I believe that the author fundamentally misunderstands the apotheosis and ongoing nature of the traditionalist mindset. In his description of, and reasoning abo

I believe that the author fundamentally misunderstands the apotheosis and ongoing nature of the traditionalist mindset. In his description of, and reasoning about traditionalism, he's attempted to understand it as an ill-fitted treatment for the pathologies of the progressive commentariat (this is especially obvious when he emphasizes the performativity of consciously embracing traditionalist values, and conflates, trad with a paleo diet). I do agree with him that oversocialization is a component of the mindset. But he describes the adoption of traditionalist (Catholic) values as an attempt to achieve some form of moral certitude in order to escape the judgement of one's peers, the the fickle nature of the broader communal concensus. This doesn't track with the traditionalists know, especially when he himself admits that the religious component of it is almost certainly ironic, or an aesthetic choice. The religious component may be percormatively observed, or authetically observed. In either case, it serves as pre-existing standard base from-which they rally that already broadly aligns with their values, and extracts only minor concessions from them. Traditionalists aren't especially concerned with how society writ large percieves them, even when they're willing to acknowledge the subjectivity of values. In fact, there is an assumption they bear that they are an anachronism in an increasingly liberalizing world, even if they believe it's their duty to push against it. The traditionalist instead, fixates upon diminishing social capital, blaming the individuization of morality, and anti-normative-value sentiment of the predominant cultural narrative for society's woes. They likely already held their principals long before they'd ever heard the word "traditionalist". For them, traditionalism isn't an escape from collective judgement (their beliefs are out of vogue, and will certainly be the subject to judgement and ridicule). It is a label through-which to collectivise, in order to hold one-another to account, and receive feedback from those who share similar first principals to them (something progressives don't do). I'd like to expand on my points in a child comment, when I'm in a position