[Nascimento]

Rollo claims Neomasculinity is all about monetization. He's hating on Roosh for his lecture tour. He claims his blog offers the free perspective.

But he also markets and sells books around his blog? So... he also monetizes his work.

I don't understand. I like his writing, but I'm also a bit put off by this divide. I steer clear almost entirely of these culture matters, it's this one point that just isn't making sense to me.

[Esus]

(05-23-2015 09:58 AM)Nascimento Wrote:  

Rollo claims Neomasculinity is all about monetization. He's hating on Roosh for his lecture tour. He claims his blog offers the free perspective.

But he also markets and sells books around his blog? So... he also monetizes his work.

I don't understand. I like his writing, but I'm also a bit put off by this divide. I steer clear almost entirely of these culture matters, it's this one point that just isn't making sense to me.

He is also buddy with McQueen who charge way more than 50$ his coaching services.

Why doesn't he say something about this too ?

As it has been said Roosh might not even make money with his tour so I don't really know what his allegations are based on.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Sometimes there are legitimate concerns to be raised about monetization, for example in the case of many PUA parasites selling (e)books for $80 or more apiece. A $50 lecture tour pass in some of the most expensive cities on the planet definitely can't compare to that.

[samsamsam]

I think that is the best video I have seen by Roosh. Authentic. Sincere but with strong conviction. And honorable at the end willing to help them out when they realize they have been misguided. That is what a father would do. That video tied together very well.

[Libertas]

(05-23-2015 09:31 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Not possible. Men's Rights is fundamentally an anti-masculine outfit that seeks to erase - not uphold - traditional sex roles. They fancy themselves the true feminists, the true defenders of sexual equality, minus the female supremacism of modern feminism - and they may be right. But that's just another way of saying they are promoting androgyny. They see the call to cultivate masculinity as oppressive and restrictive, just as feminists do with female beauty. If you don't see how men's rights is not inherently toxic, you just aren't trying hard enough.

I was more or less talking about some of the practical things they want to do such as fix the family court system and the like, not the cultural parts which are unbridgeable.

[PauBrasil]

The disdain for profit comes from a socialist mindset, it cannot differentiate between getting compensation for helping others and stealing from others.
I am not surprised that these attacks came from a subset of Reddit, which is basically a platform for socialist geeks to engage in circle jerk practice.

[Phoenix]

(05-23-2015 08:40 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

Until this infighting and friendly fire stops, I'm not sure how we are going to achieve a voice as powerful as the feminism movement. Not to blow smoke up anyone's ass - what Roosh has done for the last 10 years has the potential to completely change the entire world. But I only see that happening if the infighting, sniping, side-picking, jostling for personal gain cease, and we all join into one chorus.

... But the point I am trying to make is if we are ever going to beat feminism and somewhat reverse the cultural decline in the Western world, we are going to have to really band together, join forces, and become one, but truly powerful, voice.

(05-23-2015 09:06 AM)Private Man Wrote:  

We, as men, have so much potential. Sadly, we are devolving into a papal-like 15th century schism. I won't engage in that. I can't. There are too many post-divorce men who are flopping around while trying to deal with attraction and dating.

No, we're all here as a result of independent thinking, this 'band together' stuff isn't persuant to this. That two manosphere guys are squaring up over ideological technicalities or reputation is of no detriment to the manosphere itself. It merely alters the numbers of their backers according to merit (as resolved by the arguments presented in the dispute), thereby strengthening the community as a whole.

This is no different to groups on the Left. Feminists have their internal fights all the time. It strengthens them, not weakens, as the 'bigger feminist' increases their leadership position.

[Aurini]

A couple of years back I did a video on why Reddit is structurally leftist; not just the upvoting, but the ability to follow people, makes sock-puppet accounts extremely effective at derailing your opponent's subreddit, and when it comes to playing dirty Leftists are more effective than us, because we have actual shit to do in our lives. We don't have the time or attention to follow what every idiot feminist is doing, and then try and subvert their threads on Reddit/xx/.

As for the schism preventing a consensus - a consensus is the last thing we need. Paul Elam has a hell of a time keeping AVfM on track and apolitical without becoming blue-burning Liberal when he turns his head away for five minutes. Keep that in mind when you see some idiocy coming from some of the writers there, he has to walk a tightrope of being a fist of iron in a velvet glove.

