@Stigma Tradition is the manifestation of a collective identity between the individual members of a given group through ritualistic norms and expressions. To form a group you include some people and then exclude others. Following your tradition is keeping onto a solid identity that has been forged by the countless generations of the people before you, an identity that you will pass on to your children. The main thought line today tells you that we have all been liberated from our "primitive" traditions. We can now supposedly do "whatever we want" now because we are "free".

The catch is that the tradition of a people, which developed through millennia, was also where humans of different tribes learned what they wanted. Through tradition one gained knowledge of his or her values and goals and beliefs. On the one hand, these values and goals and beliefs were inflexible and rigid as a stone. On the other hand, once you were born into a tradition and arrested by it, you no longer needed to "worry about these things. You could move forward.

If life is an ocean, the man of tradition has a map he can use to chart his way through it. The man of modernity is heavily troubled though. A creature which developed on the sturdy backbone of tradition is now deracinated and jumping from fad to fad looking for an identity in the most degenerate nukes and crannies. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Pokemon function as Ersatztraditionen, replacement traditions you act out with other people to feel like part of a community, but then you change over to the Avengers or Harry Potter. There is always a newer, better cooler thing your masturbation and propaganda devices will recommend that you should definitely join and buy and consume all the shit they sell you so you can feel as part of the ingroup. If life is an ocean, the man of modernity endlessly engages in aimless nihilistic drifting.

The tradition of your people is free of charge. It was created by millennia of generations of people who more or less share your genes. It is as stable a foundation as you can find it. If you do not know your tradition and history you do not have a point from where you can start and if you don't have a point of beginning, how the absolute fuck will you ever be able to identify a worthy point of ending and forge a path to it.

A person like you though, as you are in your current state. You think you can just take a tradition and a religion and an ideology and "distill" them for their good parts whilst leaving all the supposed "impurities behind. You want the so called beer without alcohol, coffee without caffeine, war without casualties. You want to have a dog who is excited to see you every time you come back from work, but you don't want the messy part of feeding the dog and taking the dog for a walk to shit and piss. Whatever comes out of the filters you want to get Buddhism or Christianity or Islam through is going to be useless, odorless, ineffective and inane .

You think you can browse the Bible like a list of Amazon products and pick and choose yourself some Job and Jesus and ignore all the yucky parts. It's like you want to drive somewhere without polluting the atmosphere so you reveal to all of us your master plan to order a steering wheel and a gear box and fit them in a discarded carton box. This way you claim, you won't pollute the environment. You will also get nowhere because you need the engine which uses gasoline and has an exhaust where pollutants come out.

The solution is of course to develop a car that doesn't run on gas, but here you are distilling the best and most fun parts of the car instead of accepting its totality and moving forward. You mean to say that all these philosophers were raciss? Oh noes that's yucky, we dun want that.

@LeashedDoggie

GloGang claims that Julius Evola is a reading comprehension test. While I have not finished the book, I feel I have a clear enough grasp on the fundamentals to refute the premise of his idea of Tradition. Why does Glogang see Tradition (as further explained by the likes of Bowden) as the best route to becoming the superman (overman?) or the superior man.

I feel like the same methods can be achieved by distilling religious ideology to your own needs, or even spiritual ideology (Buddhism) are superior methods that do not need to rely on the exclusion of others for the benefit of the self. Evola himself believes that black people are inferior and are directly affecting the modern society into an ineffectual state of nihilism - this is clearly wrong when you expose yourself to cultures of black people (of which there are many, thus making it hard to pin down any one culture to blame) and you experience first hand their same efforts to transcend modernity and move beyond Nihilism.

@CainPrice I see your point about shifting goalposts. By placing specifics in the initial argument to give it a tangible basis, I inadvertently pigeonholed it so I will speak to those assertions in my closing argument, though I won't leave all you invoked in the last round off the table entirely.

I agree that "patriarchy" doesn't exist as sold by feminists. Most of the claims are easily defeated, such as the wage gap. When it comes to anti-abortion, when it is asserted by a majority of men and exclusively affects the available options of women, this is inherently patriarchal. Holding this position is the most formidable barrier I see to extinguishing the general idea of patriarchy. While it doesn't present a logical barrier, it presents a tactical one as we will not ever "logic" believers in patriarchy out of it.

As to freedom and self-determination, this hinges on the might be murder argument. It pits these interests of one or two definite self-entities against the abstract possibility that a potential-entity has claim to equal interests.

