As you know, the World is a story of bad guys pushing us ever downward. What is horrifying today is weird tomorrow, acceptable the day after, and "stunning and brave" the next day.

But do you know who doesn't move forward ONE INCH on the path towards normalization of all filth, error, and depravity? Traditional Catholics. Those who don't watch TV. Those who refrain from watching modern and/or woke movies. Those who form their opinions and worldview from timeless principles, not merely "what my parents did".

We aren't anchored in our parents' or grandparents' worldviews -- we are anchored in God, who doesn't change. Our worldview is HIS worldview and His laws.

Being Catholic "saves us from the supreme degradation of being a child of our age", as the famous quote went.

The more we refrain from the World, the more we serve as a Control group, and notice ALL the crap they're trying to push on the world.

We aren't just conservative by 2023 standards, we're more than conservative by 1980 standards. That's why we need a new term to describe us -- "paleo conservative" or some such.

Let's put it this way: the parents of the Baby Boomers, born in the 1920's were already firmly entrenched in the habit of females wearing pants. To this day, you have women in their 90's and 100's wearing polyester pants. They didn't wear skirts and dresses, even in the 1920's!  So we need to go back BEFORE THEN when it comes to female attire. How conservative is that? We're talking about BEFORE LIVING MEMORY here.

We're like the seminarian who left STAS in 2000, and came back later in 2006, 3 years after Fr. Le Roux arrived. All the frog-boiling rise in temperature hit him AT ONCE and he noticed literally EVERYTHING that had changed and was completely able to see everything for what it was. He had 0% blindness. He wasn't acclimated to the new orientation AT ALL.

That's why the government is paying so much "attention" (you know what I mean) to Traditional Catholics. If you're trying to brainwash a population, trying to control and change them for the worse -- Trad Catholics would be a real danger. They could upset the whole apple cart with their "The Emperor has no clothes on at all!" truth-telling, as well as their abstention from MainStreamMedia programming and brainwashing.

Matthew, to be fair here, women in the 1920’s wore pants only for very specific activities, like working and riding horses on a ranch or wilderness camping. Their normal, everyday clothes were dresses and skirts with a blouse, true of mainstream US society through the 1950’s, early 1960’s.  

These days I am more likely to see girls in the 20s and 30s attired in a dress than to EVER see a woman in her 60s or 70s wear anything other than tacky slacks.

And them wearing their hair short. 

These days I am more likely to see girls in the 20s and 30s attired in a dress than to EVER see a woman in her 60s or 70s wear anything other than tacky slacks.

Exactly.

When you see older women in public, they almost always have slacks, and hair no longer than chin length.
Obviously there is room for variance in individuals, as well as regions of the US.

I noticed this when I moved to Texas and possibly for the first time saw a woman with long grey hair. I thought it stood out, but then I thought about it and said, "why not?"  A) not cutting it too short B) embracing the reality of old age C) not being ridiculous and coloring it.

But the bigger one is slacks and shorts vs. true feminine attire. This has been a problem in the US for at least 100 years.

What is horrifying today is weird tomorrow, acceptable the day after, and "stunning and brave" the next day.

I honestly can't think of anything popular culture would consider horrifying or even weird today (other than anything traditional, of course).  Now that men are routinely winning in women's competitions, there is nothing weird today.  Liberals are even more and more public defending p*d*ph*l**.  

In many ways, I am basically "frozen" in the mid- to late-1980s, possibly early 1990s, as that was the last time I ever really engaged with the contemporary culture around me in any major way.  I couldn't begin to tell you who the most popular musicians are nowadays.  What little television I do watch is from the period roughly 1965-1990, and that's bad enough.  (My wife and I did without fail watch The X-Files until it started getting stupid.)  Likewise, most modern movie stars just blur together to me.  I have no clear mental picture of what actors such as Ben Affleck, Ewan McGregor, Benedict cuмberbatch, and so on, even look like.  I saw Gal Gadot recently and thought she was an electronically de-aged Ashley Judd (there is a resemblance).

Total geezer.  (Me, not Ashley.)

I’ll top that, I’ve never even heard of Ewan McGregor, Benedict cuмberbatch, nor Gal Gadot.

Same here!  But I did know who Ben Affleck was!

Whoa, pardner!    I’m in my “60’s and 70’s and I don’t own any tacky slacks!  I don’t own any jeans, either.  The closest I come is baggy sweat pants that I wear as pajamas in the winter!  I have leggings, but I wear them in lieu of tights under skirts and dresses, again, for warmth in winter!  If, by any chance, I did wear pants, I guarantee they wouldn’t be skin tight or tacky! 

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule. You would constitute one of those exceptions.

"Exceptions prove the rule"
"There is an exception to every rule. Except for the rule: There is an exception to every rule."