Last week, Roosh V published a short piece introducing the new term “neomasculinity.” The article described how the term “red pill” had its limitations. It had become shopworn, and vague from overuse. He explained why a new, more precise word was needed to describe our guiding ethic. The article provided a list of the salient features of what we call neomasculinity.
We will now build on that foundation, and describe some of the origins of neomasculinity in the popular culture from the 1980s to the present. It is a task that is long overdue. Previous attempts by the mainstream press to describe the manosphere have been so intellectually dishonest, so polemical, and so shot-through with errors, that anyone sincerely writing on the topic can hardly fail to do better.
Origins in the 1980s and before
The 1980s in America were generally an optimistic decade. The country was beginning to recover from the effects of the lost war in Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, and the Carter presidency, and the deep cynicism that came in the wake of those unsettling historical events.
The seventies had reveled in nihilism and apathy, and the popular culture reflected this; films like 3 Days of the Condor, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, and Vanishing Point are examples of this pervasive feeling. But the dawn of the Reagan era seemed to promise a new beginning, however illusory this proved ultimately to be.
Reagan-era political rhetoric seemed to reflect a new feeling of breezy optimism, of can-do pragmatism, and a comforting faith in traditional institutions. Films like Back to the Future, the many fantasy-laden epics of Steven Spielberg, and the thriving music culture of the 1980s, all seemed to indicate that the ghosts of the 1960s and 1970s had been banished for good. We were great again, because Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Springsteen said we were. And who could argue with Rambo or The Boss?
Enter generation X and the millennials
And yet the promises of the 1980s seemed to evaporate faster than Reagan’s popularity after the Iran-Contra affair. The 1990s ushered in a new era of cynicism, apathy, and bitter alienation. Nothing could be more telling, in the popular culture, than the replacement of the glitzy hair-metal bands of the 1980s with the despairing agonies of bands like Nirvana and Alice In Chains. A changing of the guard had come, and with a vengeance.
Alan Bloom’s seminal The Closing of the American Mind (1987) seemed to set the tone for the new decade. Its thesis was that cultural relativism and radical liberalism had effectively destroyed American education (and looking back on Bloom’s book now, it is clear that he was absolutely correct). Gen Xers were also pervaded with the feeling that there were few things in their world worth fighting about: the great struggles of the past (foreign wars, civil rights, etc.) all seemed to have been won.
Author Francis Fukuyama had even gone so far as to claim the “end of history.” Everything worth doing had already been done; all that Gen X kids had left to do was just coast. Or so it seemed. This zeitgeist was a recipe for cynicism, a prescription for disaffection. But it would get worse.
As the 1990s came to a close, and the new millennia dawned, this cynicism and disaffection turned into outright despair. The 9/11 terror attacks, the invasion of Iraq, and the establishment of the all-powerful surveillance state eroded what little faith remained in political institutions; and the economic collapses of 1999 and 2008 brought the fake prosperity of the 1990s to a shuddering halt.
It was clear that the Gen X cynics had every reason to be cynical, and that they knew they had been living on borrowed time. The general feelings of alienation in the air are on display in such films as The Matrix, Fight Club, and Being John Malkovich. Something was indeed brewing.
So the 2000s reaped the foul harvest of the 1990s. The economic collapse brought home the fact that the US was indeed a place of tremendous income disparity, where college graduates could barely expect to find a decent job upon graduation. The old men at the top, the “Baby Boomer” plunderers who pushed their own agendas for their own benefits, couldn’t have cared less about the young men whose nurturing was supposed to be their sacred duty.
The 2000s brought home the devastating reality that the 1980s and 1990s had been eras of irresponsibility, delusion, selfishness, greed, and unrelenting cowardice on the part of the government. Men could no longer ignore the fact that the jobs had dried up, the economy had hollowed out, their spoiled women had no sense of responsibility, and the popular culture derided them as beasts.
At the top, the super-rich classes could have cared less. They pushed socially destructive ideologies in order to line their pockets and fatten their purses. And the public interest be damned. They profited from cultural Marxism, feminism, marginalization of masculinity, and the destruction of gender roles. The goal was to turn the country into a compliant horde of consumer slaves. Values were jettisoned like used newspapers. Gen X-ers and millennials had been totally sold out by their forefathers, betrayed on the most basic level. It was a bitter reality, and one difficult to accept.
Meanwhile, in the popular culture, idealistic young men saw the growing domination of feminism, cultural relativism, and gay acceptance; as these forces advanced, traditional notions of masculinity became more and more marginalized. Never before had a generation of young men felt so marginalized and degraded.
And they had every reason to feel so. They were told by the popular culture that they were worthless, suspect, and defective. Their identity was not valued. And they sensed it.
