What Should The Right Wing Be?

Sure it does that's how the left did it. They convinced people and eventually they had most institutions.

That stuff was going on WAY before the invention of social media




Can doesn't mean should your wife working is a failure on your part in my opinion.(assuming her salary is used for anything beyond her playing.) That's my view anyway

Sometimes, but not always, for starters the value of the dollar has plummeted as housing cost have skyrocketed. A working class house 30 years ago is now upper middle or even straight upper class now, It's silly to ask for society at large to live in property just so for the sake of "Tradition" Plus some women are just better at number crunching then their husbands and do better at making money. Nobodies fault that's just the way the genetic dice rolled. Is it the norm, no. but in my opinion it shouldn't be squashed for a faux since of stability via conformity.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Given how dire the situation would be by that point, what happens when these Right wing militant groups don't hand their guns over? The Left may suddenly be confronted with a problem all the institutional power in the world can't legislate away.

Anyone who says "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a fool. History is written in blood, with the battlefield as its parchment and the sword as its quill.

If you honestly think you have bigger guns than the Left, then I don't know what to tell you.

And you see that... going well for them, do you?

That's interesting.

Yes, I see that going very well for the Leftists and very poorly for the Militant Right-Wingers.

I mentioned a third category.
A third category of what?
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
That stuff was going on WAY before the invention of social media






Sometimes, but not always, for starters the value of the dollar has plummeted as housing cost have skyrocketed. A working class house 30 years ago is now upper middle or even straight upper class now, It's silly to ask for society at large to live in property just so for the sake of "Tradition" Plus some women are just better at number crunching then their husbands and do better at making money. Nobodies fault that's just the way the genetic dice rolled. Is it the norm, no. but in my opinion it shouldn't be squashed for a faux since of stability via conformity.

Oh I'm well aware if started before the net. As to the other I'm not talking about making it illegal. It's just that in my opinion male who doesn't pay for his family it's that simple. It's a personnel view not advocation fo a law. Also in the real world i your wife's making more then you she's going to cheat 99% of the time.
 
Oh I'm well aware if started before the net. As to the other I'm not talking about making it illegal. It's just that in my opinion male who doesn't pay for his family it's that simple. It's a personnel view not advocation fo a law. Also in the real world i your wife's making more then you she's going to cheat 99% of the time.

and in the real world people are trash and everyone dies, still doesin't change the fact I'm still going to live my life.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Sometimes, but not always, for starters the value of the dollar has plummeted as housing cost have skyrocketed. A working class house 30 years ago is now upper middle or even straight upper class now, It's silly to ask for society at large to live in property just so for the sake of "Tradition" Plus some women are just better at number crunching then their husbands and do better at making money. Nobodies fault that's just the way the genetic dice rolled. Is it the norm, no. but in my opinion it shouldn't be squashed for a faux since of stability via conformity.
Can doesn't mean should your wife working is a failure on your part in my opinion.(assuming her salary is used for anything beyond her playing.) That's my view anyway.
My opinion on that is quite a mix between the traditionalist and non-traditionalist one based on understanding of history - in which vast majority of people lived as farmers, and here's a shocker - women did work on these farms. Just as much as the men did. And not just in terms of traditional housewife duties, but also dealing with crops, farm animals, this sort of stuff. Not necessarily all types of such work, but with smart, complementary to the men choice of tasks, leaving the strength intensive ones to the men of course. So yeah, women not working is an artifact of few rather unique parts of history in very few places for rather few women.
It just isn't a realistic aim for the general society in current times. What is realistic is that most women should be encouraged into types of work that are similar in characteristics relevant for family life to the traditional situation of farmers over the last thousands of years rather than the alternatives.
Home business, running family business, part time work in local community business, this sort of thing, as opposed to working for corporate overlords with multi week work travel away from home and generally spending more time with coworkers and clients than own family, as that is what breeds the sort of social issues traditional lifestyle avoids.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
My opinion on that is quite a mix between the traditionalist and non-traditionalist one based on understanding of history - in which vast majority of people lived as farmers, and here's a shocker - women did work on these farms. Just as much as the men did. And not just in terms of traditional housewife duties, but also dealing with crops, farm animals, this sort of stuff. Not necessarily all types of such work, but with smart, complementary to the men choice of tasks, leaving the strength intensive ones to the men of course. So yeah, women not working is an artifact of few rather unique part of history in very few places for rather few women.
It just isn't a realistic aim for the general society in current times. What is realistic is that most women should be encouraged into types of work that are similar in characteristics relevant for family life to the traditional situation of farmers over the last thousands of years rather than the alternatives.
Home business, running family business, part time work in local community business, this sort of thing, as opposed to working for corporate overlords with multi week work travel away from home and generally spending more time with coworkers and clients than own family, as that is what breeds the sort of social issues traditional lifestyle avoids.
So charity anf church functions cover that in my opinion. It's not a matter of women shouldn't work but rather they shouldn't he paying for necessity's while married. Dojng this is a requirement for being a man in my opinion. It's really that simple yell i might even still he your friend f you fail to do so. I wouldn't ever respect you as a man though.
 
