Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "Traditionalism: Its Positive and Negative Aspects" video.

The Boomers rebelled against traditionalism just for the sake of rebelling. They were too fucking stupid to realize that many societal stigmas were in place for a reason. Having children out of wedlock, for example: bastard fatherless children have been known for millennia to have a tendency to be miscreants. Therefore, having bastard children is stigmatized. Yet feminists painted this stigma as oppression and rebelled against it. Fast forward to today, and 85% of the current prison population grew up in a broken home. Thanks cultural Marxism.
184
Arthur E traditionalism revolves around the conservative notion of deferred gratification and sacrifice. People selflessly choose to make a commitment and stick to that commitment, not only because it should (theoretically) be societally encouraged, but also because they would (theoretically) understand that they would receive a more wholesome life and greater spiritual fulfilment from these choices. They choose to defer their gratification to the next generation, have children and live a family life, instead of a life filled with instant gratification and empty material pleasures. Your argument revolves around the notion that humans (and women in particular) are inherently selfish, materialistic, and driven by greed. While I agree the majority of people/women currently fall into this category, it is not impossible that a cultural renaissance could occur and break this cycle. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the most miserable and selfish people/women in the world are people that reject traditionalism.
22
Bake2Shake I don't know if you're being facetious or what, but traditionalism formed over millennia, while the current societal norms are a relatively new realm of standards that are obviously inferior to traditional standards. Unless, of course, you think degeneracy and the breakdown of the nuclear family is somehow a good thing for Western civilization. Traditionalism is truly the more evolved form of living, and a return to traditional values would see the detriments caused by cultural Marxism erased.
10
Matthieu Pageau as The Way of the World stated "the Left celebrates everything that is unnatural." Subscribe to him if you aren't already.
9
Sounds like something Sigmund Schlomo Freud would say. But tell me, what is wrong with a person who, coming from a home that is the epitome of what is wrong with modern culture, decides that they want to return to traditionalism? If anyone understands the value of a traditional lifestyle, it would be a person that suffered under the detriments of degenerate modern culture.
8
@ Inisfad: "As a female, I was glad to finally get rid of an era where women lived miserable lives, in the hopes that they would receive 'spiritual fulfillment. Now you wish to bring that back....as part of some tradition? All traditions, while comfortable because they are familiar and known, are not necessarily good." Women lived miserable lives as powerful matriarchs and keepers of home and hearth? I think that many women live miserable lives now under the current cultural norms. Those that don't marry and have children before they are too old for it to make sense end up becoming alone and depressed. My older sister is 38, unmarried, overweight, depressed, and an alcoholic. She lives with a roommate and has two cats (of course). She's also a feminist and a Leftist, who bought the bullshit line that your 20s are for sleeping around and partying. I think she will be alone for the rest of her life, aside from visiting my family and I. I still love her of course, and she is always welcome in my home, but my wife will always have our children and me while I'm alive, and that is the "spiritual fulfillment" I speak of.
7
@ Paddy Mcgill: Catholicism in its current form is cucked beyond all reason. The Catholic Church is the number one facilitator of bringing "refugees" into Western countries. The West remained the West after all of the various schisms took place that depleted the power and influence of Roman Catholicism. England has been autonomous from the Catholic Church since the 16th century. It has been the beacon of the West and created most of what we refer to as the West today whilst completely autonomous from the Catholic Church. Catholicism is not the West, and Europe does not need it. Europe needs nationalism.
7
Arthur E Apologies. I didn't mean to paint you as a misogynist or MGTOW. My point is not that you're incorrect about most women, but you're generalizing women as all possessing these undesirable characteristics based on your preconceived notions and anecdotal experiences, which is kind of nihilistic, and certainly doesn't illustrate absolute reality. I would wager that you live in an area with a political/social climate that creates feminist/materialistic women. That or you may just be young, and are dating/meeting only young, immature, uncultured girls with shitty family values. I don't believe that women have a naturally selfish hypergamy. Of course they want a man that has potential and provides, but that is not everything to a woman that has any semblance of a soul. Women become less and less superficial as they mature and reach an age where they want to settle down and have children. That is when they select a man based on their character and virtue, not their money or their looks. You don't want a woman that values only money and physical attributes. I have been happily married for 8 years. My wife grew up in a conservative family in Northern Germany. We have two boys, 3 and 6, and she's pregnant with another. I'm 35 years old and she's 32. I would say it's a pretty traditional family we have. Happy Hunting.
