational idea of traditionalism is that love and family is the most important thing in life, any behaviors which conflict with that goal are going to be prohibited. This is because equality and individual freedom are, quite frankly, not as important to us as assisting people in finding, as well as maintaining long term love and to make sure the biological parents of kids remain their parents. Marriage is sacred to us, so if you have sex with a married woman, it doesn’t matter if you say “but she chose to do it!” If you have sex with someone other then your wife, it doesn’t matter if you say “but she’s okay with it!” Remember that we do not prioritize individual freedom above everything else the way that liberals do. This is why traditionalists and liberals feel like they’re speaking different languages to one another. Under traditional morality, You get individual freedom when it doesn’t interfere with your ability to maintain a lasting relationship with your wife and keep your family together. If something could potentially harm that, even if you are unable to see how it could do so, then you will not be allowed to do it. So that’s why traditionalists typically let people have economic freedom and a certain degree of political freedom but are strict about sexual/social behavior.

You also will not be allowed to engage in conduct that interferes with other people’s ability to find love and maintain their marriage and family. It doesn’t matter if you like having “sexual variety” because hooking up and having casual sex makes it significantly more difficult for single people who are doing the right thing to find long term relationships and get married because hookups are like a weed. It has to suffocate love and long term relationships in order to exist. If too many people decide to just sleep around until they are 30 years old, then it harms everybody’s ability to find love and get married because casual sex becomes the norm instead of sex in serious, exclusive relationships. In a traditional society, marriage and family is the #1 goal of life that you are supposed to be pursuing starting in your adolescent years, not when you are 25 or 30 years old. It also potentially threatens the long term stability of their marriage because the woman became too used to the idea of sleeping with men she did not consider to be father/husband material. This makes adultery and divorce easier to commit in the future.

I don’t think we really live in a liberal society in the west. I think it’s a dystopian authoritarian society which masquerades as something which values freedom. Being honest, how much freedom do we really have in society today? We are free. Free to do what they tell us!

I have never been one who values marriage. I do value love and family, but marriage just seems like something unnecessary. The wedding itself costs thousands, if we are talking about a traditional church wedding. The ceremony, the dress, catering, photographers, florists etc. I think you are looking at a minimum of 10k for a wedding. Then there is the possibility it won’t work out. Your contract with your wife and the state entitles your wife to half of everything you own.

A joining of the hands ceremony is a lot simpler and a lot more authentic in my opinion than the rigid church ceremony and a contract with the state. People drinking mead in the woods and the young couple going off to consumate their marriage in the woods just seems a lot more light hearted and fun and it probably costs much less

Then what about those who don’t want the commitment and obligations of married life? How would they be treated? There are a few good people on this forum, myself included, who enjoy personal freedom and don’t want to be tied down with a woman. This is for various reasons, ranging from disillusionment in love to not enough free time to invest in long term relationships etc. I don’t think forced marriages across the board would resolve all the problems with Western society.

I don’t think that casual sex hinders the desires of others to live married lives. It depends on the individual, their values and life circumstances. Plus, there isn’t an equal number of men and women so how would a traditional society account for this? What happens to those individuals who can’t be paired up?

Sadomasochism is prohibited because it is destructive to the soul of the person who gets hooked on such fetishes. Dating a sadomasochistic woman is like dating a heroin addict. They will do whatever it takes to satisfy their disgusting fetish. It doesn’t matter how good of a husband or father you are. If anything being a good husband or father is probably making her angry with you. It doesn’t matter if, by the standards of any normal woman, you are fantastic in the bedroom. A sadomasochist will destroy everything around her in order to pursue her fetish. I question whether anybody thinks it would be okay for our television channels to be flooded with advertisements for heroin? That’s how I feel about violent/extreme pornography being legal. Why do we allow the internet to be teeming with such destructive content that is even accessible to teenagers and even children?

I agree with this part. I’ve said before that this is a matter of degree, rather than being a black and white issue. For example some playful spanking isn’t really that big a deal if that’s what the woman is into. But when I watch porn I think nothing is more of a turn off than some guy slapping a girls face during sex. It isn’t arousing to see at all and it isn’t my cup of tea personally.

So this is why all the rules are in place. You cannot do anything that will impede other people’s ability to find a spouse and you cannot do anything that threatens the long term stability of your own, or other people’s marriage and families. Leftists hate us because we don’t believe men and women should be treated the same. Liberals dislike us because we do not believe in male or female independence. Refusing to marry is equivalent to depriving a member of the opposite sex of love because you wanted to pursue sexual variety (or other reasons).