All the conditions were in place for a furious backlash against the prevailing cultural conditions. And this backlash came with a vengeance. No one saw it coming. It came from the margins, and it came from the underground. But it is here now, and it is growing.
Faced with such adverse conditions, and with so many avenues now closed off to them, many men began to delve into self-improvement, seduction, physical fitness, and the forming of smaller “tribes” for mutual support. Gradually, these tribes began to adopt the list of themes identified in Roosh’s article.
It became clear that the way forward involved a blending of the old and the new. The traditional notions and values of “old school” masculinity needed to be renovated, or updated, by the new conditions of the 2000s.
The birth of a new movement
Thus was born the neomasculist ethic. It is a hybrid of old and new elements. The old elements are the traditional masculine virtues of the past: stoicism, the acceptance of brutal struggle, the solving of complex problems, the breaking through of barriers, the overcoming or conquering obstacles, the code of ethics of the good father and good brother, the rejection of degenerate or effeminate behavior, and the submerging of the personal identity in the pursuit of some altruistic goal. The new elements are simply the flexible, tactical means used to implement the older, traditional goals.
Neomasculinity employs new methods to achieve old aims. At its heart, neomasculinity is a corrective movement: it seeks to right the wrongs of our forefathers.
It is the masculinity of the new age, adapted to the current hostile environment that men now find themselves in. Neomasculinity is deeply conservative. It is a profound rejection of the false promises of the “liberalism” of the 1960s and 1970s. Men now recognize that the excessive license of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s set the stage for massive cultural decline, cultural bankruptcy, the erosion of masculine virtue, and economic collapse.
This selfish liberalism brought only the tyranny of cultural Marxism, feminism, and a general ethic of hedonistic depravity that counts every indulgence a positive good. It has proven to be deeply destructive to masculine (and even feminine) virtue.
But while neomasculinity rejects the “counter culture” nonsense of the 1960s and 70s, it also rejects the nihilism and despair of the 1990s and 2000s. Neomasculinity is action and hope, not resignation or despair. It is a deeply positive worldview. It accepts the fact that the way forward will be a hard one. It is a profoundly revolutionary ideal, and it seeks nothing less than the redefining of men’s role in Western society.
We will not shrink from our responsibility of promoting this ideal. We take up the torch that has been dropped by our forefathers. We will not apologize for our beliefs. We will not back down one inch. We will not prevaricate, and we will not hesitate. We welcome struggle and conflict, knowing our cause is a sacred one. Young men today accept the fact that, having been profoundly betrayed by their forefathers, they must shoulder the burden of restoring the ethic of masculinity to its rightful place.
They did not ask for this job. They did not want this job. But decades of cowardice, depravity, enervating cultural relativism, and overaggressive feminism have created a situation where men now see that their backs are up against a wall. If the masculine ethic is to survive, it will need to be defended. Blood has been spilled, and daggers are drawn.
Neomasculinity will fight, and will not stop fighting until the fight is done. And it will reclaim its rightful position as a force for social good.
Read More: Sharpen Your Tribal Instincts
“the thriving music culture of the 1980s”
Is that line a joke?
Just Mr. Curtius betraying what musical era he came of age in.
Hehe…!
I kinda get what he’s saying. In the 1980s rock was still rebellious and had a “party” attitude. Later that style of music was replaced with what I call “Depression Rock,” which Cobain helped popularize. Compare these two songs to get an idea of what I mean. Both were hits in their day.
Dr Feelgood is epic
Nuff said.
Some of the best heavy metal was made in the 80s.
I turned 14 in 1980 so that decade and its music affected me profoundly as that was my transition from adolescence to manhood (neo or otherwise). Off the top of my head, it was the time when punk and disco grew up, and musical artists became comfortable with electronic technology. What was New Wave then is now often referred to as Retro now and is distinct from the hideous bubblegum pop of the era.
.
However, there was a shift from the latent androgyny of the 70s with Ziggy Stardust and many glam rock acts, or the polyester hyper-masculinity of disco with all the gold chains and hairy chests. What came about were distinctly feminine men epitomized by Boy George. This is was counter-opposed by heavy metal and its studded leather look coming into its own as exemplified by, say, Judas Priest with their 1982 album Screaming for Vengeance.
.
I walked in all three worlds with half my friends being new wavers, the other half being metal heads, and then being immersed in pop when dancing at the college pub.
After reading your comment, I thought about a discussion and quasi debate between jazz critic Stanley Crouch and James “Mtume” Williams over the electronic direction that Miles Davis took beginning with “Bitches Brew” Not sure if this lengthy debate might find relevance with anything you’ve written. I believed it might only because your comment reminded me of such. Mtume had an R&B hit with “Juicy Fruit” in the 80s.
