I think we’ve learned from west coast cities that throwing your hands in the air and allowing hedonism to happen “as long as it’s in a safe and controlled manner” with drugs and shoplifting just causes an explosion of that very thing happening.
Loaded this ‘stack on my phone before going to a beach with no connection, and read it under a beach towel fort while sipping Yerba mate. Very cultured... purificatory...
“You want to punch things when you are mad for a reason, and the best thing to do in that scenario is find something you can safely punch. Not bang a hooker.”
The main issue with Bismarck's post, is that he's simply wrong about elites. At least someone like Banania uses empirical evidence, Bismarck is "vibes-based" beliefs feigning as HBD rationalism. The higher-earning are not particularly impulsive or promiscuous or risk-attracted. Openness, Walt's golden god, is much less important corollary to wealth than conscientiousness, which itself is much less important than intelligence. And people with high conscientiousness and intelligence do not more often feel the need to do drugs and bang hookers in vegas to "relax". I made a long comment about this and, instead of responding, he blocked me and probably had the comment deleted.
This is the sort of understanding of elites that comes from a lifetime of hollywood movies like Wolf of Wall Street (based on an extremely embellished book written by a conman) which convince the plebs that they're morally superior to everyone economically more affluent than them. It's wrong. Wealth comes into the hands of hard-working, disciplined, intelligent, creative, and prosocial people. Risk-aversion is probably also better for wealth than risk-attraction. The reason for warlords in the past was not thrillseeking, it was ambition and competitiveness. You see this today in athletes, too. To be a great athlete, you have to have this sort of almost violent and flaming ambition. Many of the decadent things we associate with the rich are only associated with the rich because nobody else can afford them. Coke, gambling, and girlfriends all fall into this category. The reason high-status women may have more partners is likely due to them going to college first of all, and secondly the likelihood that promiscuity correlates with other "mannish" traits in women which contribute to career success. Promiscuous women have higher testosterone, not higher estrogen, which is really one of the more important things people ought to learn about wahmen.
Would say the most tried and true way of "blowing off steam" for the elites is games, especially sports. But in a society which has massified and commodified sports, this voluntary athletic spirit is heavily diminished. The "end goal" of sports is now to be a pro athlete and make money off of it, while in the past it was the wealthy who engaged in sports just for the fun of it. In Greece, it was the Olympics. In Rome, the Hippodrome. In Medieval Europe, it was the tournament. And in pretty much every period of history and in every civilization, the elites cherished the hunt.
The original article just makes no sense with what it’s trying to say, screaming selection bias with how he’s most likely extrapolating anecdotal experiences & surface-level media tropes to everyone. The idea that you’re guaranteed to find a millionaire playboy wannabes amongst the societal top leaves me confused as to how he even reaches this conclusion?
Agree, Agree, and Agree! While I have taken a liking to BAP's sort of 'neopagan revivalism' (which is really just derivative of nietzchean neopaganism, which is really just derivative of the rennaisance's greek learning and then greek learning in general) I think it's absurd to completely reject morality and certain moral norms as moral fagging. However I must make a counterpoint, that it is more than just a psychosexual projection to say modern Trad-wifeism takes on a certain fetishistic character, it certainly has, for better (As incentive) or worse (the implications of which could lead to modern rw movement slicing its own ankles). While I agree with the vitalist angle, I don't think it should be a means to just unchecked chaos, to me, that does not exalt life at all, as you put it, it is just self-destructive, lowering, even. But these millenial vitalists, as liberals (or at least raised and still with the unconscious restrictions thereof) liberals, they see sign of life without morality, again this is somewhat in line with Nietzsche, I suppose, or at least the sheer crazy overflowing level of greek life as it existed in antiquity, as a sort of trad myself, whether instinctually or vestigially, I still hold to certain moral rules, in spite of at least what I have seen and what is largely known on Nietzsche's commentaries on general morality. I do think reading both the article you are replying to and yours has been a very interesting mental exercise and I thank you for that experience. though as incel it reminds me I need to up my game, or at least self-actualize so I can successfully mate... Not presenting as outwardly autistic, retarded, backwards, unkempt, finding purpose, etc. But back to mental exercise, yes, I think it's revealed many grey areas, blind spots, unreconciled beliefs, and what makes me squeamish. As a Right winger also with an exceptionally high natural disgust response, I repeat myself again, I agree with yuo on dis 1.