Neomasculinity, as I understand it, is not and should not be a 'movement' to 'get our voices heard' - that's just rabbit speak for whining. We don't need our 'voices heard' - we need practical advice on how to get things done. It's a community for self-improvement and for turning ourselves into the elite who set the tone.

It's hilarious how the MGTOW comments keep going back to the assumption that this is all about sucking up to women, performing dancing monkey tricks to impress them; hardly. Women follow success. By becoming an accomplished man who sets his own pace for himself you'll wind up attracting quality women who want to be a small part of the life you're building. MGTOWs are largely a bunch of failures who know they can't compete, so they 'quit' the women who were never interested in them in the first place. They don't believe that they can win at the game of life.

Neomasculinity is about being awesome, and treating the natural slaves like the slaves that they are, rather than begging for their approval because we need more upvotes.

[Phoenix]

Yes, I'm more interested in being part of the overarching group called 'winning'.

[Orion]

Reading Roosh's work for so long, i kinda figured out it was inevitable that he (after those numerous blog posts that really struck deep into male-female social dynamics that went waaay beyond superficial dating life) would split from purely commercial basis of red pill world, that is, dating guides and such.

Still, i see no reason for debate. Whatever was taught about dating techniques still applies. It always will. I can't see anything else but bioengineering destroying otherwise immutable laws of pick-up. So why stop there ? Unless one is animal, everyone needs a greater purpose in life. I completely identify with Roosh there.

[Wadsworth]

Roosh,

What you've just described doesn't sound like masculinity to me, it sounds like group think. Masculinity is about setting boundaries and standing up for what you think is right, not about trying to promote or enforce a conformity. I'm in favor of men cultivating a masculine identity that doesn't seek validation from women, and to the extent that you promote that I personally find your corner of the internet interesting. I'm also in favor of attacking feminists when they try to impose an identity of guilt and apology on men. But I'm not interested in running down gays or returning to a traditionalist system of imposed gender roles and coercion. If this is what neomasculinity is, I'll take feminism.

[Slim Shady]

(05-23-2015 08:57 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

You've alluded to it a lot on twitter for the past couple months, but haven't really clarified your position, Roosh. Do you have a blog post or ROK article planned for the near future about this?

Yes in the near future, about a month. It builds off of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Fairytal...594032009/

I hope to god you're not becoming a Christian

[Samseau]

(05-23-2015 09:04 AM)badscientist Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:49 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

As a close friend of Rollo, I know the events of the past two days pains you greatly. I hope you find strength during these times.

As a follower of Rollo it pains me too. While I enjoy reading your work and heartiste, I realised I fall into the category you described as Rollo's target audience. His knowledge and inspiration, whether or not it came from heartiste, guided my change in perspectives.

However taking a step back to re-evaluate objectively made me realise that neomasculinity is really the way forward. Irrespective of your commercial agenda or not giving due credit to people like Pook, it's a necessary reboot to politicise this philosophy and take it out into the mainstream.

Well, Pook was promoted heavily via myself over RoK. Roosh allowed it to be promoted so in reality, I think most guys today wouldn't even know about Pook had it not been for Roosh's websites.

Furthermore, Pook never stuck around. So he cannot get as much credit for building the manosphere to the million views per month Monster that Roosh turned it into.

As for MRA and MGTOW turning against Roosh.

If you read Pook's last few blog posts you can see he was INCREDIBLY negative about MRA:

Quote:

More reasons why I am not a MRA

There is nothing wrong with single issue advocates. The problem occurs when it starts to override everything else. Take the Elian Gonzalez scenario. MRAs, seeing only the boy returned to his father, begin immediately applauding. They cheer the Janet Reno who sent the troops to invade the house for the boy on one side while condemning Janet Reno for Waco. Never mind that children belong to the State, not fathers, in Cuba.

MRA has won ZERO political victories. Despite this, many have moved further and further to more extreme views. No more is it about equal rights for men as it is about taking away woman's right to vote and changing consent law among other things. This tells me most MRA are not really serious about the cause.

when people are serious about changing laws, they aim for the small victories first. Socialists do not declare they want to nationalize all industry. They would be dead in the water politically if they did that. Instead, they begin with small victories and so on to bigger ones. If MRAs were serious, they would try to make change in a tactical manner. Most don't have the self-discipline to do this. They would rather take a news story about some feminist or woman, proceed to bash it, and then leave satisfied only to return later and do it all over again. It does not seem such people are enjoying life. And enjoying life is how one converts and wins.