My opinion on that is quite a mix between the traditionalist and non-traditionalist one based on understanding of history - in which vast majority of people lived as farmers, and here's a shocker - women did work on these farms. Just as much as the men did. And not just in terms of traditional housewife duties, but also dealing with crops, farm animals, this sort of stuff. Not necessarily all types of such work, but with smart, complementary to the men choice of tasks, leaving the strength intensive ones to the men of course. So yeah, women not working is an artifact of few rather unique part of history in very few places for rather few women.
It just isn't a realistic aim for the general society in current times. What is realistic is that most women should be encouraged into types of work that are similar in characteristics relevant for family life to the traditional situation of farmers over the last thousands of years rather than the alternatives.
Home business, running family business, part time work in local community business, this sort of thing, as opposed to working for corporate overlords with multi week work travel away from home and generally spending more time with coworkers and clients than own family, as that is what breeds the sort of social issues traditional lifestyle avoids.

Thing is the modern idea of the breadwinner is just that, modren, specifically when the concept of white collar work became a thing, the idea of corporate work was somthing that was virtually unheard of for most of human history, yes there were lords and such, but typically unless you were a merchant, noble, solider, or priest you rarely traveled outside of a certain area. I think part of the problem is we've allowed history to be tainted by a modern lens.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
So charity anf church functions cover that in my opinion. It's not a matter of women shouldn't work but rather they shouldn't he paying for necessity's while married. Dojng this is a requirement for being a man in my opinion. It's really that simple yell i might even still he your friend f you fail to do so. I wouldn't ever respect you as a man though.
If your family can afford to have that portion of its earning power be used for charity and church instead of work for own economic well being, sure.
But as i said, nothing shameful or unreasonable in not doing so, its a likely assumption that most of your ancestor's families did see their women work, most of them in the way i've described.
Thing is the modern idea of the breadwinner is just that, modren, specifically when the concept of white collar work became a thing, the idea of corporate work was somthing that was virtually unheard of for most of human history, yes there were lords and such, but typically unless you were a merchant, noble, solider, or priest you rarely traveled outside of a certain area. I think part of the problem is we've allowed history to be tainted by a modern lens.
Well, yeah, in case of nobles and merchants women either helped with "family business" and if not, the family was rich enough that they didn't need to, priests either didn't have wives or lived similarly to other class in the societies where they that did, and soldiers generally married after they were done being full time soldiers.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Home business, running family business, part time work in local community business, this sort of thing, as opposed to working for corporate overlords with multi week work travel away from home and generally spending more time with coworkers and clients than own family, as that is what breeds the sort of social issues traditional lifestyle avoids.
Yes. This. When you're a single woman, it's fine to work in a company where your time will be consumed by your work. However, once you have a family, you can transition into part time work and doing small business or something along those lines. Then, you will have time for your family and you can take care of your kids and your husband.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
If your family can afford to have that portion of its earning power be used for charity and church instead of work for own economic well being, sure.
But as i said, nothing shameful or unreasonable in not doing so, its a likely assumption that most of your ancestor's families did see their women work, most of them in the way i've described.

Well, yeah, in case of nobles and merchants women either helped with "family business" and if not, the family was rich enough that they didn't need to, priests either didn't have wives or lived similarly to other class in the societies where they that did, and soldiers generally married after they were done being full time soldiers.
Sure I won't consider you a man if you can't do the same though. It's really that simple this is probably a derail though.
 

almostinsane

Well-known member
Can doesn't mean should your wife working is a failure on your part in my opinion.(assuming her salary is used for anything beyond her playing.) That's my view anyway

Oh, that didn't occur to me. I was just looking at it from a realist's perspective. We removed God and caring for the next generation from the center of our lives decades ago. We get fucked as a society as a result.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
But I don't know how someone like me, who wants to implement a system wherein marriages are arranged between the prospective husband and his future bride's father could be a "feminist" in any real sense.
...the number of ways the ship has sailed and the cat has left the bag on anything vaguely approaching this makes your self-proclaimed title of nutjob quite accurate. You are fundamentally misunderstanding damn near everything about actual historic contexts, because arranged marriages have very nearly always, with only one exception to my knowledge, been extreme upper class economic considerations, those attempting to imitate them, or hideously oppressive and generally highly unstable social hierarchies with virtually zero social mobility and/or extreme commonplace violence.