I still somewhat believe a “eugenic elitism” is possible for hedonistic pursuits, but it takes one of a truly aristocratic soul to dip their toes into the fires of Hell without descending down the crag. You need extreme impulse control and self-discipline to prevent habit, the cunning to keep your activities totally concealed, and the stalwartness to not allow hedonistic pursuits to corrupt your sense of morality. Businessmen who grift through Vegas are far FAR below such truly “elite” aristocrats.
There are some pretty obvious structural reasons why the rich and famous are more degenerate than Joe Everyman--mostly that they have the opportunity to be with few immediate consequences. When it comes to sex in particular, hypergamy means that high-status men get to have sexual variety if they want it, whereas that door is largely closed to most of everyone else. Plenty of lower class men would take the same deal if they could get it.
That said, generally agree with everything in this post.
I would agree that they are more degenerate compared to the average person, but I think that this difference is very overblown and that the difference is very different along party lines.
At the very least, conservative types tend to have much less volatile outlets and things like that. That's why I mentioned US presidents, because when you look at compulsive skirt chasers like JFK and LBJ who had a lot of very well-known affairs vs. like Bush Sr. who only had a few long-term affairs that were mostly hush hush, the difference between the two is obvious.
Yeah niether is good, but conservative elites tend to be much more conservative in basically every category in their own indulgences.
Yes, as with every other group, there are definitely some that are better and some that are worse. This gives the lie to the silly notion that "well elites are just going to fuck everything that moves you can't really stop them." No, clearly some of them will be worse about that than others, and so you should side with the ones who are less degenerate rather than the ones who are more.
I think it also stems from Walt's inability to critically analyze his own upbringing and how this shaped his worldview. He grew up in an environment where this wasn't really uncommon and certainly wasn't looked down on (just let people hecking enjoy themselves) and so that had an impact on his own views.
The simple fact is that if you are raised by church lady types, you are not going to go off the deep end of degeneracy basically ever. It's a huge psyop that strict parents create wild children when they grow up, and I don't think Walt realizes this.
I was raised in a religious household, but I had a degeneracy spell, triggered by a catastrophe in my life, that involved casual sex, affairs, unironic booze cruising, coke, hookers, the works. I’m by no means proud of it and I’ve largely put that behind me. The difference is, I knew what I was doing was morally wrong and I never brought it around my family or anything. A lot of people don’t have the ability to separate their actions from their moral understanding. It’s easier to justify everything you’re doing than to look at a sinner in the mirror.
I am a Christian, and I agreed with a rather large part of Walt's post.
Mind you, I'm cool with slut shaming. There are lots of behaviors which should be shamed but kept legal. For those determined to be sluts anyway, the shaming is a source of thrills.
Objective fact: the elite are subject to extra temptations. Many women are attracted to power, or the illusion thereof (think rockstar groupies). The point Walt was making is that groupie sluts are distracting the powerful from practicing droit de signeur on potential tradwives. This is a Good Thing.
Under Old Testament Law, there was no difference between being a whore and a slut. The term harlot encompassed both. A woman who was married, under the care of her father, or a Levite was under a death penalty for being a harlot. But I submit that otherwise, being a harlot was legal, albeit reviled. Note that Solomon's first act upon gaining supernatural wisdom was to adjudicate a dispute between two harlots.
Under Old Testament Law, Tinder is just as evil as pimping. It's the fornication that's the sin, not the money changing. (After all, there is a lot of money changing in marriage.) Indeed, having sluts/harlots getting paid is better than having the general taxpayers supporting the resulting bastards.
With that said, Jesus told his followers to avoid marrying a woman who wasn't a virgin. Alas, of age virgins are getting scarce in this wicked age...