6
@ Inisfad: The word bastard means a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child. Stop word policing or I will say nothing more to you. A traditional household i.e. a nuclear family, is just as dependent upon the mother as it is the father. A motherless child is just as likely to be a miscreant, but we rarely see this occur because of a combination of natural motherly instincts and the incentivizing of moral and fiscal irresponsibly of fathers via the welfare state. Economic stability helps a single parent household, but does not replace the stability and normalcy a child receives when they grow up in a traditional family unit. Also, it is becoming less and less feasible for a single parent to be economically stable. Kids take time and massive amounts of energy and money. Not to mention, most people that make the poor life decision of having children out of wedlock tend to be of a lower socioeconomic class to begin with. Having children keeps them perpetually poor in a vast majority of cases.
6
@ Darcy: I couldn't agree more. This is why, even though I am a White Nationalist in many respects, I am vehemently against authoritarianism. A culture must be allowed to govern itself. Values cannot be forced upon a person, as the moralist Left does trying to push their PC cultural Marxism. All this will accomplish for the Left is the opposite of their desired result. They will brow beat White males into a position of striking back.
5
@ Inisfad: I'm not talking about a return to the 1700s, that is ridiculous. I'm talking about the backbone of traditionalism, which is also the backbone of any nation and culture, the nuclear family unit.
5
@ Matthieu Pageau: Yes, and a lucid comment, I might add. Cyclical nature itself is a hierarchy, so in balancing our civilization with nature, we must accept that hierarchy is natural. I also think that feminists and other cultural Marxists tend to contradict themselves in that they understand and accept hierarchies in a state of nature, but not in human social structures. They refuse to see humanity, even in the most rudimentary of senses, as living in a state of nature. They view human interactions through the lens of sociology (subjective pseudoscience) instead of biology and logical reasoning. They hold humans to different standards because they know that if they don't, they will perpetually possess less power than their male counterparts. This is not to say that "might is right," although in most senses that is true, but a combination of physical prowess, intelligence, and rationality generally puts males in a natural position of authority (with exceptions, of course). Traditionalist women are generally content with the role they play, because they understand that a good man and a good woman serve to supplement the other's natural weaknesses, and create a formidable team. It is so important also for children to experience this dynamic and have it be normalized in their life i.e. to see their parents be happy and a fantastic, indomitable team. So goes the traditionalist quote "a man is only as good as the woman beside him" whilst a retarded feminist might say "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
4
@ Inisfad: And what exactly was wrong with the 1950s? My country and its people were better then in many ways than they are now. You're simply using exceptions to the rule to try and invalidate the rule, which is a typical Leftist tactic. I don't know why Leftists always have to go around virtue signaling and being the "Not All" police, and then have the audacity to make such wantonly ignorant and fallacious generalizations as "all Trump voters are White supremacists." Alas for your argument, the vast majority of married couples are not abusive, alcoholics, or drug addicts, and they certainly don't "loathe" the person they asked to marry and have children with. Again, this is a nihilistic view of marriage that is advanced by cultural Marxist scum that would rather you believe that marriage and children are the ultimate dream-killing prison, when in reality they are the most fulfilling thing you could ever imagine. The vast majority of marriages that end in failure are because the people involved are selfish and lack any semblance of stoicism. The same people that tell you "marriage is prison" will tell you we need to bring in immigrants because our native birth rate is below replacement and our economy will fail otherwise. They denigrate the backbone of Western traditionalism, the nuclear family, and then bring in foreigners that espouse hyper-traditional values and have gaggles of children. In three generations, bye bye White people, bye bye Western values. Nevertheless, my life is not perfect. My marriage is challenging and we have issues just like every other family. You can mock me all you want in an attempt to defend your hedonistic and utterly transparent hatred of traditional values, but at the end of the day, the truth remains the same: traditionalism is vastly superior to the alternative, and the proof of that is everywhere around us. Also, if you ever intend on being a parent (gods forbid), you'd better not have such fragile sensibilities as to be triggered by the word "bastard" in an online environment.
