Among blogs in this part of the Internet, you’ll often see men complaining about “traditional conservatives” or “TradCons,” citing them as a threat to men that is equal or greater than feminism. “TradCons” are castigated because they purportedly want to force men back into rigid gender roles and because they enforce “male disposability,” whatever that means.
In the views of MRAs and others who bash “TradCons,” their number one enemy isn’t Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Gloria Steinem or any of the numerous feminists who’ve had an active role in shaping public thought and anti-male government policies, but Phyllis Schlafly. Schlafly, the kindly old lady who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970’s—and who has almost no influence outside of conservative circles—is a favorite target of these intellectual pygmies.
Manospherians who treat “TradCons” as a greater threat to men than feminists—or even a threat at all—are not only disastrously wrong, they’re total chickenshits as well. “TradCons” are a popular whipping boy for “men” who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the left hasn’t consistently been the sole, primary enemy of men. Indeed, a good many of the talking heads who attack “TradCons” are likely Marxist infiltrators themselves.
The Fallacy Of Moderation
The “conservatives are just as bad as leftists” argument falls apart merely by observing the power differential between the two groups. People who argue that neomasculinists are just as bad as feminists or that Return of Kings is the male equivalent of Jezebel also fall prey to this fallacy. It’s a popular argument from moderates who are too cowardly to take a side in the culture wars.
Leftists and feminists have won every significant cultural battle of the past century. Just in the past six years alone, since Obama became president, the Overton window has shifted so far to the left that America is barely recognizable anymore. We’ve seen gay marriage rammed down the throats of every American, Christian business owners persecuted by the government itself for not wanting to act contrary to their beliefs, and the concept of rape redefined to “anything that makes a woman uncomfortable.”
Does this sound like a world where “TradCons” have any power? It might have been plausible to regard “SoCons” or “TradCons” as a threat ten years ago, when President Bush and the GOP were actively courting evangelical Christian support in their successful national campaigns, but those days are long gone. The “TradCons” that manospherians castigate are a powerless minority; indeed, the impotence of mainstream conservatives is why the “cuckservative” epithet has become so popular.
Manospherians who whine about traditionalist conservatives being a threat on par with feminists are tilting at windmills. They’re adopting the pose of feigned powerlessness that leftists use, the pose of those who control every important institution in the West yet still have nightmares about right-wing Republican fascists coming to murder them in their sleep. Moderates who insist that they’re “above” the conflicts between feminists and anti-feminists are just weaklings who are unwilling to commit to a political stance.
The Enemy Of Your Enemy
Yet even if conservatives and leftists were equally matched in power and influence, the “anti-TradCon” manospherians would still be wrong.
MGTOW cultists and politically confused MRAs like to pretend that the right is just as misandric as the left, a claim that falls apart at the slightest examination. Almost all of the attacks on MRAs and anti-feminists come from the left, whether it’s the Southern Poverty Law Center declaring manosphere sites to be “hate” groups to feminists organizing lynch mobs to hunt down and harass men who advocate masculine virtues in their writing.
While conservatives may ignore or dismiss the concerns of anti-feminists from time to time, there is no individual or group on the right that attacks the manosphere with the vitriol and hate that leftists do. There’s no right-wing equivalent of the SPLC attempting to proscribe Return of Kings, and no conservative news site habitually refers to men’s rights’ activists as the “abusers’ lobby.” Indeed, in the past year, we’ve seen major right-wing sites like Breitbart warm up to our views.
While it’s true that many so-called “TradCons” take issue with what they perceive as the licentious lifestyles we promote, most conservatives are content to let others live their lives as they please. They only want to keep unwanted influences out of their communities. It’s the left—and only the left—that is intolerant of dissent and insists on forcing everyone to conform to their ideology.
Ultimately, the agita against “TradCons” in the manosphere is borne out of ignorance and malice. There are a lot of men in this part of the Internet who’ve learned the truth about women and masculinity yet are unwilling to abandon their “blue pill” beliefs in other areas. That’s assuming that these men aren’t cultural Marxist entryists who are seeking to lead us astray.
Read More: Knockout Game And Misguided Masculinity
“It’s the left—and only the left—that is intolerant of dissent and insists on forcing everyone to conform to their ideology.”
This is one of the most important statements I’ve read in the last year. It sums up the power struggle that we have been experiencing and the reason that our country is succombing to leftist bullshit.
The key problem is that western society believes offensiveness discredits criticism, giving the left a pass to dismiss any criticism by attaching “hate” to it.
To desensitize the populace, you must wound the sensitive until it becomes the norm. A bit cruel, but necessary nonetheless.
Irony being that the left is the most hateful group on the planet and has been since its arrival.
“you must wound the sensitive until it becomes the norm”
———————————
Yes, the needs of the many outweigh even the NEEDS of the few.
Let alone their wants.
Exactly. I’m so sick of talking to people who are starting to realize what the Left has done, and then they go “yeeeaahh but the Right and conservatives are just as bad/equally responsible for problem xyz…”
No dipshit. It’s the Left and weak Republicans who are always playing defense and compromising because they implicitly accept the Left’s premises on everything.
Forney is right that it’s indecisiveness and lack of moral clarity (again, Leftism) that breeds this attitude. Listen to the colonel in Full Metal Jacket who questions Joker on his peace pin: “How about getting with the program? Why don’t you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?”
By the way Cruz seems to be going hard for the Evangelical vote, so those days may come back.
Whenever a candidate courts the Evangelical vote, it’s usually pandering. The major gains made by the Gaystapo, coupled with the antics of headcases like the Westboro Baptist “church”, have put Judeo-Christian morality in decline.
Even as a Christian myself, I understand why people view religion with a cynical eye, but in comparison with the rabid beast that is the collective Left, things like classroom prayer seem rather logical now.
JOBs AT HOME SPECIAL REPORT………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT…..jlm…..
➤➤➤➤ http://googlejobslargestmediacareersonline/start/earning/…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛
Liberalism is a secular, dogmatic religion.
wow! I had no idea giving rem jobs online could pay so much, your dad must be so proud
Exactly! Not all republicans are conservative which is why there has been a civil war going on in the GOP as the establishment types (led by Boehner, Mcconnell and Preibus) who support obama at least indirectly war with the grassroots legit conservatives, like Ted Cruz and Mark Meadows, who don’t. So far the GOPEST (grand old progressives establishment) has been winning but if they can get Boehner out the tide will start to turn.
I personally left the GOP once Romney got the nod. I still remember how that pos Boehner personally sold out conservatives and the Ron Paul types on the floor, when he rang the gavel 3 times against the “nays” to the Romney inspired rule 12 changes.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/romneys-rnc-power-grab-what-really-happened
Vietnam- Vain glorious bullshit war on farmers and children.
Try this instead
It’s a far-left goal to make some ideas so anathema that they can’t even be discussed. Pro-immigration Europeans, for instance, like sling around accusations of racism instead of actually debating people concerned with crime rates and lack of assimilation among immigrants.
That’s not to say right-wingers have never tried this sort of ideological suppression, they just don’t have the support of the entertainment industry or the cool factor that left-wingers tend to have. American Neocons, for instance, created an unassailable cult of the military after 9/11. If a presidential candidate stated that Da Troops didn’t deserve constant accolades and were adequately compensated by the GI Bill/Base Housing/Tricare he’d never get elected.
Some truth in that. But the cult of the military is fleeting, and cannot be sustained very long in the face of bodybags. Not in a republic with a free press, anyway. What the Left is doing, by contrast, is self sustaining and self replicating. The welfare state always grows, it never gets smaller.
Leftists and feminists have won every significant cultural battle of the past century.
Well of course. Because cultural battles are ones of social constructs borne of collective thinking and acceptance, not the laws of nature and the physical world. The left can’t deal with simple facts and truth such as men are stronger and smarter than women as a sex. So they must take the war to the domain of ideology, where they can simply state that not only are women equal to men, but in many cases superior to men. Since all the ammunition they need is consensus of the galactically stupid — which our society produces in droves — then they succeed by simply laying siege to the time-tested and proven laws of the universe. Their siegeworks are the media, education, politics, and the criminal justice system. They’ve laid siege to the standards of our culture that made us a great to begin with, and have torn them down over the last century.
Western man, out of moral duty to provide for western woman, has built a society that enabled western woman to escape a survival existence and with the luxury o the freedom man provides, indulge her scheming mind and its selfish inclinations to attack the golden goose that has given her so much. She want’s what she has not built, nor earned, because in our current cultural context, her lesser mind elevates her above all else. And we all know her court of beta boy followers also place her on her pedestal to be worshiped.
It’s only a matter of time before woman will have to deal with the reality of her existence again, like who will provide her toilet paper, tampons and premium Vodka. And if man simply stops giving them to her in response to her horrible behavior, perhaps, after a long while, she’ll come to her senses and respect what and who man is again. If not, she and all her sisters will simply implode in a fit of rage against man for not continuing to slave to provide her what she wants. Either way, I don’t give a shit because I can produce toilet paper, and Vodka , not that a man really needs either, and will refuse to give it to her until she bows at my feet and says, “My Lord”. I’ll even settle for, “My King.”
Wonderfully stated friend. Very inspiring eloquence.
Most leftists are not ideological extremists. They are opportunists who scapegoat one group to curry favor with another. Feminism isn’t even really a political movement but a bunch of dupes. Women don’t “earn more” due to feminism since men already share wealth with women through marriage. The state that manages welfare benefits takes the lion’s share and gives it to illegal immigrants, cronies, etc.
Even as RoK supports traditionalism in many ways, the PUA tips undermines that paradigm by encouraging women to be slutty. How many women have been left as less quality in Roosh’s wake?
Bullsh*t. Just because we exploit the current nature of women does not mean that we condone it. Just because I fuck a slut doesn’t mean I’m a feminist.
I remember from my youth that the easiest women to have sex with weren’t sluts but rather just nice, naive girls who wanted to please men they liked. They’re like deer in the forest and I’m not a chivalrous white knight, but I felt some protectiveness towards them. Fortunately, I think most of these women wound up marrying young and many of them simply had families and are still married and doing well. I meet them at family and high school reunions.
That said, certainly, if someone can game “sluts” then more power to ’em but they are also the most dangerous of lays since these women can often be unpredictable and amoral.
There can be no sluts if nobody will fuck them. Pretty simple. A principled stance would preclude dealing with women like that.
On the other hand, we have a tragedy of the commons. Taking a principled stance just means that the next guy is going to graze his cattle on the grass you decided not to overgraze.
The tragedy of the commons is solved by law. The proper solution to feminism lies not in the adoption of principled stances by individual men, but in legal reform to undo the havoc that the leftists have wrought.
So while you may be an enabler, or making things worse, that doesn’t mean that the problem can be solved by you simply changing your behaviour – don’t bother. We need to change the law.
Rightist: “I disagree with your view and prefer to take the Voltaire approach. Despite our differing activism we agree to disagree and to do so in a civilized fashion.