There are two matriarchies, the feminism and the 'traditional women' types. I've noticed when we attack one, it strengthens the other. Perhaps the answer is to pit the matriarchies against one another. Let them duke it out somehow.

And Pook was INCREDIBLY negative about MGTOW:

Quote:

Time to move beyond MGTOW

There is something very wrong with MGTOW. Instead of talking about 'men going their own way', we see...

-Anti-Americanism (or other rants against one's mother country)
-Declarations of Chicken Little economic/social/cultural collapse.
-Religious screeds against a particular religion or against all religions.
-Conspiracy theories.
-Evangelizing the 'Deck-Stacked-Against-Us-Have-No-Hope' view of society (which is unproductive)
-Evangelizing that one ought to live like a Mexican...
-...or another country...
-Forums become a 'Yes!' echo chamber. There is no discussion, just rants filled with yes-men.

These 'elements' are well known but ignored because of the 'good things' that do come out. We should just shrug off these things and compromise with them. Well, there is one problem.

When food and poison compromise, which is the victor? It is the poison. Eating it may be sustaining... for the short term... but your body fills up with these poison toxins. You begin to lose your ambition, your passion, and generally become filled with bitterness.

I have wondered how this is occurring. It is not uncommon. Many 'movements' somehow get filled with negative filled people with anger issues and other wackos. But not all movements. So how did MGTOW become a container for this garbage?

The answer is that MGTOW is founded on a negative itself: avoidance of woman. This has caused blanket rants against women. "But many of these rants are accurate, Pook!" So what? A farmer can rant all day about the unfairness of frost, but that will not get him anywhere. There is no cosmic justice out there. The world is what it is and its better to live in it that in a hyper-reality.

Perhaps this will hit more to the point. How many years has MGTOW existed? And what has changed since then? Really, nothing has changed at all.

But I have to wonder why no one in MGTOW can keep to the subject. Pick any random thread and you will find someone start going off the reservation of a speech against a religion or another unasked for soapbox sermon on some oddball subject. Often, many will randomly insert his "brilliant" assertion that civilization will collapse in ten years.

MGTOW is based on the belief that men have made mistakes (which should be spared making mistakes). These mistakes can include marriage, being nice guy, being worshipful to women, and so on. All these mistakes have a common theme: egotism. When the man got married, he was so sure he was doing the right thing and the naysayers were all jealous villains.

Since so many join MGTOW based on being wrong in the past, why does everyone act like they are right all the time? It is amazing! The egotism never died. It just shifted into new forms. This would explain why someone can't keep to the subject of MGTOW and instead must start bashing a religion, bashing a country, or bashing something else. One can be right on something and be wrong on other things. But MGTOW do not see that. They act like they have suddenly become right on everything (so they become vocal on it).

If we were wrong in the past, and it damaged our lives (such as getting married to a fiend), why do we strut around as if we have such 'wisdom'? If we were so wrong once, we could be wrong again. Yet, this reservation is nowhere to be found in MGTOW. Every man has his own pet theories. The dogs slip their leash and begin to ravage the good content.

To be honest, I don't see many happy MGTOW. There are no celebrations about being 'free' but complaining about... something. Trust me; celebrations and good cheer are far more effective and contagious than "being right all the time".

In normal society, people do not like being around someone 'right all the time'. Even if they are right, they are downright annoying. People prefer light-hearted, good cheered fun. When I think of MGTOW, 'good cheer' is the last to come to mind. MGTOW isn't about being alive as it is about escaping pain.

For as much as we mock feminists for being negative, for getting with women to talk bad about men, it is becoming more and more clear that MGTOW is becoming more like the mirror image. Behavior by behavior, a MGTOW male acts very similar to a feminist in lifestyle and habit. You begin to live alone, have meetings with guys to 'talk bad about women' (to ease existential pains), and write bad essays.

I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up again causing the male to return.


why, it must be requited. I hear how I am censured:
they say I will bear myself proudly, if I perceive
the love come from her; they say too that she will
rather die than give any sign of affection. I did
never think to marry: I must not seem proud: happy
are they that hear their detractions and can put
them to mending. They say the lady is fair; 'tis a
truth, I can bear them witness; and virtuous; 'tis
so, I cannot reprove it; and wise, but for loving
me; by my troth, it is no addition to her wit, nor
no great argument of her folly, for I will be
horribly in love with her. I may chance have some
odd quirks and remnants of wit broken on me,
because I have railed so long against marriage: but
doth not the appetite alter? a man loves the meat
in his youth that he cannot endure in his age.
Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of
the brain awe a man from the career of his humour?
No, the world must be peopled. When I said I would
die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I
were married.