So what is our justification for doing all this? How do we justify violating gender equality and individual freedom in order to guarantee as many people the opportunity to find love, form families, and keep the whole project together as we can? Well, it is our strong belief that not only is marriage and family the most important ingredient to human happiness, but that it is impossible or borderline impossible to find true happiness without it. Life long love is a much stronger generator of human happiness then the freedom to sexual variety or a fulfilling career is. Almost everybody who does live as lifelong bachelors, pursuing sexual variety, money, or achievement over love/family eventually regrets it. Roosh V regrets it and so did Wilt Chamberlain. Most Hollywood celebrities who pursue selfish lifestyles are depressed, struggle with substance abuse problems, some even commit suicide. Substance abuse and suicide are huge problems in every single liberal and leftist society out there. These problems are almost non-existent in traditional societies. The Philippines and Indonesia for example have a suicide rate of 2.4 per 100,000 and only 1 per 100,000 when it comes to fatal drug overdoses compared to suicide rates of between 10-15 in the US and Europe as well as drug overdose rates of 10 to as much as 30 per 100,000 in the United States and Iceland. People who get married and have their marriages fall apart may regret getting married. But this really just reflects that they accidentally married the wrong person. Their suffering comes from having failed to achieve life long love. It is not a judgment on the value of life long love itself, nobody who successfully finds life long love regrets having pursued it. Not a single story exists of somebody who says “I found the love of my life but I really wish I had spent it sleeping with hundreds of different men/women instead” or “I found the love of my life but I really wish I had spent more time in the office working instead of being with my family.” The vast majority of people who successfully find sexual variety in their life, on the other hand, do end up regretting it.

Refusing to marry is the equivalent of depriving someone of love? I fail to see the correlation. There are plenty of people who love each other and see no need for marriage. Isn’t marriage just a piece of paper anyway? I understand that some people might want to show commitment to one another and marriage might be their way of doing that, but some people (like me) see it as a waste of time. I’ve never desired marriage.

There are plenty of examples of people trapped in unhappy marriages. A man and woman trapped together in unhappiness and discontentment because of the house they paid for or because of the kids or some other reason. In your ideal traditionalist society what would become of such marriages? Would they be forced to stay together? Even if their relationship has reached such a level of toxicity it has become toxic for the children?

I think suicide rates are higher in western societies because people are colder and more solipsistic in general. This is due to cut throat toxic individualism instilled in children to “get ahead” etc. People only value money and not other people because they reflect the values instilled upon them by the society they live in. This isn’t exclusive to marriage and love, but also friendship and even family. For example most of my family are like strangers to me. There is family of mine in the next town who I never ever see. They don’t care about me, or anyone else.

People whose marriages collapse simply chose the wrong person? I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Two people can be perfectly matched, love each other in every way and be driven apart by circumstances of their lives. Not everyone and everything falls into these neat little boxes where everything can be explained or chalked up to people not adhering to arbitrary traditional values

I don’t think everyone regrets being a bachelor. I think most people are dissatisfied with their lives, whether they are single bachelors or married. The problem is our way of life is unnatural and alien to our souls. We are not physically or mentally designed to be autonomous machines and work such long and relentless hours. Look at tribal culture in the amazon and places like that where marriage and traditionalism aren’t really valued, but mental health issues are minimal and pretty much unheard of. That highlights economic systems and arbitrary laws as the cause of most people’s discontentment and mental illness.

The same thing applies to women’s independence. The vast majority of women who pursue full time careers, shun marriage and children, and just live for themselves their whole lives, also regret it. Male celebrities who are life long bachelors, regret it just as much. Many people fall into deep depressions in their older years because of this. Liberals keep trying to say “oh are you jealous because I can sleep with all these different men/women.” No, we’re not jealous. We know exactly where that path leads and we know it ends in misery. If you seem like a lost soul we’ll try to reform you but if you seem like a stubborn bull who will never understand where the path leads, then our goal is harm/damage reduction. How do we reduce the amount of damage you’ll cause as much as possible? To us, claiming that you are successful because you slept with 100, or 250, or 500 girls is like a heroin addict telling us he’s successful because he managed to find drug dealers and make enough money to finance his addiction. In other words, you are competing for a stupid prize that we know is going to make you miserable at some point, it may not be now, in five years, ten, or twenty, but it will eventually. We’re just trying to make sure your self-destruction doesn’t result in our destruction too. For this reason, I think there is a much stronger case to be made that people are entitled to having their marital/family life protected by the power of the community and government then that people are entitled to do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t violate, often very loose laws that do not adequately cover the broad range of ways people can seriously harm one another. Liberalism is really just the freedom to pursue your preferred method of self-destruction. It does not contribute anything meaningful to human happiness.