Leftist: FUCK YOU… (insert “ISM” “IST” or “PHOBE” -style suffix attack here)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f9eaf88347836b53c8c9a8b3d68a7d89fa3f3cb6373e03df9b5811cb11a9a91.jpg
Sure thing.
I’m not unsympathetic of course. But I feel the Right has lost some of the “cool” factor it had during the Reagan era. Republicans seem to think they’re damaging Obama with bizarre conspiracy theories about Michelle Obama being born a man or the 50th Benghazi panel but it’s just coming across as kooky and desperate to many.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411SPQyUSQL._SS500_.jpg
MRAs regularly use arguments similar to those of feminists, of course cultural tradition gets to em.
I’ll take the TradCon over the “progressive” anyday.
Tradition and progress are not mutually exclusive, it just so happens what the west thinks is progressive isn’t progress at all, but merely social equality. It also appears to me that fear of tradition is based on little more than the assumption that tradition exists for no reason other than “People in the past were mean and backwards”.
Amongst liberals there is no serious examination to the merits and origins of tradition. These are the people who insist that patriarchy hurts men too, because it holds men to standards like strength and toughness, without discussing why society adopted these standards in the first place. This suggests that the liberal push for progress is not in fact, a desire for progress, but rather an ideological instrument they use to justify resentment of the establishment.
“an ideological instrument they use to justify resentment of the establishment”
—————————-
Not the establishment.
They ARE the establishment.
The targets of their resentment are the normal people.
Normal, manly men and womanly women.
Liberalism is basically the freaks getting back at all the normal kids in school.
>> … those who control every important institution in the West yet still have
>> nightmares about right-wing Republican fascists coming to murder them
>> in their sleep.
That reads very r-selected to me.
Good article!
I’ve always said that “Tradcons” and Neo-Masculinists should join together, if only because we have the same enemies. And truthfully, I think most of us here do generally respect “Tradcons”, and vice versa, even if we don’t agree on everything.
As a side note, I think most men inherently have little respect for whiners like MGTOWs and MRAs, and thus they’re something of a dying movement.
By the way, Matt, male disposability=
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender
Saw the title: knew it was a forney.
Good article. Shared with my fellow shitlords.
The problem with *some* TradCons is that they sometimes advocate marrying sluts and other kinds of save-a-hoisms.
Every group have them bad apples. But i think these kind of tradcons are cuckservatives
Considering the mess liberals and feminists have made of this country and western civilization a strong return to Traditional Family Values not to mention Traditional Masculinity is Definitely In Order, Self Discipline and a return to virtue a definite must.
You said a mouthful there. Sometimes I think no one knows the meaning of self discipline anymore.
I grew up in a different time than most of you, I can think of nothing better than to be surrounded by traditional conservatives as I remember them. Times change along with definitions I guess. I grew up around REAL men. They went to church regularly, drank like real men, worked like real men, would give the shirt off their back to help someone who needed help but at the same time they didn’t take shit off ANYBODY. People were much more respectful of others back then, not because they were being nice but because being disrespectful was a good way to get an ass kicking. In the unlikely event the cops showed up, they(Cops) would say something like “you shouldn’t have been talking that way to him,dumbass, now go home before you get another ass kicking”.
I would take traditional conservatives any day over the weak minded,weak willed leftist pussies.
I read a lot on ROK about white knighting and mostly I agree it’s best not to get involved in stuff that ain’t none of your business but I have a story from long ago I would like to share. My father was a tough rascal that did not put up with foolishness and was well thought of in our community. One Saturday afternoon when I was about 10 we had some visitors come to the house. It was a lady who lived nearby and her three teenage daughters. When the explained the reason for the visit I was asked to leave the room, being a nosy little shit though I hung around close enough that I could hear. The lady’s husband ( I remember him well) was an ornery old mean drunk bastard most of the time and had gotten fond of coming home drunk and beating on her and their daughters. She had come to ask mama and daddy for advise on what to do, she was scared that he was going to seriously injure or kill one of the girls. He had gotten drunk that morning and tried to rip the door off her car and she got scared and loaded up the girls and left. I remember it being quiet in there for a minute and daddy said ” don’t worry about it I will take care of it for you” and he got up and walked out.
I heard from a witness that Daddy found him at the local watering hole. He walked in and went right up to him and said “if I hear one more time about you beating on your wife or kids again I’m going to stomp your ass every time I see you from now on”. He was a different man after that and as far as I know he never got drunk and beat any of them again. From time to time white knighting isn’t all bad.
Some things need to be said. Truth is I look at the mess of today that liberals have wrought upon us and well we need to toss it out and start over.
this is an appropriate example of white knighting, he protected thoseweaker than him when it was actually needed. unfortunatley alot of whiteknightsdefend ridicoulous shit like rape shiel ect, to”protect women” without actually realizing they are breaking down society
The sin of the TradCons is holding men responsible to what Rollo Tommasi calls the “First Set of Books.” SoCons/TradCons pressure American males to behave as if they were still in the 1950s when it comes to marriage and family life, and they pedestalize women so much that they’re reluctant to criticize them, so they pretend that the faults of modern women are a reflection of the faults of the males. This entices them to go much harder after men (and to believe they’re heroes for doing so) in advancing laws and policies which supposedly protect women and children but which really just push the feminist anti-male agenda all the more.
SoCons might be reasoned with, but they have a weird view of human nature, with the human female being a weak angel in need of protection, and the human male as a careless and corrupting individual from whom a woman needs protection (and from whom resources must be extracted to the female’s benefit.)
The feminist state we have today could not have come about without TradCons/SoCons assisting the feminists many policy goals when it came to family life and gender issues.
I think the primary problem with tradcons is that they think the leftists are somehow reasonable. This makes them susceptible to being infiltrated or coopted.
I think GK Chesterton was very wise when he said progressivism is a prejudice rather than a dogma. While the conservative dogma may hold up the nuclear family as an ideal, the progressive prejudice is merely to make the family less like the nuclear family as much as possible.
It’s good to see someone calling out the article. Look at the cap-doffing Victorian/Edwardian culture from which first-wave feminism sprung, in which men were expected to play the fiddle while the ship sank, die pointlessly in the trenches, and work sixteen-hour days, largely out of the tradcon “real man” type shaming.
Tradcons are a key part of the problem for creating the permissive, mollycoddling social conditions which helped to produce this generation of women. It is very important that we identify beta-male behavior throughout history rather than take a curmudgeonly “everything was better back then” attitude.
I’m with you guys on this.
This isn’t the 1950s.
Imagine a world without Instagram whores and offshored labour.
This isn’t the 1950s.
We should conserve what is good, but some shit is just outdated.
Heh, I see what you did there.
I fear it’s so subtle that it went right under the radar.
You were allowed to publicly shame women for being whores in the 1950’s, so while the Neo-cons might want it to be the 1950’s again like everything it has to have balance.
Nowadays society worships whores
so many people talk about the 1950s like if it was time where everyone still had tradition values and there was no feminism or leftism. the truth is, feminism started back in the 1910’s or earlier with female suffrage. Leftism as a whole started back in the late 1700s with the French revolution (that’s where we get the terms Left and Right from), and the American revolution, which produced new democratic political systems without kings and queens. If you want real traditionalism, the 1950s weren’t it. You have to go back at least to the 1800s, and possibly earlier.
I agree.
The radical ideas of 19th century feminism were the natural extension of 18th century Enlightenment humanist ideas. Women who protested for legal equality, and the abandonment of their responsibilities, did so shouting “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!”
Even so, the average women who supported feminism then, as now, and the men who were cowed by it, were not ideological. The women were simply in rebellion, just as Eve herself once rebelled. They were doing what women do, boldly seeking freedom without limitation, obligation or consequence, and equality which expands rights, without the loss of privileges or the expansion of burdens.
Sadly, the men were also doing what men do. When women rebel, man’s natural instinct is to appease, just as Adam caved to Eve’s rebellion, rather than following his God. Those men who have passively allowed the transition from the world of the mid-19th century to that of the present, were mostly passive, casual conservatives who caved when the pressure, privately or publicly, became too great for them to oppose without discomfort. They chose the selfish way out.
That’s what this is all about; selfishness. We are here because successive generations of men and women chose selfishness, over principle and obedience. Some of the men were ideologically driven, but most of them were just cowards.
That’s why we can’t suppose that it’s just the ideological Left’s fault.
The beliefs of the trad-cons are deeply radical, and they fight to consolidate previous Leftist gains they have taken as their own. There’s nothing “traditional,” or Christian about them.
Trad-cons find it easier to pretend that present circumstances, have just always been. They’ve talked themselves into believing that supporting equality for women in legal, cultural, social and religious spheres, is just defending traditional values and Christian belief. They passively go along with increasing levels of radicalism in their communities, but then pretend as though nothing the Church teaches has changed between the time of Christ and the present. They go out of their way to wrench biblical statements and cultural practices of the past, to conform to the present accepted level of radicalism, or just dismiss that which cannot be reconciled as an “out-dated cultural practice,” or “a biblical injunction only applicable to the time.” It’s foolishness. It’s heresy. It’s selfishness.
And it’s surreal, but make no mistake, it’s believed. Nevermind that these beliefs are entirely at odds with nearly two millennia of Christian cultural and religious practice, or for that matter, the clear words of the bible on the issues. It doesn’t matter. To conclude that they’re actually defending the devil’s work, would be too much for them to bear.
The problem with only blaming the Left, and falling to criticize “trad-cons,” is that they’re neither traditional, nor are they conserving anything, save the Leftist gains of yesterday. That needs to be said.
You nailed it. Social conservatives are very pro-woman and I stopped talking to one because he would snap at me every time I made a locker room comment on women. You will find that most social conservatives support the yes means yes law, and are some of the biggest white knights.
On the other hand Matt is right: stay away from them and they leave you alone.
edit: Most social conservatives call themselves Christians.
They call themselves ‘Christians’ when they are actually ‘Churchians’.
BTW, ‘Churchians’ are ‘Christian’ feminists (feminism-influenced women who are ‘Christian’ in name only, who cherry-pick the Bible to glorify females and damn males) and their male SoCon and TradCon simps and tools.
I’m a social conservative but i am under no illusions about what society is like today …. i adopt many of the same attitudes as you guys because we simply don’t live in the 1950’s . That doesn’t mean i can’t think theoretically and wish for a lean towards that once again though
I got into an Argument with a Tradcon about women attackers and self Defense, the Tradcon believed even in self defense a Man shouldn’t harm a woman, he believed even if the woman killed his family and children with a 12 ga shotgun the attacking female shouldn’t be harmed, now I agree that Leftism is solely responsible for Feminism and societal moral erosion but in my opinion that Tradcon had some pretty ass-backward thinking.
Thats pretty extreme thinking all right, but I wonder how common it is.
THIS. Exactly.
TRADCONS ARE WHITE KNIGHTS.