-"Much Ado About Nothing", Shakespeare

MGTOW is equally damned.

And Pook wrote all of this stuff back in 2008! As always, Pook was far ahead of his time. A true visionary.

I have read every word Pook ever wrote; I believe Pook would be on board the neomasculinity movement if he were here.

However, Pook was not perfect either, and said lots of nonsensical and incorrect things as well; his sense of history was also pretty flawed, and he never offered any solutions beyond "find excellence" which is just so vague that anyone could have said it.

So giving too much credit beyond his early visionary status to Pook would be a mistake. He still had many flaws.

[Rhyme or Reason]

(05-22-2015 01:07 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Speaking of profit, The Red Pill members make a big show about information being free, but they seem to forget that they regularly post on a for-profit platform owned by the most die hard feminists in Silicon Valley, perhaps the world, and led by a litigious feminist itself (Ellen Pao) that is on the verge of passing more oppressive rules. TRP subreddit exists because the feminists who own the site have allowed them to post. For men who are obsessed with being "alpha" and maintaining "frame," they have volunteered to position themselves on a lower hierarchy compared to these elite feminists.

Every single page view they give reddit, they aid feminists. Every single comment they post, they increase the profit of this anti-man corporation, and even if ads are not always directly on TRP, the huge amount of page views that the subreddit gives reddit overall is definitely used to sell ads sitewide through their advertising spec sheets.

So either indirect or directly, everyone who regularly posts on that site is increasing the money that feminists make, improving the popularity of their platform to better bring SJW and far left thought to the masses, and improving the financial support that Silicon Valley feminists receive. How they can reconcile that fact by critiquing me for selling books shows how confused these men are, and how they are merely parroting red pill ideas and not living in the spirit of them.

I wish no ill will on these men, but I told them from day one to go forth and build their own platform. They did not listen to my advice, and are now being overseen by the enemy---a virulent matriarchy---whom they so despise, and who can shutdown their so-called "frame" with only a few clicks. When that happens, they are welcome here in this community where they can finally learn from men who live more truly to masculine ideals.

You know what's worse? When those assholes give each other REDDIT GOLD. On trp. Lol. They are lining the pockets of their enemies.



I think it's time for me to change my name....

[jariel]

I love to learn more about the perspectives of guys who actually know what they're talking about, so I read Pook when I heard someone mention him a while back, for the uneducated, peep this:

The Book of Pook

[Aurini]

From the description of Darwin's Fairytales:

Quote:

To illustrate, Stove cites altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have.

Anonymous Conservative cuts the long-standing Gordion Knot of individual vs group selection in his book "The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics"; he combines it with a lot of psychological theory to explain how Liberals work, as well as how to give them panic attacks. Even showing the book to a Liberal can trigger extreme anxiety (I know this from personal experience, unfortunately). The behaviours listed above are explained by r-type rabbit psychology, people who don't invest resources into their young because there's so much free money floating around that numbers beats out quality.

Nonetheless Stove's book looks interesting; I might pick it up, as I'm not a big fan of the 'evolutionists' who've never read basic philosophy or mathematical theory and think that materialism is all that there is.

[Samseau]

(05-23-2015 01:20 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Roosh,

What you've just described doesn't sound like masculinity to me, it sounds like group think. Masculinity is about setting boundaries and standing up for what you think is right, not about trying to promote or enforce a conformity. I'm in favor of men cultivating a masculine identity that doesn't seek validation from women, and to the extent that you promote that I personally find your corner of the internet interesting. I'm also in favor of attacking feminists when they try to impose an identity of guilt and apology on men. But I'm not interested in running down gays or returning to a traditionalist system of imposed gender roles and coercion. If this is what neomasculinity is, I'll take feminism.

Wow, when did you get so confused?

Quote:

Masculinity is about setting boundaries and standing up for what you think is right, not about trying to promote or enforce a conformity.

You just contradicted yourself. One person's boundaries is another person's conformity.

Furthermore, being masculine means hierarchy. And hierarchy means rules, and conformity to those rules.

You have no idea what masculinity is.

Quote:

But I'm not interested in running down gays or returning to a traditionalist system of imposed gender roles and coercion.