4
@Darcy Revens: I also agree with your assessment of dating, although I would also implore men to go out with girls they meet in person, at school, at work (unless the job is a career position), at events, etc. Also they could network with one of their female friends whose judgment they trust, and have them try to pair you with a girl they know to be a good match. That is how I met my wife. Her friend met me through a mutual friend and insisted that we be introduced. It was slightly awkward, but I wouldn't say any more awkward than going on an online date. I will forever be in her debt. Her family and mine spend a week together every summer at the family cabin in the mountains. :)
3
@ Mac Sunny: My relationship with the gods (as archetypes of sound virtue and spirit) has also helped to carry me through this metaphysical and spiritual journey. I will say Heill to you as well, but also Heill to Óðinn, Þórr, Týr, and Frigg. :)
3
@ Darcy: That is a reasonable assessment, IMO.
3
@ Inisfad: I'm not basing what I speak of on any TV show that I watched. I'm basing my views upon the reality of the situation and on the women of that generation that I have met, including both of my wonderful grandmothers, who were both formidable and graceful women of great character. They were also the most generous, selfless, and nurturing women I've ever met. Women like them, that were the glue of the traditional household, have always held a certain power, especially over their children, but over their men as well. You just want to manipulate the definition of being a matriarch to being a woman that works and brings home money. You must not know very many immigrant families either...talk about women that run the household. Immigrant families are also very traditional. I already stated earlier that I am 35, so no I wasn't there for any feminist marches in the 60s, and I'm glad for that. My sister chose the lifestyle that she lives, and squandered the best years of her life being a degenerate and not taking control of her life. She does not have a partner BECAUSE she was told she didn't need one to be happy by her miserable Marxist professors at college and all of her idiotic libtard friends, who all went ahead and had children anyways. Average, single, never-married, childless men in their 50s are not celebrated or seen as attractive or desirable in this culture. George Clooney is not a normal person, and that is a pathetic example. Take Dale, 55 years old, never married, no kids, not much money to speak of, not particularly attractive, and works as a handyman. I'm sure the ladies are beating down the door to marry that guy and bear his children. What planet are you living on? I do look at old men that have no family as alone and lacking spiritual fulfillment, but I do not "disdain" them, you drama queen. My sister will not have immediate family as she grows old, and that is what I mean by being alone. Being a cat lady and living with a roommate into your 40s? Sounds like a depressing life to me.
3
@ Inisfad: My personal life is none of your fucking business. But I will tell you that both of us dated and had significant others before we got together. I never questioned her in detail about who she was with and she never questioned me. We left that in the past and focused on our future together. If my wife had the same amount of sexual experience as me, I would consider her to have mildly over-dated, but this is only because she is younger than me. But neither of us were whores, by any stretch of the imagination. I know you don't really care though, you are just attempting to try to use whatever I say to discredit me, because you're common and ignoble. :)
3
@ Inisfad: Your arguments are tired and nihilistic. The divorce rates, criminality rates, drug use, degeneracy, etc. in Western countries is the reason why the West needs a cultural renaissance. People got divorced in the 50s too. It happened then too. But today most people simply give up too easily and are too fucking selfish to have a successful marriage. This culture is all about "me" and "I" and "what have you done for me lately." I don't know why you keep trying to paint my life like its a duplicate of "Ozzie and Harriet" or Leave it to Beaver. I never said it was. We just have a traditional setup and a nuclear family, and I intend to keep it that way. The masses of every country in the history of the world have lived in ignorance to some degree. Just because that was the case in the 50s does not mean it wasn't a better time to grow up and live.