All the shit Feminists say has hardly any consequence in real life. They aren’t men, so they don’t really have the means to impose their worldview through sheer force like other movements did. Our problem is TradCon White Knights creating, promoting and supporting pro-female policies that effectively harm men in real life.
My problem is not that a female wants to rape alimony, child support and half my shit out of me in Court. My problem is the TradCon White Knights who are out to “protect women and children”, thus allowing her to effectively do so. I damn well know it was the religious Right who originally came up with alimony and child support laws, not the Left.
My problem is not that females will try to get competition in the form of prostitution, titty bars and porn banned. My problem is that TradCon White Knights will pass legislation to effectively do so out of concern that they are “immoral” (their code word for “sinful”) or some other meaningless shit.
My problem is not a female who feels she’s entitled to raise her voice and her hand against me. My problem is the White Knights who are waiting to jump at my very first attempt to give her that dose of “equality” she so badly wants, thus allowing her to effectively get away with it.
My problem is not that females will try to overtake and impose their
ways on male spaces. My problem is TradCon manginas who can never say no to women.
You want a surefire way to rally TradCons to a cause? You just need to suggest that their precious little White females are somehow in danger (nothing is more powerful for a TradCon than the image of a White woman being raped by some non-White “barbarian”). They live and die for their women. This feverish, visceral, unbridled obsession with their females is the reason why White women have become the most privileged class in all of human history. No one but TradCons are to blame for that.
Eloquently stated.
I’ve been telling everyone in my conservative political circles on AND off of here: Return of Kings is the FUTURE of 3 pillar conservatism…not only does it present a neomasculine perspective molted from the remains of former manginas and others who took the red pill and saw the light, but also paleoconservatives like myself who have come to understand that the only real change is the one that comes as a direct result of your input alone.
Neomasculinists and paleocons overlap in virtually every field…we both adhere to principles greater than ourselves (faith hope and charity) and we both believe that feminists are the TRUE enemy..white knights/manginas are simply slaves indoctrinated to feminist beliefs that the marxist feminists support.
We both believe in smaller more responsible government, we believe in foreign policy that isn’t interventionist in nature, and we both share common ground on the social issues.
Despite our minor disagreements (a few of the ROK faithful are atheists) we all come together where it matters most: our mutual opposition to the enemy of feminism, wherever and whenever it manifests.
Thanks Forney for another quality article.
Could rape shield laws have passed without the assistance of social conservatives?
God, Matt Forney can be so stupid sometimes.
…….. because they enforce “male disposability,” whatever that means.
Are you so dense you do not understand what male disposability means?
Remember, Tradcons are the ones who got us into this mess.
“Remember, Tradcons are the ones who got us into this mess.”
——————–
And why were they able to get us into this mess?
Because our grandparents and great grandparents were ‘enlightened’ , ‘civilized’ types that didn’t hit women enough (back when this could still be done)?
The USA from the beginning was a toxic mix of consumerism, get rich quick. uncultured rabble coming off of boats, puritan pruditry, etc. that could make a mess of things.
In Europe, even if you live in Sweden or Britain, you can find an easyjet fare for 50 bucks to go to a country where prostitution is legal or decriminalized and get nookie without having to beg for it from a dinner date. In the states, that is considerably harder and the brothels outside of Vegas are expensive and not good quality.
We need to have what’s happening with gambling and marijuana happen with prostitution.
Chef:
A prostitute is someone who loves you
No matter who you are, or what you look like.
Yes, it’s true, children.
That’s not why you pay a prostitute, No, you don’t pay her to stay, you pay her to leave afterwards.
That’s why I praise the lord for prostitutes!
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. James Taylor!
James Taylor:
A prostitute is like any other woman
They all trade somethin’ for sex and they do it well.
Chef:
And that’s why I say
I didn’t think there was any animosity towards Tradcons in the neomasculine community. I thought that we support traditional gender roles, but understand that the western world doesn’t, so we encourage game. In fact, aside from game and pre-marital sex, what differences are there?
Hey Matt Forney, was Title IX merely the doing of thems librulz?
I wrote a lengthy piece on these issues here:
https://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/feminism-conservatism-and-radical-traditionalism/
Very astute article. Many of the same relations I came to in college myself, although although at a later time than yourself.
The thing about the title ‘Tradcon’ is its kind of ambiguous. Is it synonymous with Paleocon? Conservatives haven’t really had much to do with Traditionalism in the ideological sense, so its an odd portmanteau. Even Paleocons just want to turn back the clock to the 1940s, failing to realize that things were going to hell even then. It’s better than the garden variety Conservatives of course, who want to go back to… what is it now? 2005? It keeps changing.
Conservatism in all forms isn’t an enemy of men, but it is an annoyance. It safeguards Liberalism’s gained ground, defending it as a pillar of ‘tradition’ when its nothing of the sort. Today’s Conservatives fight to protect the policies that Liberals enacted 40 years ago! This sucks men into the game of democracy before long, and then they’re thinking that voting could actually help them in some way.
In terms of the original definition of Left vs. Right, both Conservatism and Liberalism are left wing. If you want to explore true right wing thinking, ignore Mark Levin and read Joseph De Maistre. Civilization did not begin 300 years ago, it began 8000 years ago.
Men need to study this and ask the question, what is it exactly that Conservatives want to ‘conserve’. Forney is right that social conservatives aren’t likely to attack you at all in the same way ardent Liberals do, but I think for real men to take the whole red pill, they will end up far far far to the right of Pat Buchanan.
I hear conservatives all the time ridiculing places like Saudi Arabia for its treatment of women. Therefore I can’t trust them whatsoever. So the idea is, they know just the “right amount” of liberalism and freedom that women need to make them happy without ruining our society? Sorry, but the reason we got where we are today is because at one time, powerful white men who controlled EVERYTHING decided it would be a good idea to open up and let women vote, or initiate no fault divorces, or enter the workplace and compete with men, or whatever. It was conservative men who gave women the power they have today.
I like to contrast this site with Zerohedge (completely different readership and purposes and articles btw). Zerohedge is violently anti-establishment and especially anti-neocon, completely rejecting the wars which have bankrupted our nation, trickle down economics which has destroyed the middle class, etc. but *without accepting the left party as the answer*. Conversely, ROK seems to consistently attack so many of the bad ideas that come from the left, but then much of the readership here wants to identify with the right / Republican party. No.
Agreed. The left are enemy #1, the right enemy #2. I get frustrated to no end when I talk to friends and relatives who have some understanding of what is happening in the world but then start regurgitating republican talking points. You’ll know these types by their blaming everything on Obama, as if before him none of these long range plans were ever in motion.
Could all of this left/right, thesis+anti-thesis=synthesis garbage just be the product of lazy thinking? If your not one side, your the other? Sad if that’s the case.
USE the right.
Don’t worship them.
Most people are not naturally cut out to deal with philosophical questions, and make decisions on public policy. This is the result of embracing democracy. Eventually we get the rule of the thoughtless mob.
I think I would be in-line with conservative politics, it’s just that I perceive the “conservatives” to be just as corrupt and backstabbing as anyone else.
Right-wing in theory vs. right-wing in reality.
“I perceive the “conservatives” to be just as corrupt and backstabbing”
—————
And at what point in your adult life did you discover the whole world is full of corruption that you were supposed to have found out and gotten over with it back when you were a teenager!?!?
Fair enough.
But the point is who do you vote for when you know both parties will exploit you?
Conservative policies perhaps. I could have been a Republican when Barry Goldwater ran, but no other right leader in America has been a true conservative, and Goldwater was well before I was born. In America, Republicans are more interested in being anti-environment, anti-immigrant, and anti-peace than anything productive or helpful.
It’s all just a fight about what team you are on, team red or team blue. In many ways Bill Clinton was one of the most “conservative” presidents we have had in my life, yet he is probably the *most* hated by the right wing, even though he instituted welfare to work, balanced the budget, outlawed gay marriage, and other talking points the Republicans love to talk about but never implement. If he was on their team, they would be praising him constantly, but since he’s a member of the other party, everything bad that happened during the 1990s was his fault.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-bill-clinton-became-a-republican-hero/
The Republicans did implement them.
Everything you listed that Clinton “accomplished,” happened when it did, why it did, because the Republicans had complete control of Congress in ’94 for the first time since FDR took office. It was Newt Gingrich who pushed Clinton to triangulate, and sign those Republican bills into law. The Democrats fought them in Congress all the way. There was nothing conservative about Bill Clinton. We just lucked out that Bill Clinton believed first and foremost, in Bill Clinton.
Opposing open borders does not make one anti-immigrant, but every conservative culture is anti-immigrant, when bringing in those immigrants would change the traditional culture. Liberals support it, because they’re selfish, and they want cheap labor for their own benefit, even if it comes at the cost of the preservation of the nation’s traditional culture, or the standard of living of average people.
Opposing the global Marxist fraud of “climate change” does not make one anti-environment. Conservatives conserve nature around them, they don’t worship it.
And Barry Goldwater wasn’t a conservative, he was a classical liberal.
Yeah, it’s really hard to have any kind of political discussions when they have totally perverted words such as “Liberal” to mean their exact opposite in just a couple of decades. What does Democrat vs Republican mean? What does conservative vs liberal mean? The perversion and destruction of language is the first step to controlling a people.
“So the idea is, they know just the “right amount” of liberalism and freedom that women need to make them happy without ruining our society?”
—————-
Yes, the right is full of shit this way.
Every rightist that has ever lived thinks that the lesser liberalism they grew up with is the natural order of the cosmos (that has ALWAYS been since the beginning of time).
The point is not to be for their (older) version of liberalism.
The point is that it takes the fiercest rowing in the world to just stay in one place in the river that flows out to that sea of madness.
The point is to think 4 dimensionally because most people can’t.
If the right isn’t helped out then eventually even David Fat-rolly could someday be remembered as a dinosaur because he didn’t think men should have to wear chastity belts or something.
I think they want to “conserve” their elite status as masters of the universe, while a homogenized multi-cultural group of slaves fights for their table scraps.
There’s an interesting theory that the elites want to do away with most whites.
Essentially turning the globe into one big plantation with a handful of whites at the apex.
Loads of reasons for them to co-opt Marxism.
Not the least being to steer any bona fide grass roots socialist type movement away from real results (e.g. occupy wall street).
And they, and they alone, sit high enough up to be out of range of the anti-male hand grenades that they pass out like candy.
And notice how whenever blacks riot they mostly tear out their own assholes.
If you want some fun googling, review Charles Manson’s philosophy. He decided that a race war was inevitable and that a core of elite whites (which he would be among) would be needed to run the survivors who would be mostly African and easily managed. It’s basically the same philosophy of my leftist friends who like to think that they’re “good” people for excusing black-on-white crime that doesn’t happen in their own backyards.
In other words, the average leftist has the same mindset as a Manson follower murdering a pregnant Sharon Tate.
“Men need to study this and ask the question, what is it exactly that Conservatives want to ‘conserve’.”