Some people change their priorities. For example I never wanted children. I didn’t think someone like me could ever handle the crushing responsibility of raising a child. I probably wouldn’t have ever had children if I could’ve helped it. However, now my daughter is here I love her more than anything. Making time for her and saving money to spend on her will always take precedence over meeting another woman or getting married. Marriage and women don’t make me happy, making my daughter happy makes me happy. The fact that I do it alone and without her mother is only better and more well suited for all our needs. Would we be criminalised or forced to stay together in the traditionalist society you proposed?

People like @Lucas88 value their own creative projects and self development over marriage and the obligations a long term relationship would bring. Would he be forced to marry someone who would just distract him from the things that make him happy?

Or @WilliamSmith who said he wanted to sleep with over 100 women. Throughout other threads he has pointed out he respects women and endeavours to make sure they enjoy the encounter as well rather than just concentrating on his own needs. This was evident in his contribution in the Really Good Sex thread. (If I am remembering correctly) my point is that he's a good guy despite not having traditionalist values. He doesn't believe women should be penned up like animals in brothels for the entertainment of young single men, or married men who want variety like what @Cornfed said.

In conclusion, I do value family and love. But I also value freedom. I do not think the government should be enforcing the values of any ideologues, regardless of whether they are woke alphabet people or those who want a traditionalist society enforced for the "good" of everyone. Because the reality of it is that it would not be good for everyone and good guys would be criminalised under it.

[Outcast9428]

@Pixel--Dude That is a lot to cover...

Tribal societies are made up of people who are, either retarded, or borderline retarded. Not saying that as a slur, the median IQ in tribal societies is only 70. An IQ below 70 is considered mental retardation, an IQ in the 70s is considered borderline retardation. In our modern society, even people who's IQ is in the 80s struggle to do basically anything. So a smart person by tribal standards would be a dumbass high school dropout in our society. Its very difficult to get a society with such a low degree of intelligence to plan or organize anything much less collectively agree to plan for and maintain a monogamous society. However, some tribal societies do succeed in raising their IQ a little bit. JD Unwin studied 80 tribal societies and 16 developed societies, and found that the maintenance of monogamy was the most important pillar to civilizational development.



His book is called "Sex and Culture." It is very long at 700 pages, but its literally impossible to have sexual liberalism and still be a civilized society. Every civilized society that abandoned monogamy has collapsed.

I've got to go, but I will return to this latter.

[CaptainSkelebob]

Here fella.....
Im calling you out
Tonight is the gunslinging showdown at sundown
Ur a hypocrite
You think Im not even worthy of basic curtesy or respect just because I said I would bang other women even when I get my hypothetical Thai Bride
@Cornfed wishes death on others yet you dont target him for his views
You call me selfish when ppl in the covid thread dont give a shite about passing a deadly disease onto others....
So does ur traditional idea of marriage have more value than the life of other ppl?
Your crazy

I had a major argument with Cornfed just two weeks ago over the exact same topic I argued with you about.

viewtopic.php?style=11&f=1&t=46290

COVID is a nothingburger. Should people stop driving cars because there's a chance of getting into an accident? We all know that's not practical, anymore then it is practical for everybody to stay indoors for years on end because of a virus that kills less then 0.1% of the people infected.

That isn't a similar argument though. A similar argument would be am I willing to punish murderers as much as adulterers? I would advocate a much harsher punishment for murderers, who I think should be imprisoned for life and made to work 8 hours a day like the rest of us do, but for no pay. That's the life debt of taking another person's life is that you lose all meaning to yours.

I do advocate a fairly harsh penalty for adultery though because it is somewhat life ruining. Of course its not the same as murder. But when someone commits adultery, the victim will never truly get their life back. They can pick up the pieces and try to move on, but it'll never be the same as it once was. Marriage is supposed to be a pledge for life. You spent the rest of your life with someone, you mix your genes together to make however many unique different persons you feel you can take care of or want to take care of. You are in charge of one another's needs and happiness and have pledged to take care of one another. The pledge you make when getting married is that you will support each other when times are good and when they are rough and you will find a way to get through it together. This is a commitment you make to each other, that you will do everything in your ability to make the other person happy, and they will do the same for you.