3
@ Inisfad: Here's a little bit about life in the 50s. Crime during the 1950s: Was significantly lower in total, even when taking into consideration the infrequency of reporting, crime definitions, etc. I even used the stats from the end of the 50s, just to be fair: *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 1960: -Total Crime: 1,887.2 -Violent Crime: 160.9 -Property Crime: 1,726.3 -Rape: 9.6 -Robbery: 60.1 -Aggravated Assault: 86.1 *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 2015: -Total Crime: 2,870.2 -Violent Crime: 383.2 -Property Crime: 2,487.0 -Rape: 28.1 -Robbery: 101.9 -Aggravated Assault: 237.8 The only two major categories that are less today than in 1960 are: Murder: 5.1 per 100,000 in 1960, 4.9 per 100,000 in 2015 Burglary: 508.6 per 100,000 in 1960, 491.4 per 100,000 in 2015 This is normally attributed to security/deterrence measures i.e. cameras, home security systems, faster police responses, better crimefighting capabilities. Education during the 1950s: *the US had the best educational system in the world *there were hardly any school shootings *90% of all school levies were approved by voters *discipline problems in school were minor *Drugs did not infest American schools Family during the 1950s: *Divorce rates were low, while marriage rates were high and people married at a younger age than at any other time in history *Only 4% of all babies were born out-of-wedlock, compared to 40% today *90% of all children grew up with married parents *Americans viewed the home and the family to be most important thing in society *The White birth rate was extremely high, women were having almost 4 children on average Economy during the 1950s: *cost of living was low *the GDP grew by 250% from 1950-1960 *average incomes tripled *the housing market boomed *developers were building 1.5 million homes per year *Home ownership rates exploded *60% of Americans were in the middle class category *Poverty rates were less than 20% *Consumer spending doubled in the 1950s *families were able to live comfortably on only one income Yeah, the 50's were horrible because everyone didn't know what was going on in the world. I think you must be cognitively impaired.
3
@ Prospero 058: Yes, bastards bore the burden, as their existence was an indicator of their parents' poor moral character. It was also religious, as you noted. But the point I was trying to make is that the stigma surrounding reproduction out of wedlock exists for a reason that has been known for millennia: that fatherless children tend to be a burden to society. It was not some conspiracy to keep women barefoot and pregnant making food in the kitchen. Feminism and the destruction of the nuclear family caused massive increases in crime and degeneracy, and yet it seems as though our culture is unwilling to identify the root of the problem. As I stated in my OP, 75% of the prison population grew up in a broken home. 75% of Black kids grow up in a one parent household. These are not coincidences, right?
3
Sesshounamaru I don't think race, class etc. really matters in this context, shockingly. The truth about the tendencies of fatherless children was known well before European countries were multiracial i.e. even White bastards within ethno-states are disproportionately degenerate and delinquent. In a multiracial society, we see the difference in delinquency is exaggerated in single parent households of color, which is mostly cultural IMO, but may also have some basis in race. I guess the point I'm making is that the majority of fatherless children, regardless of race, class, environment, etc. display these delinquent characteristics. It just varies in severity when you factor in those aspects.
3
Sesshounamaru you're a poor judge of character and even poorer at reading comprehension. Fatherless children grow up without positive male role models. Why do you think Black kids benefit so much from athletics? 1.) biology 2.) the coach becomes their father figure. I did not dismiss race or class, I just made light of the fact that a rich White child that had no father would still display degenerate tendencies associated with the lack of having a positive male role model. Money and race doesn't eliminate it, it only decreases the severity of it. If you want to make everything about race and class, go ahead, it applies in most cases, but not all of them. It exaggerates the likelihood of kids becoming delinquents to a more severe degree. You accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you exactly as being radfem is fucking pathetic, and shows how reactionary, uncompromising, and academically challenged you are.