My main gripe with this post is that Walt doesn't know anything about what it means to be an elite. Yes, they are subject to more temptations but there is no reason to think they are all just decadent. That's why I mention US presidents on this post. Think about all the presidents who have had affairs or what have you. Now compare that to the ones that have not. It is only a fraction of the total.
I generally agree with the idea that immoral (or however you put it) people should go for other immoral people, so as not to taint the tradwives so to speak. I've even written about this myself. But for one thing, Walt is not really saying that. At least not honestly. He's also going about it far to lax. You can socially engineer taboos to be rather milquetoast and therefore enabling people to feel like they are doing something bad when it really isn't a big deal on a relative scale. Walt's idea is basically to just give elites all the drugs and sex they ask for which is just ridiculous for all the reasons I already outlined.
Agreed. Shameful behavior should be subject to shame. Elites who resist temptation should be celebrated. Alas, this is not what happens today. Mike Pence and Ron Paul have been criticized as being sexist for taking measures to avoid temptation.
And yes, it is unfair that beautiful young women are denied private power lunches with people like Pence and Paul. OTOH, you have young women exploiting their youth/beauty in return for power, cf. Kamala Harris.
There is no exact equality. Tradeoffs happen. Ergo, it is time to get the law out of such matters and let shaming rule. Let the church ladies and first wives shame the powerful from having power lunches with their cute assistants and let the feminists shame the powerful against inappropriate glass ceilings.
Yeah I don't really know what Walt has against church lady shaming. Shaming is a more authentic method of social control because it is inherently dynamic and reflective of societal health and values. You can set up morality laws but then you have to deal with the sluggish bureaucracy taking forever to adapt to (generally) rapid social change, often finding itself in the dust. I was told that Walt tried to move to rural America at one point but left after realizing nobody liked him and he couldn't go to nightclubs and hang out with sluts. I suspect his resentment for church lady types stems from this.
I think we’ve learned from west coast cities that throwing your hands in the air and allowing hedonism to happen “as long as it’s in a safe and controlled manner” with drugs and shoplifting just causes an explosion of that very thing happening.
Another banger from Polk!
Loaded this ‘stack on my phone before going to a beach with no connection, and read it under a beach towel fort while sipping Yerba mate. Very cultured... purificatory...
So powerful...
“You want to punch things when you are mad for a reason, and the best thing to do in that scenario is find something you can safely punch. Not bang a hooker.”
It really is the most kino quote from the article
No, the best thing to do is to channel that anger into getting even.
The main issue with Bismarck's post, is that he's simply wrong about elites. At least someone like Banania uses empirical evidence, Bismarck is "vibes-based" beliefs feigning as HBD rationalism. The higher-earning are not particularly impulsive or promiscuous or risk-attracted. Openness, Walt's golden god, is much less important corollary to wealth than conscientiousness, which itself is much less important than intelligence. And people with high conscientiousness and intelligence do not more often feel the need to do drugs and bang hookers in vegas to "relax". I made a long comment about this and, instead of responding, he blocked me and probably had the comment deleted.
This is the sort of understanding of elites that comes from a lifetime of hollywood movies like Wolf of Wall Street (based on an extremely embellished book written by a conman) which convince the plebs that they're morally superior to everyone economically more affluent than them. It's wrong. Wealth comes into the hands of hard-working, disciplined, intelligent, creative, and prosocial people. Risk-aversion is probably also better for wealth than risk-attraction. The reason for warlords in the past was not thrillseeking, it was ambition and competitiveness. You see this today in athletes, too. To be a great athlete, you have to have this sort of almost violent and flaming ambition. Many of the decadent things we associate with the rich are only associated with the rich because nobody else can afford them. Coke, gambling, and girlfriends all fall into this category. The reason high-status women may have more partners is likely due to them going to college first of all, and secondly the likelihood that promiscuity correlates with other "mannish" traits in women which contribute to career success. Promiscuous women have higher testosterone, not higher estrogen, which is really one of the more important things people ought to learn about wahmen.