Adultery is a huge betrayal of that. It is an act of extreme selfishness. All because you want "variety?" That's disgusting. You guys are the male equivalent of women who divorce rape men. Your woman is not providing sufficient entertainment for you so you run off to somebody else. I would never want to be treated that way and I would be furious if I was treated that way so it makes me furious to see y'all talking about committing such a destructive act with such blase, casualness. But why should I be surprised given that you believe in the law of the jungle and might makes right.

One thing I am not is a hypocrite. When I was dating my ex girlfriend, I stopped watching porn, I refused to fantasize about any other woman, I tried not to even look at other attractive girls too much. Because to me, loyalty means everything. I expect it from my woman and I will give it, wholeheartedly, to her. I guess concepts like that aren't something you are able to understand though.

Ur wrong. I understand these concepts perfectly but I just think they are bullshit
Lets start with ur defence. You repressed natural urges to take a look at women you acknowledge are attractive because of some preconceptions you have about loyalty which are based on what exactly???
My might is right philosophy is based on the laws of nature
The strong prey upon the weak and life is a compotition of survival
The weak are meat and the strong must eat
Marriage is just a social contract.... women have financial needs that need to be satisfied and men have biological needs which need to be satisfied....
That is the essense of marriage....
Ur idea of traditionalism is based on nothing other then ur own whimsical fantasy.
I stand by my argument that you Outcast are a social Marxist who fears competition from strong alpha males as what you describe is sexual communism!!
How are you any different to these leftwin sjws who are trying to enforce their ideology onto everybody else???
The only difference between you and them is that they have the government backing them up and you dont....
What you have described is a utopia for beta males who are too weak to get girls for themselfs and need the government to arrange marriage for them to ensure they can get some p***y!!!
For everyone else this sounds like a complete nightmare but you dont give a f**k about what everyone else wants or feels do you???
That is why you are a hypocrite because you criticise me and others for not wanting to live life by ur own standard..
Like you have been ordained by god himself to uphold such strict standard of traditionalism
Time to leave ur ivory tower and join the rest of us in the real world!!

What you are describing as “sexual communism” is the system that all of Europe lived by for almost 1,000 years. You are calling it “sexual communism” in order to discredit it but implementing communism results in places like North Korea, Mao’s China, and the Soviet Union to form. Places that had no beauty or anything positive at all to say about them.

There is no comparison between North Korea and the spectacular culture of Old Europe. What you are calling sexual communism created a civilization that the entire world has envied for centuries. People’s admiration for Europe today has nothing to do with the mess that it is now. That’s not why tens of millions of people travel to Europe. They travel there because of Old Europe. Because old Europe built everything that is great. Nobody thinks Soviet architecture is superior to Gothic cathedrals. Nobody even thinks modern architecture from liberal countries is superior to Gothic cathedrals.

The 1950s is considered to be America’s golden age. The best time to have been alive. Surveys show both men and women were happier in the 1950s then in the following decades.

You know what kind of societies were built off of your ethics and way of thinking? African countries, Ancient Rome, Viking society, the Middle East. Might makes right and “the strong shall eat the weak” creates dystopian hellholes where 80% of the population lives in poverty and misery while the top dogs in society basically enslave everyone else. Your way of thinking is what creates nightmares. My way of thinking creates what many consider to be the best civilizations in history.

Fella! Rome was a well advanced country for their time!
The Romans had many innovations in their culture that contributed to the growth of the west
They are no way even near African countrys or the middle east who only bring poverty and disease
Gothic cathedrals dont look that nice and they represent why we havent had any decent progress technologically for the last thousand years
Why were the 1950s so great???
Did we even have a cure for polio back then??
Or any of the advancements which we have today that make our lives better??
You only think 1950s are better because that era and its outdated values best reflects what you want for society
That further goes to show that you value marriage and ur traditionalist prison world more than cures for diseases or any of the technology ur enjoying right now
Even more than the technology ur using to have this conversation

[Outcast9428]

Here fella.....
Im calling you out
Tonight is the gunslinging showdown at sundown
Ur a hypocrite
You think Im not even worthy of basic curtesy or respect just because I said I would bang other women even when I get my hypothetical Thai Bride
@Cornfed wishes death on others yet you dont target him for his views
You call me selfish when ppl in the covid thread dont give a shite about passing a deadly disease onto others....
So does ur traditional idea of marriage have more value than the life of other ppl?
Your crazy

I had a major argument with Cornfed just two weeks ago over the exact same topic I argued with you about.

viewtopic.php?style=11&f=1&t=46290

COVID is a nothingburger. Should people stop driving cars because there's a chance of getting into an accident? We all know that's not practical, anymore then it is practical for everybody to stay indoors for years on end because of a virus that kills less then 0.1% of the people infected.