So you would rather live in a world without a future? No gender roles is proving to have near zero birthrates. No families = no future.

[lskdfjldsf]

It's always interesting when conflict erupts in male-dominated spheres of the internet. The staking out of territory, formation of hierarchies, rifts in ideology, etc. There's something strangely civil and productive about it when feminists usually just eat each other alive.

This is a community with a lesson to teach, not a company with a product to sell. A close-knit community should ensure that those who invest their reputations and professional lives to maintain it are compensated for the value they provide. Founders and leaders also have an obligation to see broader social change as the primary reward for their sacrifice, rather than financial gain or fame. Selflessness and altruism must drive this movement for it to succeed.

Personally, I think the schism we're seeing is long overdue. If I had to break down the "red pill" community demographics from my experience:

- Guys coming out of their shell, figuring out for the first time how to get laid. On the right path but unenlightened.
- The big baller paper alpha in the club with no interest in politics, traditionalism, spirituality, literature, or history.
- The divorce rape victim who hates all women (MGTOW crowd falls in this category) and opts out of life.
- A small fraction of intelligent, articulate guys who seek answers to the bigger questions while enjoying healthy sex lives.

Absolutely nothing in common.

[Grodin]

I came to redpill thought via zenpriest. Not sure what he'd be called today. These labels are superfluous, but harmless as long as people dont take them too serious.

Roosh has my support, the lecture tour is a bargain and a good idea. Call it whatever you want, this movement needs to go public

[Wadsworth]

(05-23-2015 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 01:20 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Roosh,

What you've just described doesn't sound like masculinity to me, it sounds like group think. Masculinity is about setting boundaries and standing up for what you think is right, not about trying to promote or enforce a conformity. I'm in favor of men cultivating a masculine identity that doesn't seek validation from women, and to the extent that you promote that I personally find your corner of the internet interesting. I'm also in favor of attacking feminists when they try to impose an identity of guilt and apology on men. But I'm not interested in running down gays or returning to a traditionalist system of imposed gender roles and coercion. If this is what neomasculinity is, I'll take feminism.

Wow, when did you get so confused?

Quote:

Masculinity is about setting boundaries and standing up for what you think is right, not about trying to promote or enforce a conformity.

You just contradicted yourself. One person's boundaries is another person's conformity.

Furthermore, being masculine means hierarchy. And hierarchy means rules, and conformity to those rules.

You have no idea what masculinity is.

Quote:

But I'm not interested in running down gays or returning to a traditionalist system of imposed gender roles and coercion.

So you would rather live in a world without a future? No gender roles is proving to have near zero birthrates. No families = no future.

1) I'm not confused. I'm opposed to feminism; it is a self-contradictory mess of hypocrisy and rationalization, but at least many feminists are nominally opposed to imposing identities on people (even if in practice it's what they end up doing). If the central tenet of neomasculinity is to be the imposition of identity and roles on people then I think that sounds even worse (and there's nothing new about it).

2) You're right, but there's a difference. Like-minded men agreeing on moral boundaries is one thing, but shunning people for who they are is something you'd find in a sorority.

3) I agree with you Samseau, but the way to address this problem is simply to reduce the size of the welfare state. All the incentives to have a husband to support your children or to have children to support you in your old age vanish in a welfare state. In other words, we don't need to impose things on people or tell them what they must be in the social interest, we just need to start moving back in the direction of individualism.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Quote:

To be honest, I don't see many happy MGTOW. There are no celebrations about being 'free' but complaining about... something. Trust me; celebrations and good cheer are far more effective and contagious than "being right all the time".

In normal society, people do not like being around someone 'right all the time'. Even if they are right, they are downright annoying. People prefer light-hearted, good cheered fun. When I think of MGTOW, 'good cheer' is the last to come to mind. MGTOW isn't about being alive as it is about escaping pain.

That Pook quote is indeed great. It makes sense now why MGTOWs always talk about some kind of collapse they are waiting for to "set things right again". "If only more men said no to women then it would all collapse faster."

No - it wouldn't. Other men would gladly have harems and economic collapse won't come, since everyone wants to live under a roof with electricity and has to eat.

Pook put it very well in that quote by Samseau.

And yes - Red Pill seems now to encompass a bit too many male perspectives - some very strange ones.

The New Versailles posted on Twitter recently:

Quote:

Some 24-year-old Reddit "red-pill" douche the other day told me having kids makes me a "beta."