————————-
They’re just an anchor that drags the sea bed.
But a dragging anchor is better than none at all.
They can slow stuff down.
MAYBE long enough for a tech based solution to this liberalism?
That should be the chief topic of discussion…..what exactly are we conservatives “conserving?”
As far as turning the clock back. I’ve always wondered when the best time for a healthy functioning society was. As you mentioned the 40s already had the foundation set for the Brave New World we are currently residing in. So what era should we look at and emulate? I’d say the late 19th early 20th century, As far as how people conduct themselves and the general morality people had, not the technological side. I like my running water and modern health care thanks.
I don’t recall reading attacks against the TradCons. More musing how the positions of Tradcons and Feminists seem to match up so often regarding the “man bad woman good” meme.
“There is no individual or group on the right that attacks the manosphere” ” Most conservatives are content to let others live their lives as they please” I agree: the sole enemy is the left. TradCons and libertarians have many things in common. Great article Matt.
fear of a tradcon is a possibility – contempt is more likely but the hate of a cuckservative is a fact.
Baloney. Too simplistic. “Tradcons” are half the problem. Until you’ve seen a bunch of Tradcon EAPs salivating over the misandric movie FIREPROOF and others like it, and until you’ve been “counseled” by a hireling shepherd/tradcon “pastor” who lily-liveredly heaps upon the husband all of the responsibility and NONE of the authority of a scriptural husband, then you don’t know what horrible crimes have been committed upon men by tradcons.
Guess who created the stuck-up EAPs (evangelical american princess)? Tradcons. Only tradcons did that. Nobody else.
So I just had to Google EAP and found a great blog because of it! Thanks. Looks like your over there as well.
Until you’ve had a “Tradcon” hireling shepherd incorporated “pastor” tell you and your wife that your wife is only disrespectful and denying you sex because you are “not loving her like Christ loves his church” then you don’t know what insidious damage these people really can do. Nevermind the biblical prohibitions against witholding one’s body from your spouse (1 Corinthians 7:4-5), and the biblical directions that the Christian wife is to be submissive and respectful even to a NON-Christian husband (1 Peter 3:1-6), these people have pedestalized women in such a hideously cartoonish way as to actually teach that only men can do wrong, and women are only capable of goodness and purity. They won’t admit that, but they TEACH that over and over. I believe Jesus Christ was who He said He was, just like they claim to do, but I can’t associate with those brainwashed idiots whatsoever. You remember that old B-movie from the 1950s “Invaders from Mars” where you had all the respectful townsfolk get parasitized in the brain by aliens who latched these cabbage-leaf-looking things onto the backs of their heads and made these formerly respectable people now become mindless automatons doing evil and smiling the whole while? Well, that basically symbolizes what feminism has done to today’s American evangelical churchfolk: They have been parasitized into serving the very thing they claim to be against, and you can’t convince them otherwise.
I have read 7 or 9 other articles by Matt Forney, all of them good. This is the only errant one I have found. The only way he can stick up for these people is if he has not spent too much time around them, not been counseled by them in his marriage, and not seen the crap horrendous misandric movies for which they love to pass DVDs around to the non-believers/non-parasitized-by-feminism (like FIREPROOF and COURAGEOUS, etc).
The left-wing feminists, and the “trad-con” righties, both make up a huge hegelian dialectic. Don’t fall for it.
MRA’s may spend too much time whining about them, but there are a lot of tradcons that are white knights, and they deserve a lot of the criticism they get. Dalrock’s blog has no shortage of information on the white-knighting done by modern churches and others on the right (especially his article on the movie ‘Fireproof’).
We should not lose our focus in opposing feminists, but calling out other people, if they deserve it, is something I would hardly call cowardly.
Has it not occurred to anyone that the feminization of the church might just be liberalism creeping in the building?
Let’s put it in a way folks can understand better.
Do you honestly think that female preachers and openly gay preachers could enter the church at the same point in history?
You just don’t identify it as liberalism because it lacks the gay tag.
So what creeps into the church first is what can be accepted first.
From which side of the fence did emanate calls for female preachers, pastors, etc. to begin with?
hint: I’m old enough to remember the old ladies in Sunday School furious over the idea of getting a female preacher.
“Conservatives” in the United States are in fact right-liberals which is why I call myself a reactionary when people ask me about my politics. Right-liberals are annoying mostly for their impotent grumbling that the left-liberal march through history is moving too quickly, but without ever seriously questioning either the final destination or the need to get there.
Even so, right-liberals aren’t totally hopeless. They make for better “mission territory” for reactionary thought and neomasculinity than the degenerate left-liberal freak show that controls the Overton Window.
i call myself a right-wing reactionary too. occasionally. in very private conversations with close friends and family members. it still often doesn’t go over well at all.
Technically didn’t traditional conservatives cease to exist when we won the Revolutionary War? I don’t see any Tories around the US.
Pretty much. American conservatives sometimes outright say that they wish to conserve the classical liberalism of the Revolution. What they don’t realize is that the gargantuan neo-liberal State is classical liberalism all grown up. Traditional throne and altar conservatism is pretty much unknown here outside of a few trad blogs.
The curious thing about the legacy of the Revolution, is that only the rhetoric of it was radical. The substance of the Revolution, that is, the rights in question, were just traditional Anglo-Saxon rights. They weren’t the product of the humanist Enlightenment. The Colonists weren’t trying to remake the world, they were just defending their traditional rights as Englishmen.
Likewise, Tom Paine’s harangue against the Crown was just a coat-tail jumping, humanist screed. The Colonists had nothing against the idea of monarchy, they were against the abuses of monarchy. England had a long history of replacing monarchs who had become oppressive. After all, the original Anglo-Saxons chose their kings, contrary to the practices of the rest of Europe.
This blending of conservatism and classical liberalism in the American conservative tradition has always been a difficult marriage. Unfortunately, in the struggle between the two, the liberal tradition has won out, and now humanist ideas parade about as traditional values.
Dissident Right? The reactionary-dissident right??
Paul Gottfried (and I agree) argued that the only substantial conservative society in the US was the antebellum south.
People, don’t call yourselves reactionaries. That’s a word the enemy made up to slander us with.
Yesterday’s classic libertarian is today’s paleoconservative. Paleocons are the only legitimate (3 tiered- social, foreign policy, fiscal) conservative out there on the so called right. Everything else is just conservative “leaning.”
Perhaps you are referring to neocons in your remarks about “right liberals?”
I personally prefer not to use either the word “liberal” or “reactionary” in a self application because of the negatives involved with both, but to each his own i suppose.
Ill stick with White Nationalist and save myself the hairsplitting.
I’ve only become right leaning because the left has gone completely off the rails.
The only thing I’ll fight for is freedom. I have no desire to be part of a big club.
If I woke up tomorrow and the world became a Darwinian nightmare I’d probably call for some leftist policy.
I think things are just way out of balance right now… The system is sick in many ways. What’s gonna bring the body to balance? Right now you’ve got two options presented to you… Take drugs to numb the pain, or make a tourniquet and amputate.
Things are so out of balance it takes Donald Trump’s humongous ego just to see an opposition to the left that even registers.
I have no answers. All I suggest is that we find ways to become more balanced as individuals.
“If I woke up tomorrow and the world became a Darwinian nightmare I’d probably call for some leftist policy.”
——————————–
When the normal folks are ahead root for the freaks.
But when the freaks are on top root for the normal folks.
Balance of power.
There’s a time for flying a confederate battle flag and a time not to.
Now is the time for flying a confederate battle flag.
I guess I’m just trying to be realistic. No one is going to vote for their own demise.
What we need is a decent solution for everyone. Otherwise let’s just go to war already.
“No one is going to vote for their own demise.”
I think you’re giving the far left too much credit. They’re stomping down the gas pedal and cackling with glee as we head ever closer to the cliff.
really,the black race in America has been doing that consistently for 40 years.
I agree. I too have leaned more conservative in response to the insanity of the left.
It’s important not to get sucked into ideologies and political dogmas. At that point people plug their ears, blame the other side, and no one really examines the situation or finds a solution.
Balance and moderation is one of the hardest things in the world to achieve but it’s necessary.
There’s no left wing party in the 2nd or 1st world which hasn’t shown it’s true face and that is being a full fledged cultural marxist. Also, add some Orwellian tones to it.
A balance is indeed needed that’s why people need to vote for a complete muppet like Trump in order to force the govt to balance itself and,in a way, suggest that the likes of Hillary is going too far in one direction. Same with UKIP in England.
The problem with leftists is that they cannot live when other people have other opinions.
The only masculine ideology is “libertarianism”. It is constructive, embraces self-improvement, rationalism and it is individually satisfying.
The only problem with the tradcons is their shaming of men to man up….fuck off. That said…..the Left controls the language…until that is beaten out of them…the Left will always win.
Trump gets this…so few don’t…..
You are totally right. The left has achieved what has achieved mostly due to language control (and education control). Who the hell publicly supported faggots 10 years ago?
The big win was Bruce Jenner getting an award for courage from ESPN…. I immediately cut cable….and to listen to the SJW shame anyone who questioned Bruce’s sanity….had to cut cable or I was going to physically assault people.
here
This morbid racial masochism is now most conspicuous in the United States and Britain, where we are not only doing everything in our power to subsidize and accelerate the breeding of voracious parasites to impoverish, degrade, and destroy us, but are also applying the most effective biological techniques to breed ourselves into imbecility and eventual extinction. White people are actuated by a subconscious, but ineradicable and irresistible, death-wish—a longing for extinction that makes them turn in fury on anyone who tries to make possible their survival.
When tradcon fem messages to man up and marry aging sluts go mainstream…. THAT will be the day to turn against them.
But somehow I seriously doubt that will be a big problem in the near future.
It’s being promoted in Hollyweird already. Madonna, Demi Moore, Courteney Cox, a whole bunch of them.
Trump telling Megyn that he wasn’t going to be Politically Correct and that he called Rosie O’Donnell fat made him the ultimate Alpha Dog. This wasn’t just a cute quip but quite relevant and insightful. I don’t understand why he continued to harp on Megyn but the reason may be that the Twitter feeds encourage rambling (a funny South Park episode illustrated this). Twitter is about the dribble that goes through our heads during the day.
Regrettably, you’re right about the man-shaming. This recent article on Lifesite news about a “reformed” porn star is so appalling it makes me want to wretch. It makes me wonder what the hell was this so-called Catholic thinking? Too bad, as Lifesite is usually a good source.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-googled-porn-star-exits-industry-reveals-shocking-truth-about-life-on-t
Yep. All I have against Tradcons (and I consider myself a Tradcon is many ways) is the white knighting. Their perspective is supposedly biblical, but it’s lacking some aspects of it.
I agree with this. Like you, I consider myself a Tradcon, but I don’t think for one second that women can do no wrong, or that when they do, it’s almost always a man’s fault somewhere along the line.
A paradigm shift is required in order to bring back the classical virtues of TradCons.
Our only problem was letting women vote.