I was never into R&B or Jazz but I wouldn’t be surprised at such a debate – electronic influences – being carried out in most genres of music.
Let’s not forget that the 80’s Priest inspired heavy metal look was really gay BDSM fetish culture marketed to “straight” men. Very subversive.
I never realized that at the time and didn’t buy my first black biker jacket until 1994. Maybe that is why all the gay guys hit on me when I moved to Vancouver 2 years later.
Off the top of my head: post-punk, indie / ‘alternative’, two-tone, ska, new wave, early rap, hi-nrg, acid house, retro-garage, paisley underground, heartland rock, crossover country-pop, madchester / baggy, hardcore, thrash, freestyle, hair metal, electro-pop, DJ remixing, early-grunge and early-sampling are some of the 80’s different, hugely-popular strands, particularly to a listener outside of America.
I’m trying to think of any major new style that’s emerged in the 2010’s at all. EDM, dubstep, urban and Max-Martin style pop are all holdovers of the 2000’s, and 1990’s. Emo petered out by about 2008. Most Pitchfork-indie music is either reheated New Wave or Folk, and before that was reheated Garage.
So, yeah ‘a thriving music culture’ indeed.
Western Civilization is the creation of men like you and me. A creation has no purpose without its master guiding it. Soon, the West will weep at our feet again and beg us to take her in and rebuild her. Then the cycle will repeat, until the Universe explodes or Christ comes again (depending on who you ask).
FORWARRRRRRRDDDDDD!!!!!
To replace “Redpill” by “Neomasculinity” is a really bad idea.
Instead of “I am redpilled” I would have to say “I am neo-masculine”. No man will do that.
Instead of “I redpilled him” I would have to say “I neo-masculined him”.
Instead of “I took the redpill” I would have to say “I became neo-masculine”.
Instead of “He is bluepilled” I would have to say “He is not masculine”.
Won’t fly.
I also hate the connotations with body-building and other masculine men, which has nothing to do with being redpilled and MGTOW.
Additionally “masculine” could mean what neonazis want it to mean: To risk life and health for king, country and cunts because of honor and race and such. Neomasculine basically implies being a white knight.
Oh, and it also sounds gay: “The modern neomasculine man is not afraid of penetration”. This ad is what springs into my mind when I visualize the term “neomasculine” (warning, cannot be unseen): http://i.imgbox.com/TAZTDv5O.jpg
And one more thing: Redpilled can be used for women, e.g. “She’s redpilled”. Neo-masculine can not.
Traditionally men don’t qualify themselves with slogans or labels as being wholly subservient to such a thing.
Our enemies don’t determine our mindset through language, we determine our mindset through an examination of conscience. You want to cast traditional masculinity as somehow the servant of femininity.
Not true. Masculinity was the servant of the culture, the people, the clan, the tribe, the elders, the common good, et al. The Romans termed this virtue “Pietas” as embodied by Aenaes, hardly a “white knight.”
“Redpill” or MGTOW at it’s heart is an apeing of Nietzsche-esque nihilism. It is selfish, futile, and ultimately self-sabotaging, because ultimately we grow old, we grow feeble, we grow dependent. Those are the realities of life outside of any self-empowerment screed.
That was all before women got voting rights.
I don’t care whether you consider MGTOW to be selfish. The fact remains that I can use redpill as noun, verb and adjective and it implies something about consciousness and realization, while “masculine” implies the opposite.
When I say “He is redpilled”, I make a statement about his awareness or attitude. When I say “He is masculine”, it implies “He is a tall guy with a beard and a huge biceps”.
You mean navel gazing?
Redpill encompasses an understanding of BOTH gender roles and, as far as some tell me, political and economic and other social realities. “Masculinity” by its very nature, only applies to men and their maleness, so it is limiting as a term.
And ‘redpill’ was created and defined by the very guys who were the first redpillers. It’s an owned title. ‘Masculine’ is submitted for redefinition almost daily. Just a few days ago, Sandberg took a crack at it. Something about doing laundry and taking your daughter to Stanford women’s basketball games and basically thanking women for being so awesome all the time. That’s the most recent definition of ‘masculine.’
Only if ‘navel gazing’ now means, ‘Not being used like a tool in the service of others’ solipsism during your extraordinarily brief, finite life’
Brevis ipsa vita est sed malis fit longior.
‘Short life’ something something ‘bad’ something something. WOOOAHHH, someone learned Latin! Hey everyone! This guy learned Latin! Acknowledge!
I’m sorry are you making a larger point?
I think his point is that you were using intellectualism as a shield behind which to throw pointy words without fear of reprisal.