Would say the most tried and true way of "blowing off steam" for the elites is games, especially sports. But in a society which has massified and commodified sports, this voluntary athletic spirit is heavily diminished. The "end goal" of sports is now to be a pro athlete and make money off of it, while in the past it was the wealthy who engaged in sports just for the fun of it. In Greece, it was the Olympics. In Rome, the Hippodrome. In Medieval Europe, it was the tournament. And in pretty much every period of history and in every civilization, the elites cherished the hunt.
The original article just makes no sense with what it’s trying to say, screaming selection bias with how he’s most likely extrapolating anecdotal experiences & surface-level media tropes to everyone. The idea that you’re guaranteed to find a millionaire playboy wannabes amongst the societal top leaves me confused as to how he even reaches this conclusion?
Walt is best thought of as a liberal who only got into RW politics because it was the ultimate way to be transgressive.
Fantastic read. Restacked with a note!
Agree, Agree, and Agree! While I have taken a liking to BAP's sort of 'neopagan revivalism' (which is really just derivative of nietzchean neopaganism, which is really just derivative of the rennaisance's greek learning and then greek learning in general) I think it's absurd to completely reject morality and certain moral norms as moral fagging. However I must make a counterpoint, that it is more than just a psychosexual projection to say modern Trad-wifeism takes on a certain fetishistic character, it certainly has, for better (As incentive) or worse (the implications of which could lead to modern rw movement slicing its own ankles). While I agree with the vitalist angle, I don't think it should be a means to just unchecked chaos, to me, that does not exalt life at all, as you put it, it is just self-destructive, lowering, even. But these millenial vitalists, as liberals (or at least raised and still with the unconscious restrictions thereof) liberals, they see sign of life without morality, again this is somewhat in line with Nietzsche, I suppose, or at least the sheer crazy overflowing level of greek life as it existed in antiquity, as a sort of trad myself, whether instinctually or vestigially, I still hold to certain moral rules, in spite of at least what I have seen and what is largely known on Nietzsche's commentaries on general morality. I do think reading both the article you are replying to and yours has been a very interesting mental exercise and I thank you for that experience. though as incel it reminds me I need to up my game, or at least self-actualize so I can successfully mate... Not presenting as outwardly autistic, retarded, backwards, unkempt, finding purpose, etc. But back to mental exercise, yes, I think it's revealed many grey areas, blind spots, unreconciled beliefs, and what makes me squeamish. As a Right winger also with an exceptionally high natural disgust response, I repeat myself again, I agree with yuo on dis 1.
I still somewhat believe a “eugenic elitism” is possible for hedonistic pursuits, but it takes one of a truly aristocratic soul to dip their toes into the fires of Hell without descending down the crag. You need extreme impulse control and self-discipline to prevent habit, the cunning to keep your activities totally concealed, and the stalwartness to not allow hedonistic pursuits to corrupt your sense of morality. Businessmen who grift through Vegas are far FAR below such truly “elite” aristocrats.
Except someone with that much self-discipline wound't want to dip his toes into the fires of Hell.
Maybe
There are some pretty obvious structural reasons why the rich and famous are more degenerate than Joe Everyman--mostly that they have the opportunity to be with few immediate consequences. When it comes to sex in particular, hypergamy means that high-status men get to have sexual variety if they want it, whereas that door is largely closed to most of everyone else. Plenty of lower class men would take the same deal if they could get it.
That said, generally agree with everything in this post.
I would agree that they are more degenerate compared to the average person, but I think that this difference is very overblown and that the difference is very different along party lines.
At the very least, conservative types tend to have much less volatile outlets and things like that. That's why I mentioned US presidents, because when you look at compulsive skirt chasers like JFK and LBJ who had a lot of very well-known affairs vs. like Bush Sr. who only had a few long-term affairs that were mostly hush hush, the difference between the two is obvious.
Yeah niether is good, but conservative elites tend to be much more conservative in basically every category in their own indulgences.
Yes, as with every other group, there are definitely some that are better and some that are worse. This gives the lie to the silly notion that "well elites are just going to fuck everything that moves you can't really stop them." No, clearly some of them will be worse about that than others, and so you should side with the ones who are less degenerate rather than the ones who are more.