Democracy’s a precarious thing.
First only land owners can vote.
Then women.
And now illegal aliens.
Agreed
“…the pose of feigned powerlessness that leftists use, the pose of those who control every important institution in the West yet still have nightmares about right-wing Republican fascists coming to murder them in their sleep.”
hahah…so well said, matt. been trying to find a way to express this for a while, and you nailed it. maybe “coming to rape and murder them in their sleep” would be even better.
“Moderates who insist that they’re “above” the conflicts between feminists and anti-feminists are just weaklings who are unwilling to commit to a political stance.”
Another excellent column, Forney. Whenever I see some asshole commenting that he’s such an Alpha Ubermensch that he pays those silly feminists no mind and finds those who do to be weak, I call bullshit and bring up the fact that Nobel Prize Winner scientists and other genuine maverick Titans of our time have been taken down by the SJWs for the slightest of infractions. More often than not these internet nobodies are married and trying to convince themselves that they are unique and omnipotent and haven’t put their balls on the chopping block.
Aleksandr Dugin said it best: “if you are for global liberal hegemony, you are the enemy.”
Conservatives are, in about 90% of cases, for global liberal hegemony. They want the ideas of yesterday’s Liberals to dominate the world. All cultural norms of our decaying society must be exported overseas, and anyone who resists is a human rights abuser.
Conservatives are not an enemy in the same way Liberals are, indeed they are a fertile recruitment ground because they’re not totally brainwashed. However, the moderation of their entire political ideology (and yes, there is not a single truly ‘right wing’ politician elected to any post in the entire country), is a cumbersome burden which hinders the resistance to Liberalism.
This said, the common MGTOW paranoia about ‘TradCons’ is duly noted and more proof of their stupendous amateur moronics. Roosh was right to dismiss them.
” the Overton window has shifted so far to the left that America is barely recognizable anymore.”
————————–
Actually it hasn’t.
The Cathedral just wants everyone to THINK that it is.
The Overton window is actually much farther to the right than we’re led to believe.
How else do you account for Trump’s popularity?
Do you think any leftoid accurately predicted the outcome after Trump’s immigration comments?
All their talk of Trump “defying the law of political gravity” just shows how not in touch they are with the majority of Americans.
It’s really quite funny the leftoids.
A bunch of spergs who either believe that working poor WANT illegal aliens driving down wages or believe that they’re stupid enough to not notice.
It’s usually the MGTOW crowd where you find the types this article talks about.
All I can say to them is who’s going to pass on your torch?
If proud men won’t breed there are plenty of manginas that will happily breed in your place.
Identical twin studies have time and again bore out the superior role of heredity in human personality.
You think the sons of manginas are, for the most part, going to grow up to be anything other than manginas themselves?
I don’t fear them. I just don’t trust them to follow through. They consistently let their pathological altruism and belief that civil behavior will be returned in kind get the best of them. Quite literally, many of them such as Mike Huckabee are too decent for their own good.
One of the things that annoy me most about these retards who whine about “Tradcons” is that they fail to understand that, if it were up to those tradcons that these VGTOW faggots complain about so much, women would remain in the kitchen and still have no right to vote.
“women would remain in the kitchen and still have no right to vote.”
Why would that be a bad thing?
Oh, I’m not saying it is.
I don’t give a fuck whether women are in the kitchen or not (I can cook my own meals) and I don’t give a fuck whether women can vote or not. I just want to fuck. That’s it. I only want women for physical pleasure and I’ll cater to them just the bare minimum needed to get it. I don’t want to live in the world TradCons envision: a world where I have to commit to the bitch, renounce all other women, buy her a house, support her for life and provide all the conditions so she can fulfill HER biological drive to be a mother… just because I had a ten second orgasm while I was inside of her. Having her cook my meals would be a negligible compensation. Knowing that she’s not allowed to vote would be a poor consolation.
I sure hope you don’t like civilization, then.
What do women and civilization have to do with each other? Are women in the kitchen doing any kind of contribution to civilization? Did you buy into that “behind every great man is a great woman” myth?
As long as women put out and breed, they’ve done their part just fine. Commitment, faithfulness, marriage and stability are not indispensable.
You must be new here. Read more articles. I recommend Roosh V’s site, too.
I’m not new here and yours is not a reply.
Read more articles.
Really? That’s like trying to school someone in the life of Jesus by telling them: “Watch Mel Gibson’s Passion.”. Well I suggest you read more outside ROK and RV. There’s nothing new here, it all has been said before a long time ago and everyone’s had plenty of time to make their own mind about it.
K. Cool story bro. Read more articles.
I’m confused.
Is OP talking about people that pass for conservatives today?
Churchian Conservatives? People that flee at being called bigots, racists, sexists, misogynists, and every other “ist” out there? People that talk up the role of men, but would happily tell their daughter she can be anything? Then hand them willingly into the arms of the femisphere in college to ride the CC and hit the wall 10 years later?
Those kinds of people are #Cuckservatives.
Don’t let the TradCon talk fool you. “TradCons” have no stomach or will to fight as we need to fight. Their idea of conservative is what was liberal in the 70’s and 80’s! They are not the same kind of conservative from the 1800’s that actually had the will and fortitude to resist dyscivic and degenerative ideas such as suffrage, federalism, and collectivism.
TradCon is just another word for #Cuckservative.
I agree with the underlying idea, but I don’t think we’re bound to achieve success with people who are “trad-cons” by using terms like “cuck-servative.” The message is too easily dismissed as a vulgar person’s perspective, rather than the very same set of beliefs that their great-great grandfathers held.
Are you advocating Tone-policing?
Not as a matter of morality or etiquette, under these circumstances. Only as a functional bend to the fickleness of human nature. If you want to convince someone, they need to have their ears opened, not closed. Perhaps everyone should be able to spot the underlying point, but most folks aren’t like that.
Phyllis Schafly has always been super cool. She is the last of the Matriarchs of the Right. She has done more to fight the left and keep the worst of the worst at bay in her 100 or so years than the entire reactosphere of keyboard warriors. She was the real thing.
What the essay should simply have stated is that those old-timers like her and Buchanan are incapable of understanding the new hyper-reality-denying Weltanschauung that young people live in today, so of course they offer antiquated advice on personal and relationship matters. We are no longer conservatives because we have grown up inside a genuinely revolutionary regime. We are now radicals, and the tradcons can’t see that – but it’s not their fault.
Phyllis Schlafly is one of my idols and among the most important conservative figures in the US. She’s very pro-male, as evidenced in her numerous articles exposing the biases against men in the family courts and on college campuses, as well as the discriminatory policies of VAWA. The failure of the ERA she brought upon was a fantastic victory against the radical feminist and left-wing agenda, and every anti-feminist should be eternally grateful to her for it.
Yes. You can find her articles in support of fathers here.
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/fathers.html
I think she viewed men as corrupt a few decades ago as playboys and she would be right. After all, if she read RoK’s tips on game and how to pick up women at clubs and bang them that night, she’d disapprove. On the other hand, she would agree that these sluts are women who are useful as tools to help young men sow their wild oats and “nice girls” should be more virtuous and resist feminism.
I didn’t meet my wife in a club. All the guys I know who met their wife in a club or bar are divorced. All of them.
You’ve been warned.
I disagree. She was against the ERA because of the loss of privileges, and the increase in burdens for women, a strict application of the ERA would necessitate. Of course, we all know that it wouldn’t have been applied as such, so it’s good that it was defeated, but I wouldn’t pretend that Schlafly’s opposition was based on a wholesale rejection of feminism.
I don’t bash on Tradcons. What I feel towards them is more akin to pity. The parameters are always changing. The “traditional values” people are fighting for today aren’t yesterday’s “traditional values”. In the late 50’s people thought it was sacrilegious that my grandfather’s store was open on Sundays. Nowadays no one gives a shit if a store is open on Sunday.
Great minds think alike. I’ve often observed that many traditional people are fighting for values that were considered scandalous for their grandparents. The idea of taking a girl out for a dinner date to have sex with her would have gotten an angry father and a shotgun showing up. The “games” that RoK encourages helps to create a dysfunctional society. Marriagable women have few men they date but the men they do date they treat with respect and the men treat the women with respect. It sounds strange, but dating is supposed to be an adult, respectful process of men and women talking honestly about their values and then coming to an agreement. “Game” was introduced about the time of 1st stage feminism (which, don’t let them kid you, is just as bad as today) and shot things to hell.
It’s funny how that works. In the 20’s there was moral panic over the effect of cars, dubbed “beds on wheels”, on the dating scene. But today I’d vastly prefer my daughters going out on traditional guy-picks-up-girl-and-takes-her-to-dinner dates than slutting around on Tinder or doing naughty Skype calls with a long-distance boyfriend that could come back to haunt them.
And yeah, Game goes way back. Chateau Heartiste posted an excerpt from an Edwardian-era book for young men advising them to deal with an emotional, angry woman by laughing at them or just getting up and leaving.
The embrace of “dating” in the early 20th century killed traditional courting practices. From then on, it was bound to degenerate to the present mess. When we isolated boys and girls from their families and community, nature ran its course. Attempting to go back to dating practices from the 50’s or even the 20’s, is like jumping off a cliff and thinking you can stop half way down.
Hehehe! I’d rather my daughter make porn movies and even work in a brothel rather than being a meal-whore. I found that whole paradigm so distasteful and dehumanizing. Even if you get the sex, it’s like begging for food on the street. After going through that mind game, masturbating seemed more satisfying. I know all three.
Traditional courtship was done at home by both families. Mild PDA was allowed and even some second base action behind the barn. Both the men and women felt safe and respected.
When I dated my wife, about half of our dates was at her home.
It’s definitely a dysfunctional dynamic but I approve of a couple aspects of dinner dates. 1) The man is showing the man is willing to be seen in public with the woman and all that entails 2) There’s face to face interaction. I could learn more about my chemistry with a woman during a 30 minute meal than a month of brainless texting marathons.
My girls are only 3 and 5 and I don’t even want to contemplate what dating will be like when they’re teenagers. But I’ll definitely insist on meeting the guys and sizing them up at the very least.
I don’t think that going out for a meal really counts as being in public. Did you ever see episodes of various sitcoms where guys take ugly girls to restaurants where they know they’re unlikely to run into their friends? Indeed, more traditional dating with parental chaperoning and with friends and community puts much more on the table than what is effectively just a step up from buying someone a drink.
Another factor of white knightedness is when fathers teach their daughters how to be rule playing golddiggers. What’s awful about this isn’t just that the daughters are golddiggers, but the games they play usually wind up sending them into the arms of slacker badboys because women don’t respect wimpy beta males even if the wimpy beta males have money.
When a man is treated as a suspect by the father and expected to pay for an opportunity to get a girl into the sack, isn’t that basically a self-fulfilling prophesy?
