0
3

[–] NoMoBlues 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Its the foundation to a healthy society, but only if done right in regards to a few fundamental things. Parenting style needs to be firm, consistent, but loving while encouraging excellence and working on long term goals from a young age. Gender roles must have the father as the main stable provider and the mother as the main caregiver. She should work minimally outside the home while the children are young at the very least. Sex between husband and wife should be a frequent focus on bonding styles of sexuality. Practices like Karezza and Tantra are worth considering, but something as simple as daily naked cuddling can go a long way to keeping the physical, emotional and spiritual pair bond strong. Financially the marriage should be focused on long term goals of securing stores of wealth that will grow in value. Both husband and wife should be constantly focused on finding new ways to surprise each other with delight and help each other to advance in their career and hobby interests. Both should make health and fitness a lifelong priority and help make sure each has enough time in their schedule for it.

Neglecting any one of these could eventually cause the marriage to fall apart and fail. None of these are particularly hard, it just requires good habits and role models. A good church community may teach some of these, but I think whites are desperately in need of more institutions to promote these positive trad norms and provide communities for trad marriages and families to support each other.

1
1

[–] agoodgoy 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

The truth is the monogamous pairing was the result of a spiritual world-view which no longer holds sway in the West. It cannot be understood under a materialist paradigm. It is not a 'reproductive strategy'. Monogamous marriage is an Indo-European institution which is why it only exists in parts of the world where Indo-European influence reached. It was completely absent in sub-Saharan Africa before European colonization. We live in a world now where monogamous marriage is a more solid institution in the East than it is in the West, because the East has not yet surrendered itself to materialism as completely as the West has. If you think the average Russian, Indian or Chinese person has more appreciation for marriage because they have rationally weighed out the utility of marriage, you are naive and mistaken.

0
0

[–] WhoaMan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Monogamous marriage is an Indo-European institution which is why it only exists in parts of the world where Indo-European influence reached.

Not true, monogamy evolved distinctly in virtually all human populations to some extent. The hymen for example evolved within the past 100,000 years which points to the fact that detecting sexual restraint in females was highly valued.

Even in sub-Saharan Africa the Zulu tribes would still have wives ceremonies and such

0
0

[–] agoodgoy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I dont believe in evolution, friend

0
0

[–] goat2017 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I love biology analogies. Youre right though. The "cell" or single unit of a society is the family and not the individual. The individual atill has a role but isnt really a building block.

0
0

[–] phareoct [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You could see the individual within a relationship more as a subcellular component, such as the mitochondria, or the Golgi Apparatus. Each subcellular component is required for the progression of life.

0
0

[–] goat2017 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Thats just what I was thinking. Each important in its own right, each good at performing some function. But on its own, not really able participate in the creation and maintaining of life.

0
0

[–] romainvicta 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I dont believe in traditionalism nor do I really care for Evola as much as some people do although he has some interesting thoughts. When people say traditionalism I still dont know whether they're talking about the dynamics of pater familias or the period before the sexual revolution.

If you mean traditionalism as in premarital sex is shamed, people limited to a very small number of sexual partners, and marriage with a bunch of children are once again celebrated then yes I believe in that. But if you mean traditional relationships encompassing all of society that brings about feudalism due to hierarchies again then I dont think we need that.

0
0

[–] White-Supremacist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Not always so sure what 'traditional relationships' are. For much of my life women have seemed stupid and arrogant to myself, never knowing their place or when to shut up. Maybe you can define traditional relationships?

0
0

[–] bourbonexpert 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

while i largely agree, but if blacks and muslims were removed. things would prosper much more steadily.

during segregation. blacks flourished...they had a 90% marriage rate and worked in factories...faught in military had their own places of businesses....separate but equal.

muslims are cancer.

0
0

[–] Alopix 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] superspathi 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Guess it depends on what you mean by succeed efficiently. Probably most mammalian species don't engage in monogamous pair bonding as is typically meant when people talk about traditional human relationships. It's been human tradition in a lot of cultures to favor polygamy.

I think I heard that something like 1 in 7 men in Asia and Europe can trace their ancestry to Genghis Khan. He rode across the land raping every fertile girl of every race and creed he could get his hands on. That may not be traditional, but it was a pretty effective reproductive strategy for him.

0
3

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

That's a hard patriarchy. Western Civilization is a soft patriarchy, where a man has dominion over his home like a king. We are entering a matriarchy where women have control over the home, education, industry, and politics. Hard patriarchies produced tribal shitholes, Soft patriarchies produce Advanced civilizations, and matriarchies probably create Marxist starvation zones.

0
2

[–] bourbonexpert 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

thats a good point. i very much like the idea of women and men knowing their roles. taking care of the home and family. and many women still do...just like men like to work on cars, do lawn care and BBQ....many woman like to bake, clean and dress nice and make sure her kids and husband look nice too.

there are certain things the daddy can teach a child, and certain things only a mommy can teach the child. the idea of a broken family is devastation. a bomb worse than anything NK could launch.

IMO Womens lib, liberalism and desegregation are the three most destructive things to civilization in the history of time.

0
1

[–] phareoct [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There's many reproductive strategies that humans can use to reproduce, but the focus is not solely on reproduction but rather the upbringing of a healthy society. I had slept next to a poem to my bedside for as long as I can remember until I moved out and it has seemingly seeped into me. I've attached it below.

Successful reproduction is not carried out in the ability to impregnate many women or have as many children as possible, but rather, as Ralph Emerson states, leave a healthy child. The strongest capability of any couple in a traditional marriage would be to have as many healthy children as they can. This would presumably lead to a healthier and stronger society. We've seen the rapid creation of the West, and now the rapid decline of the West, from the trends of marriage and divorce.

The trends that I speak to relate to specifically American marriage and divorce rates. It may seem that the marriage to divorce ratio is consistent, but my hypothesis is that with more frequent divorces, regardless of the marriage rate, will contribute to more broken families and communities. (Report of divorce and marriage rates in USA.)

What is Success?

To laugh often and much; 

To win the respect of intelligent people
and the affection of children; 

To earn the appreciation of honest critics
and endure the betrayal of false friends; 

To appreciate beauty;
To find the best in others;

To leave the world a bit better, whether by
a healthy child, a garden patch
or a redeemed social condition;

To know even one life has breathed
easier because you have lived; 

This is to have succeeded.

Ralph Waldo Emerson