3
rwatertree also, many Boomers were in their late teens and early twenties when the Civil Rights and counterculture movements were occurring. The war ended in '45. In 1964, a true post-war boomer would be 18, give or take. Having disdain for the authorities does not mean they had reason to upend the entire cultural fabric of their parent's generation. They call it the counterculture movement for a reason. IMO, these people ruined our country and culture under the guise of "liberation." Liberty to be a relativist degenerate with no values, perhaps...
3
Inisfad sto·ic ˈstōik/ noun 1. a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining. 2. a member of the ancient philosophical school of Stoicism. adjective 1.another term for stoical. 2. of or belonging to the Stoics or their school of philosophy. It's so clear you're grasping for straws at this point, but I'll continue indulging you, because destroying your pleb-tier arguments assumes me. Shall we begin discussing the use of context and arguing over the definition of a word, just so that you can give me "relationship advice" that is neither wanted or needed? How many men have you divorced? How many children's lives did you destroy with your toxic relativism? Btw, my wife is a German. Have you ever met a German? Their cultural persona is criticized as being emotionless, dry, and utterly no-nonsense. I have been told by my wife that I'm overly emotional at times, and I'm a conservative nationalist war veteran. Go...and... fuck...yourself... you utter hag. You are without valid argument or credibility.
3
Inisfad: You can say whatever pithy thing you like about my analysis. You probably don't even know any Black people, let alone shared a sports field with any. More than likely, you're some old liberal menopausal White lady living in a Lilly-White gated community and criticizing racism and border walls. Your George Clooney bit gave you away ;) A "coach" is an influential and motivating force in any young man's life. But for a kid with no father in the house, they are exactly what is needed. Discipline, respect, hard work, sportsmanship, grace in victory and defeat, competition, values. Athletics coaches take troubled boys, give them a purpose, and mold them into men of character. You probably wouldn't understand. I'm starting to think you're probably an old White liberal women that is utterly out of touch with anything masculine, yet still has an opinion (of course). Since that is likely the case, why don't you go ahead and STFU about anything that pertains to fatherhood and masculinity, mmmkay?
3
@ Insifad: what is the point of arguing about this word? Is there one? Language is malleable and there are multiple definitions for words. Just look at the words racist or sexist or ignorant or repressed for instance i.e. all of the things you claimed your parents' generation espoused. You'll notice that slimy Boomer cultural Marxists have taken those first two words and manipulated their definition to fit their perverse sociological pseudoscientific narratives. Take a look at the Merriam Webster definition of the word "gender," and tell me the cultural Marxists didn't get to them with their "gender is a social construct" horseshit. LOL I've been told by doctors that I was "stoic" during painful procedures. Is that a bad thing? Did they use that word incorrectly? CONTEXT, you ignorant pleb. It's a very important aspect of linguistics. I am not emotionless in all things. I am emotionless and don't complain when doing so is a virtue, something a perpetually aggrieved old misandrist hag wouldn't understand in the slightest. Family life is not easy, you have to roll with the punches and not be a whinging bellyacher all the time. Soldier on.
3
@ Inisfad: And yet, my theoretical example of "Dale" is a much more accurate depiction of what an average single, unmarried, childless man is like in their 50s. Your example of a typical bachelor in their 50s was George fucking Clooney. Are you kidding me? Economic prowess does not enable a man in his 50s to have a healthy family or be attractive to any woman that wants a traditional family life. All they attract are golddigging whores that would probably have to get pregnant by fucking the poolboy.
3
@ Inisfad: "My point is that it is societally acceptable for boys/men to sleep around and have many sexual partners, yet it apparently, in your world, unacceptable for women to have the same experience." Show me where I said anything even remotely similar to this. You tried to subversively bait me into saying that is what I think, just so that you could attack me. It was so fucking obvious that was what you were doing that, even if I did feel that way, I would have been able to tell you whatever you wanted to hear.