That isn't a similar argument though. A similar argument would be am I willing to punish murderers as much as adulterers? I would advocate a much harsher punishment for murderers, who I think should be imprisoned for life and made to work 8 hours a day like the rest of us do, but for no pay. That's the life debt of taking another person's life is that you lose all meaning to yours.

I do advocate a fairly harsh penalty for adultery though because it is somewhat life ruining. Of course its not the same as murder. But when someone commits adultery, the victim will never truly get their life back. They can pick up the pieces and try to move on, but it'll never be the same as it once was. Marriage is supposed to be a pledge for life. You spent the rest of your life with someone, you mix your genes together to make however many unique different persons you feel you can take care of or want to take care of. You are in charge of one another's needs and happiness and have pledged to take care of one another. The pledge you make when getting married is that you will support each other when times are good and when they are rough and you will find a way to get through it together. This is a commitment you make to each other, that you will do everything in your ability to make the other person happy, and they will do the same for you.

Adultery is a huge betrayal of that. It is an act of extreme selfishness. All because you want "variety?" That's disgusting. You guys are the male equivalent of women who divorce rape men. Your woman is not providing sufficient entertainment for you so you run off to somebody else. I would never want to be treated that way and I would be furious if I was treated that way so it makes me furious to see y'all talking about committing such a destructive act with such blase, casualness. But why should I be surprised given that you believe in the law of the jungle and might makes right.

One thing I am not is a hypocrite. When I was dating my ex girlfriend, I stopped watching porn, I refused to fantasize about any other woman, I tried not to even look at other attractive girls too much. Because to me, loyalty means everything. I expect it from my woman and I will give it, wholeheartedly, to her. I guess concepts like that aren't something you are able to understand though.

Ur wrong. I understand these concepts perfectly but I just think they are bullshit
Lets start with ur defence. You repressed natural urges to take a look at women you acknowledge are attractive because of some preconceptions you have about loyalty which are based on what exactly???
My might is right philosophy is based on the laws of nature
The strong prey upon the weak and life is a compotition of survival
The weak are meat and the strong must eat
Marriage is just a social contract.... women have financial needs that need to be satisfied and men have biological needs which need to be satisfied....
That is the essense of marriage....
Ur idea of traditionalism is based on nothing other then ur own whimsical fantasy.
I stand by my argument that you Outcast are a social Marxist who fears competition from strong alpha males as what you describe is sexual communism!!
How are you any different to these leftwin sjws who are trying to enforce their ideology onto everybody else???
The only difference between you and them is that they have the government backing them up and you dont....
What you have described is a utopia for beta males who are too weak to get girls for themselfs and need the government to arrange marriage for them to ensure they can get some p***y!!!
For everyone else this sounds like a complete nightmare but you dont give a f**k about what everyone else wants or feels do you???
That is why you are a hypocrite because you criticise me and others for not wanting to live life by ur own standard..
Like you have been ordained by god himself to uphold such strict standard of traditionalism
Time to leave ur ivory tower and join the rest of us in the real world!!

What you are describing as “sexual communism” is the system that all of Europe lived by for almost 1,000 years. You are calling it “sexual communism” in order to discredit it but implementing communism results in places like North Korea, Mao’s China, and the Soviet Union to form. Places that had no beauty or anything positive at all to say about them.

There is no comparison between North Korea and the spectacular culture of Old Europe. What you are calling sexual communism created a civilization that the entire world has envied for centuries. People’s admiration for Europe today has nothing to do with the mess that it is now. That’s not why tens of millions of people travel to Europe. They travel there because of Old Europe. Because old Europe built everything that is great. Nobody thinks Soviet architecture is superior to Gothic cathedrals. Nobody even thinks modern architecture from liberal countries is superior to Gothic cathedrals.

The 1950s is considered to be America’s golden age. The best time to have been alive. Surveys show both men and women were happier in the 1950s then in the following decades.