I wish the best for you and your girls in the future. But if current “progressive” trends continue, then I can’t even imagine the depravities of the dating scene in 15-20 years. Nevermind the ideal man in your head will cease to exist. What will exist will be unlike any man you knew in your younger days. Having children in this society is my biggest fear. I do wish the best for you though.
Game, in the wider sense of the art of seduction, has existed since forever. It was already described in Ars Amatoria by Ovidius in ancient Rome.
The Manosphere appeared decades after the sexual revolution and after decades of feminism had not only ruined the old, patriarchal sociosexual order, but created a situation in which an entire generation of men had been served a crap sandwich by being fed a message about how to be good men, and getting screwed over by adhering to it, by spending their 20s in the friendzone, their 30s in lacklustre marriages to broken “ex”-sluts, and their 40s in the divorce meatgrinder.
Roosh only ever wanted a respectful commitment with a good, worthy girl. Yet, the girls weren’t up for it, so he found out how to use them for the only thing they’re good for.
If Roosh was going to Polish bars and clubs and finding mostly sluts, I could agree with that. But I personally know what Poland and Ukraine is chock full of healthy women who want a man whose stable and a reasonable breadwinner (not even the sole breadwinner) and will make up for that obligation by doing most of the cooking and cleaning. They may now be harder to find due to EU influence, but I know they’re there. I was just over there about 4 months ago visiting friends.
Now about ancient Rome: The modern notion of women slutting it up for fun is extremely recent. Rather than the pill, the condom has allowed extramarital sex but this is recent, of course. Before then, the only way men could have sex outside of marriage is to be in an army and rape on foreign conquests, or through prostitutes. But aside from that, sex inside marriage was largely the norm. There was no “game” like in modern times.
What’s interesting is that the “playboy philosophy” era (if you want some fun, look it up and laugh) of late has turned out to be a mixed bag for both genders. For men, unless your game is good, you’ll get a lot of time wasted as you note in the friendzone or blowing money on dinner dates (something I never fell for, I’m proud to say) and for women it also means they bang hot guys but most women don’t seem to find much satisfaction in that.
The hot guys I know who have women literally throwing themselves at them have told me that it’s not uncommon for many of these women to get angry when these men don’t want to pursue marriage. It doesn’t happen often, but they do get “stalkers” and crazies.
Roosh is a product of the culture that he came from. Like most of us on this board. I think he has changed a lot though, especially in the last few years. He does mow through the Polish women, but I think he is setting himself up to live a traditional life with one of them in the next few years.
Tradcons want men to be beta, and have no deep understanding of female psychology. They often enable women to behave their worst. Did she hit you? Turn the other cheek. Did she sleep with the biker? Pray for god to show her the way. Be a good honest man, and a woman will respect you. They give aid and comfort to the enemy. They may say they don’t like feminists, but they had an absolute inability to stop their rise to power. What is the point of becoming allies with a weak male?
Don’t ally with them, you can be conservative without being a beta. Those Betas that are conservative will support Alpha conservatives. They’re not retards, they might be pussies but would rather support the something that benefits their cause than watch the world fall apart around them with the screaming of the ministry of feminism/SJW taking it down.
They’ve elevated a woman’s natural instinct to godliness. Not only are they unwilling to say “no,” they don’t think they need (let alone that they’re obligated) to say “no” to those women who are under their authority. They have flat out rejected a husband’s authority over his wife, and they neglect a father’s authority over his daughter.
Jim, what you wrote is often true. Even amoung my own circle of traditional, pre Vatican 2 Catholic men, there are some who take the “happy wife, happy life” approach. Its sad, how far down English speaking manhood has come since the Bard wrote “The Taming of the Shrew”. Finding the manosphere, red pill, has caused me to start re thinking a great many things.
Modern liberalism is an ideology. Conservatism is the received wisdom of thousand of years of human experience. Can new technologies/developments null that wisdom? Sure, but unlikely. “Tradcons” traditionally(ha) argue for chastity in women, based on an understanding that sluts are broken women…is the manosphere against that?? I’ve never heard a tradcon tell me to wife up a slut…where are these people hearing this?
Moving to traditional conservative family values will take generations. Think you can support a housewife? Better be making bank, in Los Angeles even medical doctors are living in apartments with roommates.
It’s not so easy when you’re competing with two income families and trying to buy a house at rates that increased 6x historical norms over the last 15 years, low lending interest rates or not.
Liberals are always complaining about conservatives wanting to impose their values on everyone. The truth is very nearly the opposite. The TradCons may be mostly blue pill, but they are not infected with the evils of the SJWs.
“I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online”
—————————-
No webcam girl makes that much.
Let alone one that looks no better than you.
I cannot recommend Dalrock’s blog enough. He has dealt extensively with this issue.
The issue with tradcons is not their values as such, but that their selective promotion of the values of the old sociosexual paradigm plays right into the hands of the feminists. Tradcons take bits and pieces of what feminist academics call “benevolent sexism” and promote it, shaming men to comply with it, ignoring the fact that those bits don’t make sense when taken out of the sociosexual paradigm they were initially part of. Meanwhile, they are reluctant as hell to actually judge women for misbehaving, either ignoring the misbehavior outright or rationalizing it as somehow being the fault of the bad men who make them do it.
Regardless of the intentions behind it, contemporary tradconnery has the effect of turning men into massive white knights and captain save-a-hos. A man get shamed to be a white knight even as the princess in the tower friendzones him while banging the jerkboy gaoler, marries him after the gaoler has left her with bastard spawn, and later divorce-rapes him.
Contemporary tradcons are really the most useful opposition feminists could ever hope for.
this is the same guy that can’t make his wife look after the kids and home and gets up at night for his kid even though his wife does not work all day and he has to?
this is why we disdain TradCons
they basically enslave men to be slaves instead of getting men to lead and wives to help them… which is what TradCons used to teach 50-100 years ago
not anymore
For an example of what has become of tradconnery, a video by the name The Economics of Sex made the rounds on the Internet fairly recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToS4zoYcJnk
It’s 10 minutes long, but it’s worth watching because of what it reveals by how it frames things. It manages to state some Manosphere truths, like the reality of the sexual market and how women might be the gatekeepers of sex but men are the gatekeepers of commitment. It makes the point that sluttery is collectively bad for women.
However, it does all this from a blatantly woman-pandering frame. It pedestalizes them as having purer intentions behind their desire for sex. It regards it as self-evident that women are commitment-minded. It sells them sexual abstinence on the notion that it’s good for them and helps them get what they want from men. There’s not a hint of condemnation, just pandering.
I’m reminded of the joke about three wise men grabbing different parts of an elephant’s body and coming to different hilarious conclusions about what it is.
The video obsesses about the pill but that’s overrated. Sadly, millions of women continue to get knocked up in “accidental” pregnancies and some of them are truly accidental. It’s Russian roulette. The video doesn’t consider the biggest factors as to modern relationships between men and women: Feminist workplace “equality”, female friendly divorce courts, and women’s inflexibility in their “game”.
Let’s start with feminist equality and divorce courts. This is a female version of Saudi Arabia whereby men can get “cheap” sex if they’re good at game, but the employment and marriage laws make “commitment” dangerous. Men don’t “fear” commitment but they are wary of a system that is rigged against them. Young women want “strong” men but feminism teaches them to be anti-male and attack strong men. This is simply unhealthy.
Next, women’s game. Women play the BS “hard to get” game that only works with insecure men that they probably don’t want anyway while turning off stronger men and signaling that they are poor marriage material. It’s like PUA games men play to be “bad boys” that doesn’t work if you’re not good looking. Being a jerk to keep women in line works if you’re good looking. Apart from that, you’ve got to have really good game and most men aren’t up to it.
What the video does show is that feminism hasn’t made women happy which is useful even if the message is poorly presented.
Yeah, as I said, the video holds it as self-evident that women are commitment-minded, to the contrary of accumulated Manosphere wisdom. While the video might do some amount of good, it’s highly indicative about how contemprary tradconnery pedestalizes and panders to women, and is utterly spineless when it comes to calling women out for sexual immorality (which goes way beyond simple sluttery).
It’s what I call the damsel-in-distress equality paradigm: They want a white knight to come to their rescue and make them equals but they can’t be equals if they need a white knight to save them.
It also performs a disservice for women in that it doesn’t give them any useful tips for “game” on how to find a committed man if that’s what they want. Just as a man isn’t going to find a chaste wife at the strip club, women who try to use sex to sleep around and find a traditional man is laughable yet I and my wife know a lot of women who do just that. “All the guys I meet at bars who buy me drinks turn out to be such sleazes!” they cry.
And they wonder why they didn’t get the right to vote right away…
it used to be a man got a wife to look after the home and kids and to support him
in return he made the decisions, provided and protected her
now trad cons believe a man leads in doing whatever his wife wants
this is why a man looking after the kids and home so the wife can work is not seen as wrong by tradcons EVEN THOUGH the bible clearly never endorses such a position…
Ask most of these manospherian critics of “tradcon” what’s a conservative and what’s a neoconservative. They won’t know, and probably will tell you that they don’t want/need to know. Most of them were raised as liberals, hence, the willful ignorance.
It’s all the same man, it’s all the same. Haha. MRA have been infiltrated and is run by leftist.
TradCons and Feminists both believe in gynocentrism – the prioritizing of women’s needs above men’s. They merely have different solutions on implementation. The TradCon solution is patriarchy – monogamy, nuclear families, women staying home, chivalry for women in exchange for their deference and submission. The idea is to incentivize men and women to compromise with one-another. The Feminist solution is the welfare state. Feminists believe society should subsidize all of women’s choices, and that women owe nothing to society or men.
I understand the desire of MGTOW’s, PUA’s, and egalitarians to do away with gynocentrism completely, but of the two choices above I know which is preferable. What’s more, wiping out gynocentrism will be no easy task given our species’ evolution. It will take Herculean efforts of social engineering to get people to truly believe men and women are equal. Before we undertake such a goal we should ask ourselves whether or not we want to live in a society where there are no differences between men and women.
As a “trad con” myself, and one with conservative/libertarian beliefs, I agree with this article. I follow what I perceive to be truth. Game works because it is based upon a clear-eyed vision of human nature. Liberal policies generally don’t. I don’t try to foist my personal opinions down anybody else’s throat. And I also don’t appreciate the bad-mouthing by those insecure little men who have to belittle the beliefs of others.
That woman, Schlafly, looks like someone I could respect despite her being renowned for her iffy politics.
OFF-TOPIC
On another note, I just found this leftist, jewish, MSMish comment on RP:
https://www.cryptome.org/angry-boys/angry-boys-review.html
From the description It would look like they’re trying to understand RP to eventually assimilate or neutralize it. My 2 cents.
I’m not the first to say it but the left/right divide is becoming increasingly less relevant than the authoritarian/libertarian divide. While it’s true that trad cons are not the barbarian hordes themselves, many of them can be thought of as worse because they act as the enemy in the gate.