>Redpill” or MGTOW at it’s heart is an apeing of Nietzsche-esque nihilism. It is selfish, futile, and ultimately self-sabotaging
>navel gazing
You blew it. Fuck off.
Hang out at TRP on reddit and a lot of guys come off that way.
Labels do matter, and words do matter. The problem with the term “red pill” is that it doesn’t really embrace all the things we’re about. Those things were described in detail in Roosh’s article from last week. Take a look at the list again, and you’ll see what I mean:
http://www.rooshv.com/neomasculinity
So what? You will never have a single term that embraces all the things that men are about.
Redpill was never meant to embrace things like “Weightlifting/fitness” or “Natural health and hygiene (baking soda, apple cider vinegar, etc)” or “Technological skepticism” (these are bulletpoints from your linked article).
That’s why we have multiple terms, e.g. Redpill and Fitness. Men are too diversified and “Neomasculinity” sounds too gay to be an umbrella term
Does it need a name or label at all? Isn’t labelling something the other mob is so fond of constantly doing?
It is a shortcut to describe a set of beliefs in a way others can understand without having to start from scratch each time you attempt to explain a conceptual structure… yes, a label helps.
I just think that the particular label, ‘neomasculinity’, contains assumptions that are incompatible with what it is trying to describe.
” “Neomasculinity” sounds too gay”
Bingo. It evokes the ‘good men project’ and ‘dear woman’, metrosexuality and ‘new and improved’ man that ignores his instincts in the attempt to cater to women.
As i just had posted on the rooshv article you linked, “I understand the needs of a new term, and even though Neomasculine catchs the spirit of it, its not a good term to use, for reasons that had already been shared here and on Quintus Curtius post commentaries at rok. Why don’t you make a post where everybody in this community could share their ideal term, and then we would vote for the best? Keep that in mind, because honestly, i find Neomasculine hard to digest.”
My interpretation of Red Pill is, A Man who has seen past the BS and is now cultivating himself into a Masculine/Better Man through his new understanding. I think that Red pill is a term that encompass’s all mano-sphere wisdom and I believe it can encompass new wisdoms as the Mano-sphere expands and more ideas are added.
Yeah. To me it sounds a bit like, “Yeah, Sandberg and the gang were right about masculinity. It’s bad, they said, and what they say goes. They told us to go back to the drawing board and so we did. Here is our new attempt to jump through their hoop.”
I know that’s not what was being discussed at all. But my very first impression of the single word ‘neo-masculine’ is that it’s a supplicating attempt. It could be just the opposite but labels give off strong connotations.
Indeed. One could consider it shorthand.
It’s like calling arnold schwarzanegger a ‘Thespian’. technically it may be totally correct, but viscerally, it’s faggoty.
This reminds me of those International Standards & Certification organization meetings….
‘When faintness of dread left me,
I brought before the leaders of the people,
My father first, these portents of the gods
And asked their judgment.’ (3.82-84)”
because we grow old someday, strength, peering into the heart of the truth, and being dominant and assertive are irrelevant, narcissistic, and nihilistic?
Sorry buddy, but you wouldn’t understand virtue if it bit you on the ass.
*slow clap
This is 21st century America not 1880’s Kansas or Texas, or 1920’s Chicago. It speaks to how weak we have become as a culture that a man has passed some sort of proof for speaking up for himself.
As far as the heart of truth the shifty nature of women used to be common knowledge. In most Ancient European epic the main plot hinges on the troubles caused by female perfidy: The Iliad, Helen; The Tain, Queen Maeve, The Volsunga saga, Brynhildr.
The individualist mentality of MGTOW is what Allan Bloom referred to in The Closing of the American Mind as a ‘fatal flaw of the survivalist as opposed to the traditional heroic ethic.’
That is why I do not support MGTOW. One does not flee from fear and trouble, one braces it, head on, and bests it.
If one must flee it should be no more than a temporary retreat to regroup, or a ploy in order to take the enemy unawares. Those who truly embrace MGTOW have fled the fight, giving victory to the enemy.
I know what you mean.
Red-pill just sounds more badass than neo-masculine. It grew organically and no one needs to know where the term originated from. Dunno what I think about neo-masculine yet.
It could be one of those phenomena like with musical band names where the content eventually defines the name and gives it its character. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Red Hot Chili Peppers for example all sound like dumb band-names but after you hear the music the name begins to sound classic or even iconic. The content shapes how you hear the name.
Whether the term “neo-masculine” will be a good logo to draw men into the content is an empirical question.
>The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Red Hot Chili Peppers for example all sound like dumb band-names
These are band names. Everyone knows that band names have no further meaning and are filled with meaning by the quality of the songs.