Most leave the ambiguity at the door of a religious basis. That an unproven patriarchal father-figure deems it immoral on the basis that he created the life and once it has become a zygote, termination is tantamount to murdering an already born and viable individual. Even if one claims to bring no religious basis to their position, I believe it stands upon cognitive biases such as survivor guilt rather than a rational basis.

Nobody (aside from a few fringe extremists) is asserting that killing an already-born human on the basis that the parents don't want it is ethical or permissible. Only a minority argue that a viable fetus beyond ~20 weeks gestation is morally equivalent to earlier stages, and at ~1% of abortions in the US is a weak general argument against.

Whether one argues from an overtly religious perspective, or claims a secular/rational basis (which I consider usually covertly tainted with dissonance at the notion of God is dead), it puts an ambiguously founded imperative on third parties to care for a not-yet-entity. Whether one rides the tradcon train, or comes on a different one on different tracks from an ideologically opposite direction, an anti-abortion stance leaves third parties at the same station: that sex is ultimately only for procreation, full stop. You are correct that this is not a sexual strategy, it is a reproductive strategy, and more narrowly a pronatalist one.

@CainPrice "Abortion is a special issue where everybody has a right to an opinion without this opinion being some kind of none-of-your-business imposition of the patriarchy."

I agree that it's a special-case issue, but consider the best way to avoid the numerous irreconcilable conflicts with numerous major components of Red Pill canon is to declare the matter of abortion outside the purview of Red Pill theory.

You speak of hand waving, but I would point out that trying to hamster the issue away as "just an opinion" doesn't hold because of the real-world outcomes and sequelae of holding an anti-abortion position, and is itself a hand-waving of these.

If one is going to oppose abortion on a "might be murder" basis, they should go all-in and accept all of the outcomes of the position. I see RP men posting "baby killing" remarks regularly, but only in the context of attacking liberals, not in the context of actual concern for other peoples' unwanted children. Our feminist opponents can and do read these comments, and I don't think we have a strong case that it's completely non-patriarchal for a majority of men to stand against a procedure performed 100% on women.

I find it problematic that the very same people posting these drive-by remarks also speak freely against child support, single mothers, the female-centric welfare state built mostly to serve them, raising another man's children, and the increasing percentage of beta males in the population who are their product.

Many in TRP viciously attack the likes of Jordan Peterson and Rollo Tomassi over perceived conflicts with RP theory that are orders of magnitude less than the above.

In US politics, the official right wing position is anti-abortion not because the politicians necessarily believe it deeply much less practice it when unwanted pregnancy occurs in their own circles, but because they absolutely rely on the religious and tradcon voting blocs who predictably vote according to this single-issue. Even though one might arrive at their position from, say, a secular legalist origin, thanks to our winner takes all two party system the outcome is tantamount to empowering all aspects of religious and tradcon positions. "Voting for a candidate who will pick supreme court judges who will overturn Roe V Wade" is an open goal of huge blocs of the electorate, and right wing politicians openly pander to this. "Right wingers should fix the GOP" isn't a viable solution, it's structurally impossible to separate these demographics and keep a useful majority voting bloc and the GOP will milk those factions for another generation until boomers who are the majority of it die off. In this political climate, "just an opinion" will be used by others to help make an actual ban on abortions just a reality.

There exists a philosophy that states "if you save a person's life, you become responsible for them for the rest of their days." I have much more respect for those who stand against abortion and also walk the walk by personally taking care of the consequences of others' unwanted pregnancy through charitable works, fostering, step-parenting etc. I don't find it a strong, ethical, and consistent position for one to stand against abortion while also viscerally recoiling from any effort to mitigate the consequences of choosing against it. I also find it even more problematic to remove the option for others, on the basis of an uncertainty.

Bottom line: I assert that in the face of this uncertainty, and given the numerous conflicts it presents, the issue of abortion belongs outside the purview of Red Pill theory and as such is best kept out of our Red Pill writing.

@GayLubeOil "female freedom and self determination aka Feminism."

Is that your entire definition of feminism? I see human freedom and self determination as distinct from the toxic contemporary aspects of feminism, which in many ways are an inversion of the toxic aspects of old school patriarchy.

"if you belive life begins at conception."

Addressing this distinction is the bulk of my last response to CainPrice. That's a big IF.

"Secular legalist liberal aka non patriarchal arguments against abortion are perfectly viable."

You should easily be able to articulate one then, with no glaring fallacies or resort to insults. All I see above is the same emotionally loaded language of religious/tradcon positions. You've also ignored addressing whether third party male opposition to abortion might be an example of extant patriarchy, and whether this gives legitimacy to some aspects of feminism, instead of feminism existing solely as a vehicle for globalist control of the population.