I agree with your first statement. There are ever increasing numbers of people who just say no and do so daily. There are an even greater number of those who are alright with sacrificing liberties they or their families have not fought or died for. In history this is a classic era Pericles or later Cicero lesson… for those who are still classically literate
Interesting observation.
Reading Rooshv et al, it seems as if these men mourn the absence of virtuous, chaste women who can’t be seduced. Seems like manosphere men want to bang liberal women, corrupted by the Left’s sexual revolution, but want to marry and have children with a tradcom woman.
Fat chance. I can’t see a nice tradcom woman marrying a male slut like Roosh and kind.
In all of it’s positions, in all of it’s attitudes, in all of it’s rationalizations, and in all of it’s arguments the left is female. The entire structure of left wing politics is a reflection of the female mind. Both Red Pill and Trad Con are cold hard rational responses to what actually is, and represent the value of reality over emotion.
While what you’re saying is absolutely correct, you’re missing one final piece. The left preach that they’re all about loving their fellow man, but it’s not true. Their love is perverse and self-serving. The conservative version of love is “tough love”. Teaching others not to rely on welfare or others to better their lives. It’s a hard pill to swallow which is why many flock to the libs.
Please continue to point out how its the left that constantly bashes the manosphere. Traditional Conservatives currently form the basis of the Republican Party (baby boomers). Without them, the Progs and SJWs would win every election.
Necons like myself may not agree with the TradCons, but unlike the SJWs, someone doesn’t have to walk in lock-step with us to see merit in allying ourselves against the vast media armies of the left.
This pretty much explains…everything. I encourage everyone to read this.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-31/exposed-new-american-way-life
You really can’t get any more Orwellian then submitting to the leftist language “tradcon”, its about as newspeak as newspeak comes.
It’s important to note that feminism is an extension of white male chivalrous patronage and not a rebellion against it. Many of them even wink and nod that they play the “damsel in distress” game to get special privileges in the name of “equality”. It’s the white knight paradigm we’re so familiar with.
Because of this, simply “going back” to traditionalist roles, or defending them with the right, isn’t going to help men since both sides consider men to be disposable resources. Schlafly, to her credit, has evolved over the past few years and realized that traditionalism took a wrong turn and that men need to be respected but this is a somewhat new epiphany for her. It’s the conservatives that owe us, not the other way around.
The left is hopeless since it’s a destructive philosophy out to destroy whatever it initially seeks to protect. Originally, it was a working class white men’s movement which sought to keep women OUT of the workplace to help raise wages. When these men decided that Josef Stalin wasn’t their hero, they were chucked overboard by the left which embraced man-hating feminism and non-white race preferences. Now even mainstream feminists are being chucked overboard in favor of transgender and outright butch lesbians.
On the right, corporate greed is the main problem. It’s not that the right hates beta males but rather wants men to be slaves for corporate interests. It’s two different rocks at this point.
A new epiphany? She would say that the man-hating laws and policies started about 25 years ago. Before that, there were no need to say that men should be respected.
Ever hear of The Titanic? Divorce laws? These all predated “modern” feminism but yet are “feminist” in nature. Feminism, as we know it, is just a modern incarnation of a beast that’s been around since white knights (literally) were “chivalrous” and threw their jackets over mud for “ladies” to walk over.
I agree with Schlafy’s earlier sentiments in that, even now, a lot of men still can’t make up their minds as to whether they want women to be slutty and engage in one night stands or to be loyal, likable wives.
The surfacing of the term “tradcon” is quite disappointing, indeed, as Forney says the enemy is the left (not Traditional Conservatives), but I would add, this issue underscores how important it is to know how leftism works.
Consider this; seeing this term in common parlance, and worse, knowing it had originated from certain corners within the Manosphere is evidence of the left’s influence in the Manosphere community. As such, this term is profane. Why? Because its literally a bundled package of feminist principles influencing (or perverting) our canon, and its in disguise…moreover a very poor disguise at that! Those that deny “tradcon” alternatively believe in concepts antithetical to the Manosphere, such as, total equality among the sexes in the same radical vein that feminist do.
Now, I’m not entirely surprised. From the onset I knew there would be a period when the Manosphere would have to deal with leftist influence (like it is now though I think its waning). Indeed, its easy to unveil its treachery. Typical users are almost always disgruntled leftists MRAs and they’re usually younger since the young have been immersed in critical theory. As Matt noted, when “Tradcon” is used you usually see its close cousin “male disposablity” uttered soon thereafter. And rightfully so, these “men” aren’t so much critical of the so called “social construct” that “oppressively” encourages them to do things like go to war or take care of their young, rather, they simply wish to deny those duties and for that matter any responsibility, which is common among leftists. That’s hardly an ideal to emulate.
Tradcon” reeks of leftism, the fucking term itself is newspeak not far off from other leftist concoctions such as “gender” and “homophobia”. And even those are less obvious from a mnemonic perspective. In fiction we had “oldspeak” in reality we have “tradcon”, if necessary here’s a wikilink to some newspeak examples please try to see the similarities – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words.
But, Orwellian dialogue notwithstanding, users of “tradcon” differ from ROK in that they do NOT seek self improvement and that’s a critical distinction. As I stated before they seem to feign the responsibility of being a real man. Because being fully developed independent man in charge of his destiny, body, affairs and all other faculties IS exactly what a Traditional Conservative man is. And, gentlemen, that’s what Neomasculinity is and, admitting I may be over stepping here, what ROK is all about. “Tradcons” of the past, our Grandfathers, Industry Titans, Patriarchs etc are men we need to analyze, appreciate, emulate and relish for our own enrichment. Flippantly discarding these icons and their institution for false ideals such as equality is the surest path to tight fitted jeans, effeminate mannerism, deference to females and, above all, our very own systemic institutionalized oppression.
As a nation we are addicted to comfort. We demand ease and instant gratification. We are lulled into a sense of security that is utterly unjustified. We have become a nation of dependents, ready for domination by almost any power that chooses to fill our self-assumed vacuum of personal responsibility. Thank you, Left. Thank you, Feminism. American Socialism is almost here.
Capitalism is pretty good at fostering instant gratification too. Someone somewhere is making money from getting you to spend your money on his product to instantly gratify yourself.
I see your point. I just don’t have any trouble with someone making money. I’d rather have capitalists plying me with advertising, imploring me to do business with them, than have Big Brother telling me what to do.
Why should I consider Staline and Mao as my enemies? Thanks to them, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia were protected against Western feminist contamination.
Without USSR and Red China, SJW would have already taken over the world.
Look at the cost, personally I doubt Stalin and Mao had anything to do with those things you praise them for. Russia was corrupt under the decadent Russian Aristocracy and China just as bad under the Quing just as they were under the Ming but those corrupt elites were overthrown the societies of those countries are reinventing themselves, Russia is rediscovering Orthodox Christianity China is rediscovering Confucius where under the previous corrupt regimes those institutions were read and publicly praised but not practiced today modern Russian and Chinese are reading, learning and practicing them, they are rebuilding their societies healthy and upright.
America and the rest of the corrupt rotten western world must learn from them and do the same things. Time to rediscover Christ, time to relearn Stoicism and I would urge a general study of Confucius as well.
The cost for who? I was the winner here because I was able to meet beautiful and feminine women in Eastern Europe.
The rest is pure talk
Do you know how many Russians and other people died during the Purges of Stalin and Lenin? Millions, far more than died under Hitler. Do you know how many millions of Ukranians died of starvation and disease during Stalin’s Collectivisation? That is all nothing compared to the many millions of Chinese who died during Mao’s regime and his policies.
Did you even read my comment?
I DON’T CARE. I just know that FSU is the only region when you could find feminine women 5-10 years ago.
In 5-10 years, these girls will be westernized and you’ll have to go to Congo or the Himalaya to find a vaguely feminine girl.
Yes and no. The Soviet Union was on the cutting edge of gender equality, making away with de jure gender discrimination pretty much as soon as it emerged from the flames of revolution, decades before any Western country did.
Soviet feminism though didn’t extend to sexual liberation. The Soviet Union, and pretty much the entire Warsaw Pact, were far more socially conservative than the West when it came to issues of sex, marriage and relationships. If anyone would have tried to organize a SlutWalk on the Red Square, it would have been run over by a giant missile parade in no time.
Maybe I didn’t make my point clear.
The only reason my generation of men was able to meet feminine and no degenerate women in Europe is the existence of the Iron Curtain for half a century.
THat’s what matters to me . The rest is pure talk.
I consider myself a strong Traditional Values Conservative who believes in real families and definitely in favor of the redomistication of women considering what mess they have helped liberals make. I mean I am becoming to agree with the classical greek view of women that they have been divinely created to make men miserable. Liberal government has achieved one thing big time, the rest of the world holds us in contempt and disgust which we have well earned.
I am also becoming very much in sympathy with the Teachings of Confucius who believed in studying the past to when life was good to learn the mistakes that lead to the current mess. Government today is big fat and corrupt spends much of its authority promoting the corrupt and the immoral whether it be legalizing abortion to empower sluts or granting legitimacy to homosexuals and other sexual deviants. Government must be Virtuous in its actions and to maintain a healthy society must promote the moral rather than protecting the immoral. Clearly from the passing years I am beginning to see a little ‘Bigotry’ can do society good whether it be in discouraging Obesity and Laziness as well as promiscuity and other immorality.
In the absolute “bigotry” or “discrimination” are inherent to the human condition, you can’t get away from it. You discriminate at the ice cream parlor picking rocky road versus Fenway Park Sludge or when you take a detour. In terms of politics, its the liberal progressives that prove this point the most – they’re enormous bigots and in current times they are the biggest bigots out there. But that’s not all, what makes these cretins especially disgusting and uniquely evil is that they say their central mission is to eliminate bigotry, discrimination and even hate. Worse still, they use these lofty platitudes to captivate the gullible and unsuspecting. Yet they turn around and do the very things they say they’re vehemently against. So it stands no matter how its cut (right or left), on this plane of reality, we need bigotry to some degree. You mentioned the sexually depraved. Since we apparently “liberated” homosexuals look at the shit those people have and continue to pull. They bully and ruin the lives of people they don’t like (Christians) and are chiefly responsible for creating the most antagonistic anti-Christian environment in american history. And now, this group that once innocently claimed all they wanted was to live, are seeking to ban everything they don’t like, such as, male and female! Around the corner is pedophilia. So, this is where a proper application of bigotry and discrimination are necessary.
You look at Anti-Semitism and what blacks got put through with such asinine ideas as the One Drop rule and that kind of thinking is grossly wrong but at the same time there is a positive side to ‘hate’ which is positive in it discourages smoking, obesity and many unhealthy habits and for those who don’t get the message well it certainly is wise to weed such morally weak individuals out as compared to our current ‘enlightened’ age which is grossly unhealthy since it does not dare such thought so here the seven deadly sins are now seen as the seven alternate lifestyles so such things as Gluttony, Obesity, Sloth Laziness and all kinds of bad behaviors now abound and the public health is going going far far down.