Neomasculine on the other hand has already a meaning. It’s about new masculinity. I’m a mgtower and I would hate to call myself “masculine”. Wladimir Klitschko masculine, but not redpilled or mgtow. He even stated “It’s always wrong to hit a woman”. So I would have to make a difference between masculine and neomasculine instead of between bluepilled and redpilled.
I just feel like calling myself masculine makes me automatically not-masculine… if that makes any sense…
Thatcher said something the same: if you have to say that you are a women, you aren’t.
Like Marylon Monroe?
I prefer Doktorjeep’s term… ‘Paleomasculine’
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that what Roosh and Quintus are trying to do is jump start a new Movement. The term “redpill” under that requirment, is too limited and has connotations that might not be useful. Thus, I’m assuming those guys wanted to start the movement off with a clean slate i.e “neomasculinity”.
…like anyone doesn’t know where the term “red pill” came from.
Back in the day we had a joke running in my circle: “I’m not a wimp. I’m a 90s guy!”
.
I don’t particularly like “neo-masculine” but you would say:
“I am a New Man”
“I made him a New Man”
“I became a New Man”
“He is not a New Man”
,
This also implies two other concepts: paleo-masculinity and meso-masculinity.
.
Paleo-masculinity serve us well for the first 6000 years of civilization, and probably for tens of thousands of years before that. It was old school, Marriage 1.0 and represented ideas that remained relevant up to the 1960s.
.
The transitional period from the 1960s to the 2000s created meso-masculinity, a sort of false masculinity that tries to deal with the social, economic and technological changes that undermined the efficacy of paleo-masculinity. The meso-man, the in-between man, the middle man, the middling man, are the betas and white knights who have adopted dysfunctional adaptations, and society as a whole has suffered.
“New man” is a term used to describe Jesus. “Jesus was the first new man”.
Also: The term “new man” is completely meaningless. Sounds like a feminist term to me: “The new man respects women and fights for women’s rights”.
There is the problem that “new man” and “New Man” have been grabbed by Christians and feminists, not to mention various other political and philosophical movements. It would be difficult to lay claim and defend the term.
.
In commenting on Roosh’s post, I proposed the idea of the Third Millennium Man as opposed to the 20th Century Man. If you want to get kitschy, it could be termed 3M2 or 3MSquared or something.
Not bad. On the same theme how about “Running Men” after the 80s classic ‘the Running Man” and the fact that there are people out there trying to kill us
We can then forego alpha/beta and group people as Dynamos, Buzzsaws, and Subzeros.
that would work, but we’d have to dress accordingly
Those sound like lending terms
this is what neomasculinity looks like
The word Neo-Masculine doesn’t flow as well a Red Pill. If it’s not broke don’t fix it , Red Pill is not a Broke term.
Your pics are amusing and sometimes informative, but you are wrong in this case. Masculine is what men are. It is a word that describes us. It is a good word and one that should be used more.
No, it’s not. Just as feminine is not what women are. Modern women are the opposite of feminine.
Not all people hold to the ideal, or even seek to. That doesn’t discredit the ideal, or imply that it is somehow not accurate. What it means is that most men really aren’t men, and most women are poor examples of women. They are children in the bodies of men and women.
It’s what men should be, it’s not what most Western men are.
Your main objection is that it can’t be used as a verb, for your own typing convenience? Okay.
OK, Roosh, how could I say “I redpilled her” by using the term “neomasculine”?
Not sure it that is possible, directly, I suppose the verb would be “masculate”‘ which is an archaic term meaning “to make strong” (and the opposite of emasculate). Obviously, you can’t masculate a female. You can get her to appreciate neo-masculinity.
Yeah but who would say “I Red-pilled” her anyways?
I have used the term “that guy needs a dose of red pill”. I don’t think I can get neo-masculine to work in that context. If I say “that guy needs a dose of masculine” anybody can pick that up any way and the “programmed” people will auto-response “oh that means forced butt sex LOL yolo where’s my latte what’s on TV tonight…”
Captain Kirk didn’t want any of Richard Simmons’ masculine.
Theh! Great!
Simmons was most guys first dealing with the dreaded bicycle pants
you can ‘mansplain’
I agree but I think it’s good by Roosh to define what a red pill/neomasculine lifestyle is.
This is precisely the reason for a new term. You cannot expect a woman to be neomasculine, but you should expect her to benefit from it.
No, this is precicely the reason why the new term is bad.
“Yesterday I tried to redpill my family on the gender pay gap, but they stayed bluepilled as fuck, especially my sister” has a very understandable meaning in the manosphere, whereas this one is just nonsense: “Yesterday I tried to make my family neomasculine regarding the gender pay gap, but they stayed non maculine as fuck, especially my sister”.