You know what kind of societies were built off of your ethics and way of thinking? African countries, Ancient Rome, Viking society, the Middle East. Might makes right and “the strong shall eat the weak” creates dystopian hellholes where 80% of the population lives in poverty and misery while the top dogs in society basically enslave everyone else. Your way of thinking is what creates nightmares. My way of thinking creates what many consider to be the best civilizations in history.

Fella! Rome was a well advanced country for their time!
The Romans had many innovations in their culture that contributed to the growth of the west
They are no way even near African countrys or the middle east who only bring poverty and disease
Gothic cathedrals dont look that nice and they represent why we havent had any decent progress technologically for the last thousand years
Why were the 1950s so great???
Did we even have a cure for polio back then??
Or any of the advancements which we have today that make our lives better??
You only think 1950s are better because that era and its outdated values best reflects what you want for society
That further goes to show that you value marriage and ur traditionalist prison world more than cures for diseases or any of the technology ur enjoying right now
Even more than the technology ur using to have this conversation

You’re right, Ancient Rome was nowhere near African and Middle Eastern countries today… It was much much worse. Even in comparison to Somalia the average Roman citizen had a lower GDP in terms of purchasing power.

https://brilliantmaps.com/roman-empire-gdp/

No technological progress in the past 1,000 years? Wtf? Now I’ve heard some liberals try to claim there was no progress in the Medieval era which isn’t true either but what you said is just absurdly wrong. The past 1,000 years have been the only millennium of history with significant technological progress. Look at 3,000 BC to 2,000 BC, look at 1,000 BC to 0 AD. Practically no progress made at all.

The reason you have anything, including cures for polio, is because traditional sexual mores were built to favor intelligent men. All technological inventions were made by the so called “beta males” who you seem to think should go extinct. The end result of that would be Africa without all the improvements that European colonists made to their society.

Todays Western society is only existing off of the inertia of what previous generations built. Unless we go back to the playbook that steadily gave us all that technological progress you mentioned, we are definitely going to collapse.

There’s no such thing as outdated morals. There’s only societies with good morals and societies with bad morals.

[CaptainSkelebob]

I had a major argument with Cornfed just two weeks ago over the exact same topic I argued with you about.

viewtopic.php?style=11&f=1&t=46290

COVID is a nothingburger. Should people stop driving cars because there's a chance of getting into an accident? We all know that's not practical, anymore then it is practical for everybody to stay indoors for years on end because of a virus that kills less then 0.1% of the people infected.

That isn't a similar argument though. A similar argument would be am I willing to punish murderers as much as adulterers? I would advocate a much harsher punishment for murderers, who I think should be imprisoned for life and made to work 8 hours a day like the rest of us do, but for no pay. That's the life debt of taking another person's life is that you lose all meaning to yours.

I do advocate a fairly harsh penalty for adultery though because it is somewhat life ruining. Of course its not the same as murder. But when someone commits adultery, the victim will never truly get their life back. They can pick up the pieces and try to move on, but it'll never be the same as it once was. Marriage is supposed to be a pledge for life. You spent the rest of your life with someone, you mix your genes together to make however many unique different persons you feel you can take care of or want to take care of. You are in charge of one another's needs and happiness and have pledged to take care of one another. The pledge you make when getting married is that you will support each other when times are good and when they are rough and you will find a way to get through it together. This is a commitment you make to each other, that you will do everything in your ability to make the other person happy, and they will do the same for you.

Adultery is a huge betrayal of that. It is an act of extreme selfishness. All because you want "variety?" That's disgusting. You guys are the male equivalent of women who divorce rape men. Your woman is not providing sufficient entertainment for you so you run off to somebody else. I would never want to be treated that way and I would be furious if I was treated that way so it makes me furious to see y'all talking about committing such a destructive act with such blase, casualness. But why should I be surprised given that you believe in the law of the jungle and might makes right.

One thing I am not is a hypocrite. When I was dating my ex girlfriend, I stopped watching porn, I refused to fantasize about any other woman, I tried not to even look at other attractive girls too much. Because to me, loyalty means everything. I expect it from my woman and I will give it, wholeheartedly, to her. I guess concepts like that aren't something you are able to understand though.