The "gilded cage" mentality has massively usually had the women hold a considerable say in her husband among the vast majority of the population, only when you have hardened and comprehensive caste systems like the fractal shitshow of India or extremely violent Thar cultures like the Middle East do the general populace of women get deprived spousal choice outside the upper classes. And the "homemaker" you so desperately want being the norm was a peculiar feature of the 1950s, a time when no small amount of women sought out their future husbands rather than being passive objects of desire. If they didn't want a particular man, he could not get her hand in marriage.

Could you elaborate on this logic? It doesn't make sense.
You're never getting the general population of women in gilded cages like that, because they never have been. Because they flat out can't in any example of a long-term system. Economics, in the bluntest and most primitive resource acquisition senses, doesn't work that way, you can't have things function anything approaching sensibly with nearly half the adult population being nothing but people-makers. And you're not back-tracking anything approaching a majority of the gains in self-reliance without exploiting a downright civilizational collapse that has cruel brute force be the only meaningful political determinant.

Reducing the expectation of female labor is somewhat doable, altering the priorities so the family has some degree of primacy might be doable with a relatively mild economic breakdown, but you're not getting back the 1950s. The history of industrialization is covered in breaking traditional labor practices as economic requirements. Women went in the factories because there weren't enough men spare in the workforce, and they became the "homemakers" you idolize because there was such a bounty that the lower classes could afford to have the woman not earn anything. The story of the breakdown in, and many cases creation of, all the norms you want to claw back is the story of tradition not working in a contemporary context, on a basic economic level.

So unless you want to convert the world to a peculiar variant of Mormonism by the sword, you're not getting those extremely narrow historic contexts back (and they're a bizarre hodgepodge of them rather bluntly contradictory, anyways), and if you do you're going to get rolled over by China, Russia, or literally anyone who doesn't as they surge ahead and end up with a greater sword than yours.

If there is a spectrum of political philosophy along which some kind of admixture is valid, it is between Libertarianism and Patriotism, but the only valid political position left-to-right is affixed to the furthest point right. This sounds daunting to those who don't understand what the right is.
Congrats for managing to completely miss a solid third of the roots of political drives, while simultaneously forgetting the fact that history has been, and still is, dominated by multicultural empires. In the past, those empires beat down those outside the ruling culture, while today the ruling culture is fundamentally divorced from the lower classes in new ways. You can't have patriotism in a genuinely mutlicultural system, and even today the one real claim to a potentially self-sufficient culturally-cohesive developed region is the politically irrelevant stretch of Appalatia, the Great Plains, and the Great Lakes. Civic nationalism needs built and only works fully in the United States of America, because nowhere else has the resources needed to even attempt to slow immigration enough.

That third root is stability. As we've seen many times in the last hundred years, people will accept astonishingly horrific shit to try and get the trains running on time and food on the table. Often, the ones promising it fail to deliver, or are replaced by brutal strongmen. Liberty and Fraternity are firmly in the trash when things get rough, and this is a key to how historic multicultural empires worked. Because all the subordinate cultures would usually sit and be good little subjects because the alternative in successful revolt was being brutally conquered by somebody else.

The Right generally rejects stability as a priority axiomatically, but you see people like TNOL who are willing to promptly burn the entirety of modern industry to the ground to try and reclaim the systems that held "stable" for several centuries if that's what it takes. The reason the American Right rejects that priority is because stability has usually been a lie in all but the most primitive senses of avoiding the sword, but this does not mean that human nature does not yearn for it. Food on the table and avoiding the sword beat every other thing in the world when you have to choose between them, and we see this in how the Left holds its strongholds. Welfare handouts, attempts at special protections, all manner of things to buy loyalty of that root we desperately tried to move past in the 1700s and still fight with today.

It's not bluntly incorrect to prioritize stability over liberty or fraternity. Damn near everyone does, even if everything they believe ideologically says otherwise. Because people are instinctively wired to personally survive. A person starving to death literally has large portions of their capacity for higher reason completely shut down. That's how cannibalism usually happens, because the parts of the mind responsible for morality are disabled as instinct determines the nature of the life-or-death struggle and every restriction is eventually discarded in the attempt to survive. Stability of needs is the first priority that needs met before anything else can matter.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
Yes, I see that going very well for the Leftists and very poorly for the Militant Right-Wingers.
How delightfully naiive.

Congrats for managing to completely miss a solid third of the roots of political drives, while simultaneously forgetting the fact that history has been, and still is, dominated by multicultural empires.
"This is daunting for people who don't understand what the right is"
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
...the number of ways the ship has sailed and the cat has left the bag on anything vaguely approaching this makes your self-proclaimed title of nutjob quite accurate. You are fundamentally misunderstanding damn near everything about actual historic contexts, because arranged marriages have very nearly always, with only one exception to my knowledge, been extreme upper class economic considerations, those attempting to imitate them, or hideously oppressive and generally highly unstable social hierarchies with virtually zero social mobility and/or extreme commonplace violence.