The new term is useless, both from a usability standpoint and from a content standpoint.
whatever happened to a picture is worth a thousand words?
a picture can be worth a thousand words, but by the same token a word can be worth a thousand pictures.
that’s pretty egalitarian. But I wasn’t really making a philosophical point, I was querying the change in tactics
Not really egalitarian… how many pictures does the word ‘war’ bring to mind? how about ‘science’ or ‘feminism’?
Sometimes the right words can tell a better story than the most detailed of visual graphics
What word is worth a thousand pictures?
Fuck
I would say the problem with pictures is, even when they transport a meaning, they can evoke different meanings in different persons. With words you can be more precise.
The last 2 lines from Rush’s song “A Farewell to Kings” really hits home with this article.
“Can’t we raise our eyes and make a start? Can’t we find the minds to lead us closer to the heart?”
Actually, that’s from “Closer To The Heart” 🙂
You can be the captain and I will draw the chart. Sailing into destiny, closer to the heart.
That’s the ending to Closer to the Heart. I’ll give you an up vote for trying.
Rush often quoted Shakespeare and others in their lyrics. I don’t know how commonly they did it but whenever you quote Rush there is some chance that you’re quoting someone else.
Rush sucks man!
“glitzy hair-metal bands of the 1980s”
Those travesties weren’t “metal” bands; those were goddamn ROCK bands. They were simply selling an image, not an ideal. Nothing about their vibes, lyrics, or philosophy were metal, even an iota.
Metal is The Devil’s music and always will be.
Hahaha, reminds me of this Hairy Metal Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvcAzXlHtw
I don’t care what i am called; self applicable superficial labels are not my thing.
Let my actions demonstrate my beliefs far better and far faster than i could in explaining them.
Let my words explain my actions and let the consistency of my words define them as natural, and not merely some philosophical fashion choice.
Exactly. And words are misused so much, I find I often have to ask people “What do you mean by _____?”
Especially if they say something like “Oh don’t you love diversity”? Well what do you mean by diversity? If you mean it’s nice to have a variety of different things in life, restaurants with all types of foods, houses with all types of architectures, interests in a multitude of areas, absolutely. But if you mean that everyone should adopt tri-gender inclusiveness and affirmative action, no way.
Or any time someone says anything about being “liberal” I have to ask what they mean, because I consider myself liberal as the word is understood throughout the world, and in the time of our founding fathers, but have zero in common with the Democratic party post 1996.
Or if someone says aren’t you pro-feminist? I will ask well what do you mean by feminist because I certainly approve of the traditional long haired, cultured, polite, happy, high heeled wearing feminine woman, but often that’s not what they mean.
Words are only a tool to communicate ideas, and often people use the wrong words and don’t communicate what they mean well, so asking “what do you mean by xxx” makes them rephrase and tell you what they actually mean without using talking points or parroting others.
A lot of fashionable words of today have been mutilated, stripped and raped of all meaning except for the meaning which those who do the violating would have them contain.
Gay used to mean happy, liberal used to mean freedom, etc.
It’s why i prefer not to label myself, even though i will sometimes do out of habit.
Freedom fighter now means terist, We have never been at war with Al Quaida, we have always been at war with Al Quaida.. parallels between 1984 and the present American government are astounding. (and yes the USA almost allied with Al Q when they tried to go to war in Syria, but there was actually public backlash against it)..
I’m a man.
Too much focus on pop culture events, sounds like Forest Gump. Cultural shifts like high divorce rates, with boys being raised by single moms explain a lot.
Tread carefully on terms.
Red Pill actually reflects that scene from the Matrix and it has a crossover. There are a lot of betas out there who think they have taken the red pill on matters of politics and media but when it comes to women, they are just as blue pill as a bottle of Viagra.
Also, does anybody recall from the 90s this trend of men hanging out in the woods and beating drums and crap like that? That was called a “movement” which was basically reversion, like “OK Wifey is getting fat, watching Oprah, and becoming a cunt, but she gave me permission to go hang out with the guys and pretend we are cavemen”. It was dumb then, and this term reminds me of that.
So let’s just stick with red pill because in all seriousness, waking up to the lie is still very much like taking the red pill. There’s a lot of shock involved, as well as regret thinking of the kind of lives we could have had if we had it sooner.
“There are a lot of betas out there who think they have taken the red pill on matters of politics and media but when it comes to women, they are just as blue pill as a bottle of Viagra.”
The converse is true as well.
They are as Viagra as a bottle of blue pills?
After a quick image search I advise caution, lest we disappear in a puff of recursive logic.
Thou art God. hehe.