This is becoming ridiculous really. Reddit Red Pill will likely shift towards ever more strange directions.

I understand why Roosh wanted to coin a new term because he does not want to be associated with that bunch. But I don't think that Rollo is against the tenets of neomasculinity.

[Roosh]

Quote:

Neomasculinity, as I understand it, is not and should not be a 'movement' to 'get our voices heard'

I have never used the word "movement" to describe it. I see it as a living ideology or philosophy that puts a deeper focus into what we're already doing.

Quote:

It's always interesting when conflict erupts in male-dominated spheres of the internet. The staking out of territory, formation of hierarchies, rifts in ideology, etc. There's something strangely civil and productive about it when feminists usually just eat each other alive.

And what you're seeing now is conflict that was already underneath the surface. Before this I didn't get along with MGTOW's, and negative comments about me on TRP have been floating around for the past year. This fighting is a shock to some spectators who urge it to stop, but to me it's actually not as heated as I thought it could get. This event is an excuse to bring out long-held animosities.

[Samseau]

(05-23-2015 01:55 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 01:20 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Roosh,

What you've just described doesn't sound like masculinity to me, it sounds like group think. Masculinity is about setting boundaries and standing up for what you think is right, not about trying to promote or enforce a conformity. I'm in favor of men cultivating a masculine identity that doesn't seek validation from women, and to the extent that you promote that I personally find your corner of the internet interesting. I'm also in favor of attacking feminists when they try to impose an identity of guilt and apology on men. But I'm not interested in running down gays or returning to a traditionalist system of imposed gender roles and coercion. If this is what neomasculinity is, I'll take feminism.

Wow, when did you get so confused?

Quote:

Masculinity is about setting boundaries and standing up for what you think is right, not about trying to promote or enforce a conformity.

You just contradicted yourself. One person's boundaries is another person's conformity.

Furthermore, being masculine means hierarchy. And hierarchy means rules, and conformity to those rules.

You have no idea what masculinity is.

Quote:

But I'm not interested in running down gays or returning to a traditionalist system of imposed gender roles and coercion.

So you would rather live in a world without a future? No gender roles is proving to have near zero birthrates. No families = no future.

1) I'm not confused. I'm opposed to feminism; it is a self-contradictory mess of hypocrisy and rationalization, but at least many feminists are nominally opposed to imposing identities on people (even if in practice it's what they end up doing). If the central tenet of neomasculinity is to be the imposition of identity and roles on people then I think that sounds even worse (and there's nothing new about it).

Why don't you read about neomasculity before talking about it? No offense, but talking about something you haven't even bothered to understand makes you look like a fool.

Quote:

2) You're right, but there's a difference. Like-minded men agreeing on moral boundaries is one thing, but shunning people for who they are is something you'd find in a sorority.

You've got it backwards. MEN SHUN, because men have standards. Women are the weak ones who outwardly accept anything and pretend to be nice to everyone, yet to be part of their group requires rigid conformity.

Conversely, in a fraternity, the members are held to high standards to be part of the group, but once you meet those standards you are completely free to be whoever you want to be.

Quote:

3) I agree with you Samseau, but the way to address this problem is simply to reduce the size of the welfare state. All the incentives to have a husband to support your children or to have children to support you in your old age vanish in a welfare state. In other words, we don't need to impose things on people or tell them what they must be in the social interest, we just need to start moving back in the direction of individualism.

And how are we going to reduce the size of the welfare state, when everyone is increasingly dependent on welfare?

The only way the welfare state can be erased if a new culture is born, where the men are self-sufficient and women are regulated to their natural roles as man's help-meet.

Simply changing government policy isn't going to fix anything at this point in time of American culture. And we know this because America is a democracy (albeit ruined by demagogues) so the laws in place are just a reflection of America's broken culture.

Neomasculinity understands this and wants to fix the problem by addressing the root of the problem; that problem is the people themselves.

[Apollo]

(05-23-2015 08:52 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 07:37 AM)dtpilgrim Wrote:  

I'm curious to hear this new information on downgrading the importance of evolutionary theory that keeps being alluded to.

I'm curious about this, too.

You've alluded to it a lot on twitter for the past couple months, but haven't really clarified your position, Roosh. Do you have a blog post or ROK article planned for the near future about this?

Do you deny the theory of evolution entirely, or do you just feel evolutionary psychology is being applied in ways that are too abstract and flimsy?