I think it also stems from Walt's inability to critically analyze his own upbringing and how this shaped his worldview. He grew up in an environment where this wasn't really uncommon and certainly wasn't looked down on (just let people hecking enjoy themselves) and so that had an impact on his own views.
The simple fact is that if you are raised by church lady types, you are not going to go off the deep end of degeneracy basically ever. It's a huge psyop that strict parents create wild children when they grow up, and I don't think Walt realizes this.
I was raised in a religious household, but I had a degeneracy spell, triggered by a catastrophe in my life, that involved casual sex, affairs, unironic booze cruising, coke, hookers, the works. I’m by no means proud of it and I’ve largely put that behind me. The difference is, I knew what I was doing was morally wrong and I never brought it around my family or anything. A lot of people don’t have the ability to separate their actions from their moral understanding. It’s easier to justify everything you’re doing than to look at a sinner in the mirror.
I am a Christian, and I agreed with a rather large part of Walt's post.
Mind you, I'm cool with slut shaming. There are lots of behaviors which should be shamed but kept legal. For those determined to be sluts anyway, the shaming is a source of thrills.
Objective fact: the elite are subject to extra temptations. Many women are attracted to power, or the illusion thereof (think rockstar groupies). The point Walt was making is that groupie sluts are distracting the powerful from practicing droit de signeur on potential tradwives. This is a Good Thing.
Under Old Testament Law, there was no difference between being a whore and a slut. The term harlot encompassed both. A woman who was married, under the care of her father, or a Levite was under a death penalty for being a harlot. But I submit that otherwise, being a harlot was legal, albeit reviled. Note that Solomon's first act upon gaining supernatural wisdom was to adjudicate a dispute between two harlots.
Under Old Testament Law, Tinder is just as evil as pimping. It's the fornication that's the sin, not the money changing. (After all, there is a lot of money changing in marriage.) Indeed, having sluts/harlots getting paid is better than having the general taxpayers supporting the resulting bastards.
With that said, Jesus told his followers to avoid marrying a woman who wasn't a virgin. Alas, of age virgins are getting scarce in this wicked age...
My main gripe with this post is that Walt doesn't know anything about what it means to be an elite. Yes, they are subject to more temptations but there is no reason to think they are all just decadent. That's why I mention US presidents on this post. Think about all the presidents who have had affairs or what have you. Now compare that to the ones that have not. It is only a fraction of the total.
I generally agree with the idea that immoral (or however you put it) people should go for other immoral people, so as not to taint the tradwives so to speak. I've even written about this myself. But for one thing, Walt is not really saying that. At least not honestly. He's also going about it far to lax. You can socially engineer taboos to be rather milquetoast and therefore enabling people to feel like they are doing something bad when it really isn't a big deal on a relative scale. Walt's idea is basically to just give elites all the drugs and sex they ask for which is just ridiculous for all the reasons I already outlined.
Agreed. Shameful behavior should be subject to shame. Elites who resist temptation should be celebrated. Alas, this is not what happens today. Mike Pence and Ron Paul have been criticized as being sexist for taking measures to avoid temptation.
And yes, it is unfair that beautiful young women are denied private power lunches with people like Pence and Paul. OTOH, you have young women exploiting their youth/beauty in return for power, cf. Kamala Harris.
There is no exact equality. Tradeoffs happen. Ergo, it is time to get the law out of such matters and let shaming rule. Let the church ladies and first wives shame the powerful from having power lunches with their cute assistants and let the feminists shame the powerful against inappropriate glass ceilings.
Yeah I don't really know what Walt has against church lady shaming. Shaming is a more authentic method of social control because it is inherently dynamic and reflective of societal health and values. You can set up morality laws but then you have to deal with the sluggish bureaucracy taking forever to adapt to (generally) rapid social change, often finding itself in the dust. I was told that Walt tried to move to rural America at one point but left after realizing nobody liked him and he couldn't go to nightclubs and hang out with sluts. I suspect his resentment for church lady types stems from this.