I don’t really see a problem with “mgtow”, but the new “cult” version of mgtow is troubling.
when your movement revolves around one guy with a Youtube channel, and who is an immigrant no less, it’s kind of hard to take seriously
I personally think you tradcons owe a huge debt of gratitude to MRAs and MGTOWs. Without them, instead of fearing your own demise, you morons would still be white knighting for the progressives.
How? I consider myself a Traditional Conservative. I fucking hate the progressives.
All tradcons say that – until they want to win an election or get re-elected. Then it’s all feminist butt kissing from there on out.
I’ll concede that. But, I think there is so much more to that picture. You’re talking about the Republicans and I do agree that they’ve tried to pander to the femo-vote. And why not? Politics is popularity writ large and women are a large voting bloc. They’re also a rather ideal bloc being highly suggestible and reliable, provided they ‘re courted appropriately. I won’t argue whether its “white knighting”, rather, I think its indicative of the GOP’s identity crisis. The GOP decided to play a game of carrots that they could never win. At least without literally renouncing their souls, which they basically have anyway. Democrats win elections because they offer tangible things (handouts, preferential job placement…a free lunch). And they continue to dangle that carrot of promise for more free stuff to sway their constituents in any way they seek to fashion. Its work remarkably well, but, why wouldn’t it. Free is compelling. Republicans thought they could compete and they’ve failed miserably. Part of this attempt to compete was to offer carrots to special interest. Since this is a fundamental contradiction of the GOP (small government) their offerings were meager at best and it really resulted in them conceding certain issues and debates to the democrats in the hopes of someday stealing those votes back, which is impossible. Part of that was pandering to women. Again, it failed. I think Trump is a very welcome development. Putting aside voting blocs, people are sick and tired of political correctness, social engineering and elitism and they see this from both parties. So, as Peggy Noonan recently wrote in the Journal “America is very much up for grabs”. And the Republicans, especially under someone like Trump, will be doing something very different than the carrot game.
Tradcons are the 357 sig and oo buckshot of the feminine imperative.
Something else about mgtow is that some of the “popular” personalities are a joke. For example look at Sandman, he apparently charges money for videos on the most banal and trivial of subjects.
I think there was a side-shot photo leak of him by Clarey if I recall correctly, in the photo he looked exactly like the neckbeard overweight double-chin “stereotype” of mgtow men. Guys like sandman are the leaders? it’s a joke
Okay we get it, PUA and MGTOW based ideologies are not cool anymore. It could be argued that the manosphere does not even exist anymore and has been dissolved into the alt-right. Heartiste and Roosh have pretty much dropped the sort of topics they used to write about and focus more on politics, the Spearhead is gone, etc.
However, the main reason men got into the manosphere to begin with still exists: 50th percentile men have a difficult time getting sex/relationships in todays non-traditional society. And this is where tradcons get it wrong, they simply say “just get married bro, don’t be a degenerate. You are just making the problem worse by having a PUA lifestyle”. This argument is flawed because the majority of young men would have never gotten into PUA to begin with if they had a shot at a serious relationship with a young woman. Nobody is indoctrinated from birth with this stuff, its usually around 22 years old, AFTER already trying to “do the right thing” with women that men discover the manosphere.
Yes, a top man can still get married if he chooses to, but until the 50th percentile men have that same marriage option(and marrying a 35 year old does not count) then tradcons need to shut up. I am not expendable. I will not marry a fat chick or retired club slut just to prove I am not a degenerate, or “further the white race” if you are into that sort of thing.
If there was a Battle of the Sex’s on a Global scale, the Men would win every time, that is why every year when young boys go to the Public schools there is an attempt to indoctrinate Ideas of Feminism into them, so now the Battle of the Sex’s isn’t simply Man vs woman, it’s Man vs woman and Man. That is how the Feminist’s have been winning, because they have been successful in Indoctrinating young Boys into Feminists, Yes Female Feminists are annoying but they can’t do anything if there are no Men supporting them, just look at the Middle East, all the Men there put there foot down and…No Feminism, Yes Feminists have crazy Ideas and share responsibility for societal decline but if it wasn’t for the White Knights, the Beta’s, the “Support-Squads”(those Men Supporting the women attacking Roosh in Canada), or Male Feminist’s than Female Feminists would disappear from Lack of Male Empowerment, it Is Male Feminist’s, White Knights, Beta’s and Support-Squads who are the Real enemies, without the support of Men, female feminist’s would have no power, Feminism is a part of Leftism, and Leftism is responsible for assimilating the Rot of Feminism into society.
what is the % of leftists in mgtow?
Good article.
There’s a lot of cucks in the manoshpere that are still basic-bitch progressives in everything else except feminism.
From were I sit in Missouri, it was the trad cons like that bastard Regan and Nixion and Romney, who bowed at the laps of corporate masters who: outsourced our manufacting jobs and allowed women in the work force.
Are you saying Reagan, Nixon, and Romney and their forebears, bowing to Big Business, allowed women in the work force? I’m gonna Google that.
Also writer explain the trad cons 50 year battle to keep blacks from voting? How in the hell is that conservative a group of southern baptists who hate abortion, gay marriage anld well fare that ran black men out of the house in favor of uncle sam, but because of trad con racism sides up with the big government left. Why MLk was a republican but due trad con igonorance and racism (southern strategy) we lost a natural ally. I work with blacks these guys tell me all the time that would vote gop except for the racism and hatred.
Historically, the resistance to black sufferage was from Democrats. Southern Baptist Democrats. A lot of people are clueless about real history.
Yes, but most of the Dixiecrats (save for a few outliers like George Wallace and Robert Byrd) went over to the GOP between 1968-80
For me the outliers are not that far out. Even if you say that the left has been purged of racists, I have to point out that there are plenty of minority Democrats who have no shame in demonstrating their own racism. Much as today’s feminists have no problems showing bigotry toward men. Moreover, the grand social programs instituted since the 1960s have had the effect of keeping minorities in ghettos by giving them just enough money to keep them there. And the pursuant evaporation of dignity and family values has only exacerbated the destruction. Real opportunity instead of expanded dependence on government would be a better solution.
I was welcome on AVFM until I said that male circumcision uproar was just men looking to play the victim card to be like feminists. I got booted by the moderator. Paul Elam personally raised hell, and his moderator booted me for that and using the word mangina.
Men should not start trying to look for victim card issues, but rather should uncompromisingly promote individualism and nuclear families. If someone wants to screw around, that is between them and the Lord. I personally lived with my girlfriend before marriage, even if, in retrospect, it was a sin.
I did not have my son done circumcised we were in Japan, and I did not want to raise the issue with a Japanese doctor. Plus, I would have not felt comfortable explaining a custom that would seem reallly bizzarre to my wife and her family. So I just let nature take its course, but with some regret.
But I am glad I am circumcised. It is easier to be sanitary.
Less likely to get AIDS.
Circumcision is a freedom of religion issue. I once had a girlfriend in France where who tried to tell me I was a victim of oppression because of that. I told her I did not feel oppressed at all.
Circumcision also means the girls will like your pillar.
The left represents crushing repression in support of a failed ideology (socialism and communism). They are only interested in the law and the Constitution insofar as they can use loopholes in those systems to tear those same systems down for their own Marxist ends. Most who support leftists do so out of sheer ignorance of human nature and history.
Conservatism (informally referred to as “the right”) represents individual liberty and practical ideas which have been proven to contribute to human flourishing through practice and incremental improvement over the long term (free market capitalism, private property rights, rule of law, the Constitution, meritocracy, and so on).
So yes, there’s a HUGE difference between the two, for anyone who’s willing to give both sides an honest look.
The left is evil, and the conservatives are the good guys, despite what Hollywood and the media would have people believe.
Matt, you’re right on target here. I am a “trad-con”, orthodox Catholic, married with kids. While I cannot go along with some currents in the manosphere, I think there is enough commonality between trad-cons and the manosphere that we can stand side by side on most issues: regaining leadership roles in marriages; holding oneself accountable; career success; personal improvement; respect for women as moral actors who have free will. Those are things any trad/con would sign on for.
‘left’ doesn’t mean ‘feminism’. If you think ‘right’ is better, look at what cunts like Mussolini did, or terrorist groups like Ordine Nuovo, you fat idiot. At least Communism defends poor people. The poor gets poorer and the rich gets richer. A story as old as the world itself. Your fat ass never met poverty, so you can’t understand that if you are poor, all the odds are stacked against you, Fatso.
Got to say that this website is a big step down from Roosh’s blog. It’s full of political wannabee idiots who talk a lot of crap. Very disappointing, I am bothering less and less to read anything here.
Except religious charities have always taken care of the poor. The left just screwed them over and used them as weapons. So no, you’re the idiot.
I’m not sure where you live, but what we call “poor” here (obese people with free housing, food, and healthcare) is a bit of a joke. By what standard are these people “poor”?
“It might have been plausible to regard “SoCons” or “TradCons” as a threat ten years ago, when President Bush and the GOP were actively courting evangelical Christian support in their successful national campaigns, but those days are long gone.” While I agree with most of your points, the preceding quote is one “borne of ignorance.” What exactly was the threat, that “gay marriage” would not be shoved down our throats? With that quote, you did exactly what you accused moderates of doing.
Gay marriage is not shoved down anybody’s throat at all. If you want to marry a boy, do it; if not, don’t. To each their own. The best would probably be if the institution of marriage were privatised, as a ROK post suggested a few days ago.
Isn’t “TradCon” just another name for White Knight? Esther Villar wrote The Manipulated Man based on 50’s-era values.
“that America is barely recognizable anymore.
So this is a website for pathetic and hysterically delusional victims.
A lot of it is that they want to be special little snowflakes who above the traditional left vs. right dialectic and they think that makes them smarter than everyone else. While most MGTOWs obviously dont want to be feminists, they also do not want to be neomasculinist men either. They want to fap to porn and play video games all day. It’s a sad and lonely life. That is why they form their little echo chambers to reinforce each others views.
Actual Liberals and Tea Party Conservatives are not afraid of hearing dissenting opinions and defend the real minority… the individual. Freedom of speech, private property rights.
I would be called a teabagger by progressives in San Francisco but here I am, I read Breitbart, which introduced me to Milo Yiannopoulus, who’s articles about Gamergate linked me to Sargon of Akkad, Then I started listening to the Honey Badgers, Tunderf00t, and Karen Strahan… and Steven Crowder. And they were showing Roosh V in Canada getting harassed…
Everyone of these people are on all levels on the political spectrum, but unlike progressives they talk to people they disagree with and defend their attackers right to speak. The Progressives use Fakebook and Twit-er to attack and bully people they hate, it’s time for people who want to be left alone to put a stop to this PC bullying.
“”TradCons” are castigated because they purportedly want to force men
back into rigid gender roles and because they enforce “male
disposability,” whatever that means.”
Whatever that means???
You’re just going to gloss over male disposability? Puzzling!
Since when getting bullied is better than getting persecuted?