3
I didn't say the divorce rate was the same in the 50s. Can you read? Perhaps you should get your prescription checked. I said it was lower in an earlier post showing several stats from the 50s. An economic renaissance is only possible with a cultural renaissance. Worthless, degenerate, selfish people are not good for any economy. The fact that you can't see the relationship between the two highlights your utter shallowness and vehement unwillingness to disavow modern culture (the culture your shitty generation created). The mean household income in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, was $72,641. Per capita is less than 30K, and that includes the unemployed, welfare recipients, the elderly on SSI, children, and women that are stay-at-home Moms. Median individual income for persons, age 25+, employed full-time with a Bachelor's Degree is $64,074. Try again, Leftist.
3
@ Inisfad: Why don't you ask Google instead to send their " revised definition of stoic to mainstream dictionaries." Google "stoic" and tell me what comes up on Google dictionary (it will be my "revised" definition, you dumb Leftist). P.S.: Google dictionary is currently the most widely used dictionary on Earth.
3
@ Inisfad: Awww, are you butthurt that I was right and you were wrong? The Google SEARCH ENGINE (that uses dictionary definitions from mainstream dictionaries) provided the exact definition you accused me of fabricating, DID IT NOT??? You are an utterly dishonorable person. That much is clear.
3
@ Inisfad: Do you really think that Google Search is not the first place the VAST majority of people go now for the definition of a word? Are you still living in the 60s, lady? Get a grip.
3
Inisfad bullshit. It's a symbiotic relationship and even in middle and upper class families the lack of a father is highly detrimental to a child's life. You focused on ONE statistic: the one that your flawed argument hinged upon. What about the suicide rates, the teen pregnancies, the runaway rate, the behavioral disorders, the high school dropout rates, the prison rates, the drug abuse rates, the rape rates???? Are they are economically motivated as well? Keep telling yourself that men are not necessary, you pathetic feminist troll. Children with fathers have a MONUMENTALLY better chance of becoming well-functioning, healthy, productive adults, regardless of economic factors. From one of the sites I posted: "Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers." Anything to do with economics? No.
3
Sesshounamaru 1.) I didn't say that fatherless children get a free pass to be a failure in life. There are some kids that turn out fine in a single parent home. There are some that struggle and still come out a well-functioning human because of shear willpower. However, exceptions to the rule don't invalidate the rule. You can play the "not all" game from now until doomsday. It doesn't negate the fact that fatherless children have a higher likelihood to fail in life. 2.) Of course Black kids from fatherless homes can find passions that help them achieve in ways outside of athletics. That doesn't mean that Black fatherless kids are not the perfect candidates to partake in organized sport. If you think Blacks aren't more likely to be athletically inclined than academically, you either aren't paying attention or you're cognitively dissonant. Most Black kids do have mothers with strong personalities that present them with a constantly toilsome influence, and I agree that can be an unnecessary weight on their shoulders. Still, positive male role models help any young man or woman in obtaining a normalized view of men in general and of their view of what a healthy relationship with the opposite sex entails. 3.) The foster home you worked in must have been the one home in this country where most of the kids were from married families, because 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father in their life. 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the national average. 4.) Saying degeneracy or delinquency is a whole lot easier than saying drug use, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school, suicide, going to prison/juvie, committing crimes, being unemployed, being homeless and being a general detriment to society as a whole. Degeneracy to me does not mean anything I don't agree with or the slightest deviation from traditional values. 5.) I am a living example of the things I preach, believe it or not. Read previous posts if you're interested. I am not as unreasonable or insane as some radfem lunatic, nor am I as uncompromising. I simply argue what is already known and should be the accepted truth. A truth that people generally just don't have the courage to admit it because it's distasteful and contradicts what modern cultural norms dictate. 6.) The whole "autistically screeching" meme does not apply to me, and it really is getting kind of cliché and overused, to where anyone with an opinion you choose not to agree with is by default "autiscally screeching" about it. I rely on fact, not emotion. I practice what I preach. Traditional family values are healthier and work better for our people, our culture, and our nation. I'm not arguing to bring this country back to the 50s, I'm only arguing that 1.) the 50s were a better time to grow up and 2.) the nuclear family is incomprehensibly important. You dismissing the importance of the nuclear family and comparing its destruction to an argument about something as meaningless as transgendered bathrooms shows your shallowness. People that can't conceptualize the importance of the family unit likely cannot conceptualize the importance of cultural integrity or the importance of the nation-state, either. That being said, yes, people of this nature are ignorant of the damage they're doing normalizing the destruction of the nuclear family. You use Kek references, so I'm assuming you fancy yourself alt-right, which confuses me. Family, race, culture, and nation are all intrinsically linked, and none can survive alone. That seems to be what the alt-right argues as well. Amirite?