Use the two terms in appropriate circumstances. We can still say “take the red pill” and call the movement neomasculinity. In my case, I can be “Mormon” and also belong to the LDS church. To use the matrix analogy, the film didn’t actually call people who departed the matrix “red pillers.” They called themselves members of “zion.”
Titles are important, and it is important to consider just how to frame this whole thing. It was a great article by Quintus.
Rick gets it. Bravo.
so we could call ourselves “zionists”?
nice try schlomo
You created a disqus account just so you could call me ‘schlomo’? Why would you do that?
Internet Hall of Fame comment. Ha ha.
I thought the city was called ‘Scion’
Could be, they said it weird.
Lol.
True that and not mention there are alot of keyboard alphas and ROK authors out here and in certain camps in the manosphere who have taken the red pill when it comes to women but are totally clueless on the true nature of politics, media and race.
I could get probably get used to neo-masculine, provided it doesn’t get confused with ‘new man’. Neo-sounds forward looking, progressive in its own right (and hopefully on its own terms), with a red pill nod to the Matrix (Neo), but has to be carefully distinguished from the pro-feminist New Man. If we wanted to look in the other direction completely, we could take out cue from paleo-conservatives who distinguish themselves interestingly enough from neo-conservatives (those ex-trotskyists), with all the neanderthal baggage that would involve ‘re-claiming’. I also quite like meta-masculine, which is slightly transcendent, with the suggestion of a little distance from being bound to either past or present.
We were creating similar posts simultaneously. :-s
.
We would have to differentiate between a “new man” and a “New Man”. The term “meta” has certain negative connotations in the way metaphysics isn’t real physics but rather a bunch of flaky navel gazing,
.
edit; There would be a lot of confusion created by fighting over the definition of “new man” or “New Man” since there are several concepts that have already laid claim to those terms.
lol – nothing wrong with metaphysics. Not sure many people would be able to distinguish between upper / lower case though. I can’t even do it when I’m alluding to God
I don’t have a problem with metaphysics but logical positivist and various atheists do. In a lecture I heard that the term was a historical accident. When editors were putting together Aristotle’s works they did not know what to call his philosophical writings on topics such as “being qua being”. Since it came after his treatises on physics it was termed “meta-physics”.
didn’t know that. Interesting
Thank god. I hate the term “red pill.” The Matrix is a shit movie.
How about we call ourselves neo-Terminators then
“Roosh V published a short piece introducing the new term “neomasculinity.””
The term has been around for at least 10 years.
I think I’ll stick with “masculinism.” It isn’t quite dead yet, some of us remember the 50s, and from my perspective Neomasculinism suffers some of the same problems as Neopaganism.
Without understanding the roots, you cannot grow a healthy tree.
Labels can be useful shorthand, but they can also be limiting, even confining. I prefer a more direct, more personal approach:
It’d be nice to have some buddies in real life with the ”neomasculine” or red pill mentality.
I can’t get on board with ‘neo-masculine’. Simply too complex and frankly, complexity is how feminism gets its power. Someone on here mentioned that neo-masculine is an attempt to embrace everything masculine. Anytime you try to embrace something you are basically trying to create a limit to it. And that creates a reflexive response in men to try and break containment.
Masculine energy should never be seen as something that can be contained. You will always try to add a few more pounds to that bar. You will always add another skill. You will always read another book. Living is adding, so you get busy living or get busy dying.
I prefer red-pill for the fact that it represents a definitive start to the forever ongoing journey of manhood. You take the red-pill and you go from being what you were to being who you will become. It’s the transition from being a boy under his mother’s apron to a man creating his own life. Taking the red-pill is a decision.
Perhaps neo-masculine is the journey, but it starts with the red-pill.
I like it. Sounds quasi-intellectual. What we really need though are a bunch of local clubs (perhaps affiliated with a college or university) where like-minded men can shoot the shit. The few red-pill/neomasculine men I’ve met confessed they’re too scared (and rightly so) to talk openly about these ideas.
I started a red pill workout club before ever hearing of the term…it starts with you.
“What we really need though are a bunch of local clubs . . .”
Indeed. I tend to harp on that very point.
” . . .perhaps affiliated with a college or university . . .”
Absolutely not. They must be without any affiliation to anything but its own members. They must be able to congeal at will, and flow like water through the fingers of anybody who tries to grasp them.
A band of bothers.
After reading the Roosh article, there isn’t really that much that seems “new.” They’re good, traditional masculine traits.
Why not just call ourselves “masculine?” There’s really no mistaking what that word means. I might add stop using the word “guys” though, it sounds kind of childish.
“There’s really no mistaking what that word means.”
Jack Donovan found it a bit more problematic than you do.