Ur wrong. I understand these concepts perfectly but I just think they are bullshit
Lets start with ur defence. You repressed natural urges to take a look at women you acknowledge are attractive because of some preconceptions you have about loyalty which are based on what exactly???
My might is right philosophy is based on the laws of nature
The strong prey upon the weak and life is a compotition of survival
The weak are meat and the strong must eat
Marriage is just a social contract.... women have financial needs that need to be satisfied and men have biological needs which need to be satisfied....
That is the essense of marriage....
Ur idea of traditionalism is based on nothing other then ur own whimsical fantasy.
I stand by my argument that you Outcast are a social Marxist who fears competition from strong alpha males as what you describe is sexual communism!!
How are you any different to these leftwin sjws who are trying to enforce their ideology onto everybody else???
The only difference between you and them is that they have the government backing them up and you dont....
What you have described is a utopia for beta males who are too weak to get girls for themselfs and need the government to arrange marriage for them to ensure they can get some p***y!!!
For everyone else this sounds like a complete nightmare but you dont give a f**k about what everyone else wants or feels do you???
That is why you are a hypocrite because you criticise me and others for not wanting to live life by ur own standard..
Like you have been ordained by god himself to uphold such strict standard of traditionalism
Time to leave ur ivory tower and join the rest of us in the real world!!

What you are describing as “sexual communism” is the system that all of Europe lived by for almost 1,000 years. You are calling it “sexual communism” in order to discredit it but implementing communism results in places like North Korea, Mao’s China, and the Soviet Union to form. Places that had no beauty or anything positive at all to say about them.

There is no comparison between North Korea and the spectacular culture of Old Europe. What you are calling sexual communism created a civilization that the entire world has envied for centuries. People’s admiration for Europe today has nothing to do with the mess that it is now. That’s not why tens of millions of people travel to Europe. They travel there because of Old Europe. Because old Europe built everything that is great. Nobody thinks Soviet architecture is superior to Gothic cathedrals. Nobody even thinks modern architecture from liberal countries is superior to Gothic cathedrals.

The 1950s is considered to be America’s golden age. The best time to have been alive. Surveys show both men and women were happier in the 1950s then in the following decades.

You know what kind of societies were built off of your ethics and way of thinking? African countries, Ancient Rome, Viking society, the Middle East. Might makes right and “the strong shall eat the weak” creates dystopian hellholes where 80% of the population lives in poverty and misery while the top dogs in society basically enslave everyone else. Your way of thinking is what creates nightmares. My way of thinking creates what many consider to be the best civilizations in history.

Fella! Rome was a well advanced country for their time!
The Romans had many innovations in their culture that contributed to the growth of the west
They are no way even near African countrys or the middle east who only bring poverty and disease
Gothic cathedrals dont look that nice and they represent why we havent had any decent progress technologically for the last thousand years
Why were the 1950s so great???
Did we even have a cure for polio back then??
Or any of the advancements which we have today that make our lives better??
You only think 1950s are better because that era and its outdated values best reflects what you want for society
That further goes to show that you value marriage and ur traditionalist prison world more than cures for diseases or any of the technology ur enjoying right now
Even more than the technology ur using to have this conversation

You’re right, Ancient Rome was nowhere near African and Middle Eastern countries today… It was much much worse. Even in comparison to Somalia the average Roman citizen had a lower GDP in terms of purchasing power.

https://brilliantmaps.com/roman-empire-gdp/

No technological progress in the past 1,000 years? Wtf? Now I’ve heard some liberals try to claim there was no progress in the Medieval era which isn’t true either but what you said is just absurdly wrong. The past 1,000 years have been the only millennium of history with significant technological progress. Look at 3,000 BC to 2,000 BC, look at 1,000 BC to 0 AD. Practically no progress made at all.

The reason you have anything, including cures for polio, is because traditional sexual mores were built to favor intelligent men. All technological inventions were made by the so called “beta males” who you seem to think should go extinct. The end result of that would be Africa without all the improvements that European colonists made to their society.

Todays Western society is only existing off of the inertia of what previous generations built. Unless we go back to the playbook that steadily gave us all that technological progress you mentioned, we are definitely going to collapse.

There’s no such thing as outdated morals. There’s only societies with good morals and societies with bad morals.