3
@ Hellbound Iscariot: That all really depends on where you live and what you do for work. My wife is a badass and runs a small business from home and I work full time. I also sell real estate on the side for supplemental income. It can be done, you just have to make it work. Live within your means, save money, and be smart about investments. I'm definitely not in a "high end career" and I'm not a millionaire, but I own three properties, and I'm doing fairly well. I didn't inherit any money either, before you start making assumptions. There are still a lot of relatively affordable places to live that aren't tweaker central or an urban ghetto. I live in just such a place.
2
@ Randall Benoit: You think it's impossible to make 100K a year without going to college? That is some BULLSHIT, my friend, and is a common myth. It comes from the whole "follow your dreams and you can be anything" horseshit narrative. People follow their dreams instead of taking opportunities when they come their way. Most of the people I know that make over 6 figures are tradesmen and real estate agents/brokers, most of whom don't have college degrees. A vocational school is better for most people than university, because you emerge with an actual marketable skill and less debt. Meanwhile, most university students emerge dumber than when they came in with no marketable skill to speak of, and 100K in student loan debt to boot. They end up working a non-paid internship and living at their parents house until they're 25. Then they blame everyone but themselves, and vote Bernie because free stuff and reasons. lol
2
John Landis same here. My parents separated when I was 4, then divorced when I was 10 and my Dad moved away. I almost failed out of junior high two years later, got arrested several times, started doing drugs at 13. Mom spending child support money at the bar, bringing randos home all the time. Had to bring my dog to the pound because we lived in a hellhole little apartment. Mom letting my 15 year old sister live with her fucking 22 year old loser boyfriend. Living in a shitty Leftist town where all the poor kids fall through the cracks and all the rich Jewish kids went to ivy league schools. Got out of that house and town with nothing but resentment for modernity and Leftist degeneracy. Traditional family values are the way. The family unit is the glue of any young person's life, as well as the glue of any culture and nation. Destroy the nuclear family, and you'll usually destroy the child, the culture, and the nation. The military is the only thing that saved me from becoming a lost soul.
2
@ Arthur: Why don't you get your contractors' license and start making some real money? My Dad was a general contractor, and he did fairly well for himself. The guy that had his crew work on one of my properties is a multi-millionaire and he's only in his mid-40s. Maybe go down to Texas or Florida and make a shitpot of money rebuilding all those houses that got destroyed during the hurricanes. You can live a middle class life, just move somewhere affordable and don't be a degenerate. I know it sounds simplistic, but it really isn't rocket science. Money is a measure of a man's choices in life.
1
Prospero 058 interesting. I'll research that. Cheers.
1
@ Inisfad: On Germans: https://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Culture/The-German-personality Try to not be so pathetic when it comes to criticizing the use of generalizations. Generalizations or stereotypes are based on observed factual patterns, they aren't just some random bullshit. It helped me exponentially to understand the typical German personality when getting to know my wife, her family, and her friends. Most Germans come off like complete assholes to Americans, but they are mostly just very stoic people. ;)
1
@John Holland: Fucking A right, doggie. Glory Be.