The "gilded cage" mentality has massively usually had the women hold a considerable say in her husband among the vast majority of the population, only when you have hardened and comprehensive caste systems like the fractal shitshow of India or extremely violent Thar cultures like the Middle East do the general populace of women get deprived spousal choice outside the upper classes. And the "homemaker" you so desperately want being the norm was a peculiar feature of the 1950s, a time when no small amount of women sought out their future husbands rather than being passive objects of desire. If they didn't want a particular man, he could not get her hand in marriage.

But I'm not a feminist, am I?

You're never getting the general population of women in gilded cages like that, because they never have been. Because they flat out can't in any example of a long-term system. Economics, in the bluntest and most primitive resource acquisition senses, doesn't work that way, you can't have things function anything approaching sensibly with nearly half the adult population being nothing but people-makers. And you're not back-tracking anything approaching a majority of the gains in self-reliance without exploiting a downright civilizational collapse that has cruel brute force be the only meaningful political determinant.

Reducing the expectation of female labor is somewhat doable, altering the priorities so the family has some degree of primacy might be doable with a relatively mild economic breakdown, but you're not getting back the 1950s. The history of industrialization is covered in breaking traditional labor practices as economic requirements. Women went in the factories because there weren't enough men spare in the workforce, and they became the "homemakers" you idolize because there was such a bounty that the lower classes could afford to have the woman not earn anything. The story of the breakdown in, and many cases creation of, all the norms you want to claw back is the story of tradition not working in a contemporary context, on a basic economic level.

So unless you want to convert the world to a peculiar variant of Mormonism by the sword, you're not getting those extremely narrow historic contexts back (and they're a bizarre hodgepodge of them rather bluntly contradictory, anyways), and if you do you're going to get rolled over by China, Russia, or literally anyone who doesn't as they surge ahead and end up with a greater sword than yours.

I don't recall actually arguing for women to be nothing but people-makers. That's an insult to stay-at-home mothers, who work extremely hard and are generally active in their communities. However, having women be more oriented towards domestic duties would be better for society overall, as it would mean less competition with men in the workplace and allow men to earn a living wage.

The problem with your entire reasoning is that you place economic growth and some vague notion of "self-reliance" as the highest goods. I reject this. There are far more important political matters.

How delightfully naiive.
I'm naive for thinking that courts will side against violent right-wingers in an era where Nazis are reviled and every violent right-winger is a Nazi?
 

Whitestrake Pelinal

Like a dream without a dreamer
My opinion on that is quite a mix between the traditionalist and non-traditionalist one based on understanding of history - in which vast majority of people lived as farmers, and here's a shocker - women did work on these farms. Just as much as the men did. And not just in terms of traditional housewife duties, but also dealing with crops, farm animals, this sort of stuff. Not necessarily all types of such work, but with smart, complementary to the men choice of tasks, leaving the strength intensive ones to the men of course. So yeah, women not working is an artifact of few rather unique parts of history in very few places for rather few women.
It just isn't a realistic aim for the general society in current times. What is realistic is that most women should be encouraged into types of work that are similar in characteristics relevant for family life to the traditional situation of farmers over the last thousands of years rather than the alternatives.
Home business, running family business, part time work in local community business, this sort of thing, as opposed to working for corporate overlords with multi week work travel away from home and generally spending more time with coworkers and clients than own family, as that is what breeds the sort of social issues traditional lifestyle avoids.
I agree with all of this -- but the last part applies to men as well. Keeping men away from their sons for most of the day is not a sustainable practice. A lot of the boys never get raised to men, they end up as soyboys, momma's boys, etc. They should be spending a lot of time with their fathers once they get to the age of reason, around seven or eight, they need to be watching their fathers and copying their behaviors. A healthy society has masculinity and morals transmitted from father to son. That transmission becomes unreliable when the fathers are mostly hidden from their view, and the boys are put in female-run environments and bombarded with scripted fiction video.

Putting men in workhouses for their most energetic eight to ten hours a day is useful to the owners of businesses but bad for everyone else. Obviously we can't have kids running around steel mills or surgery theaters, but most work isn't like that -- and work should be made to serve family, not the other way around.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Why do you think that Leftists need to get their gun grab agenda off the ground? All they have to do is prevent militant Right-wingers from organizing in the streets.

And how are they going to do that?

If heavily armed people want to organise in the streets, I'm not sure how they can stop that. When the demobbed vet with his AR-15 raises an eyebrow at overweight 5ft Officer Sheridon with her hand gun, the jig would be up. And that's before the ANTI-FA neets go and pick a fight they really shouldn't.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top