I mean we could of been ahead further than we are now
I could of been enjoying a holiday on Mars
But I cant because we wasted time building cathedrals to worship sky fairies instead of knuckling down and making some real damn progress!!!
Christianity is the root of traditionalism and all christianity has ever done is hinder progress
Fighting and killing each other over whos imaginary friend is realist

[Outcast9428]

Ur wrong. I understand these concepts perfectly but I just think they are bullshit
Lets start with ur defence. You repressed natural urges to take a look at women you acknowledge are attractive because of some preconceptions you have about loyalty which are based on what exactly???
My might is right philosophy is based on the laws of nature
The strong prey upon the weak and life is a compotition of survival
The weak are meat and the strong must eat
Marriage is just a social contract.... women have financial needs that need to be satisfied and men have biological needs which need to be satisfied....
That is the essense of marriage....
Ur idea of traditionalism is based on nothing other then ur own whimsical fantasy.
I stand by my argument that you Outcast are a social Marxist who fears competition from strong alpha males as what you describe is sexual communism!!
How are you any different to these leftwin sjws who are trying to enforce their ideology onto everybody else???
The only difference between you and them is that they have the government backing them up and you dont....
What you have described is a utopia for beta males who are too weak to get girls for themselfs and need the government to arrange marriage for them to ensure they can get some p***y!!!
For everyone else this sounds like a complete nightmare but you dont give a f**k about what everyone else wants or feels do you???
That is why you are a hypocrite because you criticise me and others for not wanting to live life by ur own standard..
Like you have been ordained by god himself to uphold such strict standard of traditionalism
Time to leave ur ivory tower and join the rest of us in the real world!!

What you are describing as “sexual communism” is the system that all of Europe lived by for almost 1,000 years. You are calling it “sexual communism” in order to discredit it but implementing communism results in places like North Korea, Mao’s China, and the Soviet Union to form. Places that had no beauty or anything positive at all to say about them.

There is no comparison between North Korea and the spectacular culture of Old Europe. What you are calling sexual communism created a civilization that the entire world has envied for centuries. People’s admiration for Europe today has nothing to do with the mess that it is now. That’s not why tens of millions of people travel to Europe. They travel there because of Old Europe. Because old Europe built everything that is great. Nobody thinks Soviet architecture is superior to Gothic cathedrals. Nobody even thinks modern architecture from liberal countries is superior to Gothic cathedrals.

The 1950s is considered to be America’s golden age. The best time to have been alive. Surveys show both men and women were happier in the 1950s then in the following decades.

You know what kind of societies were built off of your ethics and way of thinking? African countries, Ancient Rome, Viking society, the Middle East. Might makes right and “the strong shall eat the weak” creates dystopian hellholes where 80% of the population lives in poverty and misery while the top dogs in society basically enslave everyone else. Your way of thinking is what creates nightmares. My way of thinking creates what many consider to be the best civilizations in history.

Fella! Rome was a well advanced country for their time!
The Romans had many innovations in their culture that contributed to the growth of the west
They are no way even near African countrys or the middle east who only bring poverty and disease
Gothic cathedrals dont look that nice and they represent why we havent had any decent progress technologically for the last thousand years
Why were the 1950s so great???
Did we even have a cure for polio back then??
Or any of the advancements which we have today that make our lives better??
You only think 1950s are better because that era and its outdated values best reflects what you want for society
That further goes to show that you value marriage and ur traditionalist prison world more than cures for diseases or any of the technology ur enjoying right now
Even more than the technology ur using to have this conversation

You’re right, Ancient Rome was nowhere near African and Middle Eastern countries today… It was much much worse. Even in comparison to Somalia the average Roman citizen had a lower GDP in terms of purchasing power.

https://brilliantmaps.com/roman-empire-gdp/

No technological progress in the past 1,000 years? Wtf? Now I’ve heard some liberals try to claim there was no progress in the Medieval era which isn’t true either but what you said is just absurdly wrong. The past 1,000 years have been the only millennium of history with significant technological progress. Look at 3,000 BC to 2,000 BC, look at 1,000 BC to 0 AD. Practically no progress made at all.

The reason you have anything, including cures for polio, is because traditional sexual mores were built to favor intelligent men. All technological inventions were made by the so called “beta males” who you seem to think should go extinct. The end result of that would be Africa without all the improvements that European colonists made to their society.

Todays Western society is only existing off of the inertia of what previous generations built. Unless we go back to the playbook that steadily gave us all that technological progress you mentioned, we are definitely going to collapse.

There’s no such thing as outdated morals. There’s only societies with good morals and societies with bad morals.

I mean we could of been ahead further than we are now
I could of been enjoying a holiday on Mars
But I cant because we wasted time building cathedrals to worship sky fairies instead of knuckling down and making some real damn progress!!!
Christianity is the root of traditionalism and all christianity has ever done is hinder progress
Fighting and killing each other over whos imaginary friend is realist

Classic atheist nonsense. Science wouldn’t exist in the first place without religion.

https://www.reasonfaithscience.com/