1
@TimeKeeper25: Not likely: Crime during the 1950s: Was significantly lower in total, even when taking into consideration the infrequency of reporting, crime definitions, etc. I even used the stats from the end of the 50s, just to be fair: *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 1960: -Total Crime: 1,887.2 -Violent Crime: 160.9 -Property Crime: 1,726.3 -Rape: 9.6 -Robbery: 60.1 -Aggravated Assault: 86.1 *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 2015: -Total Crime: 2,870.2 -Violent Crime: 383.2 -Property Crime: 2,487.0 -Rape: 28.1 -Robbery: 101.9 -Aggravated Assault: 237.8 The only two major criminal categories that are very slightly less today than they were in 1960 (surprisingly) are: Murder: 5.1 per 100,000 in 1960, 4.9 per 100,000 in 2015 Burglary: 508.6 per 100,000 in 1960, 491.4 per 100,000 in 2015 The drop in murder and burglary is predominantly attributed to higher effectiveness and usage of security/deterrence measures i.e. cameras, home security systems, faster police responses, better crimefighting capabilities.
1
@ Sesshounamaru: I agree degeneracy is used far too much in alt-right circles. It has almost lost its meaning, like any buzzword. I use it only when it applies by definition. Since I'm curious now I'll look up the actual definition: "having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline." Also the noun can mean "an immoral or corrupt person." And degeneracy is defined as just the state of being degenerate. Sounds accurate enough to what I was describing, but perhaps delinquent would be more applicable. I can imagine where you're coming from, being from a culture that is oppressive with their traditionalism. I for one believe that good things can be taken from traditionalism, and bad things can be left behind. My OP stated that the Boomer generation just rebelled against and questioned every traditional value out of spite, even the ones that seemed like they had obvious virtue. Having children outside of wedlock and making a considerable effort to maintain a nuclear family is one of those. Even if it means sacrificing some degree of your own happiness, the moral virtue of this seems unquestionable to me. I don't really have a problem with homosexuality. I don't think it's degenerate, in and of itself. I do think that gay people, and especially gay men have a tendency to be promiscuous and exhibitionist, but not all of them are that way. Most Pride parades are kind of degenerate in my opinion. I think that gay people should be less blatant about making a public display of their perversions. They almost weaponize their sexuality in some ways. Look at the difference between the Pride parade in Tokyo and the one in San Francisco. The one in Tokyo was totally fine, and was just a very classy celebration of who they are. The Japanese, of course, have a much more traditional culture. They are generally weird and kinky in their sexuality, but not publicly. The one in SF has guys in S&M, being walked like dogs, wearing next to nothing, fucking each other, etc. There was even some little kid, 12 years old, twerking and getting dry humped by all of these older men. That stuff IS degenerate and perverted, and I hope you can agree. I wouldn't think it was appropriate for heterosexual people to put on displays like that in public, so gay people shouldn't get held to a different standard in my book. Sexuality is a private matter, IMO. Forcing your sexuality upon other people is rude, and really that is the reason why a lot of people have a problem with homosexuals, I think. I believe there are only two genders and very rare instances of intersex persons. Transgenderism (gender dysphoria) is a mental disorder, technically. I think gender=biological sex and gender expression is something different. Just because a guy wants to be a girl, dresses like a girl, even surgically mutilates himself and takes hormones to mimic being a girl, he is still a he, and he is still a man. All of that stuff just kind of feels like people are trying to mainstream these people's delusions under the guise of tolerance. I for one prefer to live in reality. I would never go out of my way to ridicule a transgendered person though. I just believe that a trans woman is still a man, and no one is going to shame me into believing otherwise. I don't think the societal stigma should be oppressive surrounding these values. I just think it should be accepted and encouraged that this is, by and large, the best way to raise healthier, smarter, more productive children with the most potential. Our children are the future of our world. They are our legacy, and our most important resource. I think the meaning of life is to achieve happiness, and to me, nothing gives me more purpose than the pursuit of moulding my boys into being exceptional men.
1