I know that I too will be looking forward to his response, but when I read your question I thought about this a bit as well.

I've been browsing TheRedPill subreddit on and off constantly for about the last 2 years. It has undoubtedly grown into a subreddit today whose message differs from the guys who used to post there. In the beginning, there were a lot of questions directly pertaining to game advice, life purpose (philosophy), and actively engaging in political discussions with the naturally curious, bitter feminists, white knights, and outright trolls. At one point I remember that some members even tried to create a Feminist Victims Fund for men who had been crucified in the public sphere for standing up for themselves. (think about the guy on the bus who got fired for upper-cutting that ho after she tried to fight him while he was driving a bus full of people)

But somewhere along the line, the mod team decided to curtail that behavior by instituting rules prohibiting cross-posting and direct linking, while subsequently promoting a culture of isolationism. The general rule of that sub is to never speak about TRP outside of TRP across the Redditsphere or even in real life. Effectively, this meant they wanted to fight a war (or promote their message in a hostile environment) by talking within a self-imposed safe space. In other words, the focus was no longer on driving a message, but on preserving a message. (and here I will point to the fact that while their absolute membership has grown, the relative power that sub used to have in providing men with important information about game, purpose, and living has waned)

It is my opinion that this policy had disastrous consequences. After these policies were introduced, many of the original topics discussed there began to subside because of the membership influx. This was the equivalent of people walking into a movie that was an hour and a half in screaming at the top of their lungs, "WELL WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS MOVIE ALL ABOUT?"

As a result, a lot of the OG members on the sub began to disappear or create their own off-shoots of TRP. The original mod bounced, and a few of the original contributors bounced over to /r/AlreadyRed, and /r/DarkEnlightenment .

Now, to answer your question.

Game speaks multitudes about the behaviors required for men to attract women. A topic we spoke ad infintum on this forum about, and one that is ingrained in the psyche of all TRP members, is about holding traits in alignment with the Dark Triad. (narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism) By demonstrating these traits at large, one should be able to secure a multitude of pussy because these were the traits that women were evolutionary bred to select because they signal dominance in the human male hierarchy.

However, it doesn't take a genius to realize that these are not traits that one would necessarily want to hold up in esteem in our society. Among your own friends, would you value Dark Triad traits in a close friend or would you prefer a one who is honest and forth-coming, loyal, resourceful, and who genuinely cares about your endeavors (that is, he has at least a shred of empathy)

That is a no-brainer to me. But curiously enough, TRP cannot answer the question as to why, if your goal is to be in the Top 10/20/30/40 percent of men who get pussy, they should spread their message to men in the first place. If women's attraction is based on the relative standing of men in a hierarchy, then why would TRP want to enrich men with a message that would only harm the members already in it by encouraging more competition among men?

My belief is that their tactics and their philosophy are entirely incompatible with a healthy society (one that grows) and that it is dependent upon the further exploitation of men in our society to grow for their ideal to be met. Let's admit it, to spin plates requires a society to tacitly accept the premise of Alpha fucks/beta bucks, which requires that some are sacrificed for the good of others.

Evolution would say that the battle for pussy is a winner takes all, survival of the fittest scenario. (this is inherently amoral)

We can either believe that, or we can try to do something truly revolutionary and perhaps create some pride in uplifting the downtrodden men of our society by creating an environment that is personally beneficial to all men. I honestly don't know if it can be done, but I am willing to listen to those with new ideas because the only options for men in our society currently is to either cannibalize ourselves (MGTOW + MRA) or eachother. (TRP)

[MMX2010]

(05-23-2015 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Furthermore, being masculine means hierarchy. And hierarchy means rules, and conformity to those rules.

You have no idea what masculinity is.

Absolutely. But masculinity also means defending your hierarchy from those who wish to attack / subvert it. People who don't defend their hierarchies lose their hierarchies, leaving no structure and therefore losing order.

One of the most brilliant aspects of RVF is the difference between Rep Points and Likes. Likes, being merely popular, don't add to (nor subtract from) the hierarchy. Whereas Rep Points establish and maintain this hierarchy.

On message boards that have only Likes, every poster scrambles to acquire more and more likes (attention), and the ordered discourse immediately disappears and becomes sensationalistic. Worse, paper alphas and keyboard warriors proliferate and drown on the rare men who, by actually succeeding, know what they're talking about.