Who is Jack Donovan?
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007O0Y1ZE/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=jackdono20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007O0Y1ZE
a homosexual man that, while proving insightful in matters of male relationships, also allows his personal fantasy of mighty-thewed half-naked warriors struggling sweatily with each other to color his perceptions of the ideal patriarchial society.
To be fair, he isn’t much interested in patriarchal society. He’s interested in societies of men.
yes, but ‘societies of men’ do not have the resources or drive to get to alpha centauri before a big rock wipes the human race out of the universe. We have projects as a species that need accomplishment, and sticking strictly to instinctive masculinity is not going to help us accomplish those goals.
However, discarding instinctive masculinity is even MORE likely to prevent our attainment of these goals.
Moderation in all things.
I can’t say that I agree, but I will stipulate that it wouldn’t do the species much good.
Hey, I will freely admit that to my mind, spreading our seed across the universe to ensure our species is never extinguished is the most important goal any living being could ever aspire to.
Us scifi fans are weird that way. The Anti-zen.
Some women play Mozart to their babies in the womb. Mine read to me from Amazing.
Screw the flying cars, I want the Mars base they promised me.
So in other words, he’s a man with gay caveman fantasies who doesn’t know much about the real world?
Interesting…..is it worth reading?
I didn’t say he doesn’t know much about the real world… he does in fact, know quite a bit about the real world.
But I think he tends to disregard the real needs of us ‘breeders;
Ok, so what’s with his “personal fantasy?” Do you mean he’s overly idealistic?
No friggin kidding. we should have at LEAST had a moonbase.
if by ‘overly idealistic’ you mean “willing to disregard some portions of reality that do not overly concern him in order to encourage an idealistic future that suits his own predilictions’, then yes.
If you mean “Blinded to reality by fantasies” then not really.
It’s one of those books that’s worth reading, because it addresses interesting questions and makes an honest attempt to answer them, even if you don’t necessarily agree with its answers:
“This book is my answer to the question: “What is masculinity?”
If men are a certain way, and there is a way to be manly, then: “What is the way of men?” ”
Whether it’s worth buying is another question. For some perhaps more than others. I’ll note that you can view it at scribd and decide for yourself.
A moonbase would be cool, especially if William Shatner were the commander.
Yes, for sure. It’s in the manosphere top five, imo.
and you had to hiss twice to open each door.
I have yet to read Donovan’s “The Way of Men”. Have you read it? And if so, do you recommend it?
I quite reccommend it, but as with all political readings, once must be wary of investing too much into it. I would like to say he has a higher ‘truthiness’ ratio than many other writers, but confirmation bias affects everyone.
“willing to disregard”
Yes, thats exactly what I was getting at!
The word masculine has undergone a tectonic shift over the last few decades. It’s been rebranded to mean “being a man means doing the heavy lifting for women, now man up, boy, and marry up that slut!”
Very true, good point!
I tend to think I’m a little out of touch sometimes. I was born in 79, grew up in the 80s and 90s, but my dad was a little older (and my mom married young by 2015 standards) so I didn’t really get the whole “man up and marry that slut” treatment. They weren’t some kind of hyper-macho/hyper-feminine stereotypes, just normal people who grew up and came of age without leftist indoctrination.
Great article, but I must mention one thing:
I’m seeing articles about cultural decline, followed by articles on how to fuck married women. I’m seeing articles advocating getting women away from work, followed by articles on how to get girls to spend money on you. Perhaps ROK needs a central thesis of some kind.
While I guess one could argue that ROK is offering advice for ALL men, whether those men want to take the “pool-side” approach to cultural decline (like Heartiste) or advice on how to fight and win a culture war, and rebuild a society free of this shameless, depraved single mom ghetto attention whore deviancy contest that the western world has become.
One thing is for sure, if you do set a more precise direction for the site, ROK could see better support, even if from lower numbers.
“I’m seeing articles about cultural decline, followed by articles on how to fuck married women. I’m seeing articles advocating getting women away from work, followed by articles on how to get girls to spend money on you. Perhaps ROK needs a central thesis of some kind.”
Thats the problem I’m having with all this, the highfalutin civilizational talk sounds inspirational, higher ideals etc etc. But isn’t the underlying philosophy how to get laid more? How does the Olympian – “higher, faster stronger” motto compare to the Rooshian “hotter, younger, ….?” motto. Also, where is the mention of family and fatherhood? Perhaps this is more like a viking kind of philosophy take what you can and where you can.
Thinking that perhaps it doesn’t need to be consistent if the main aim is to gather as much support as possible. If your building a political base you want to appeal to the many, it may well be some of your ideas will be incompatible given the different demographics. You have genuine player/gamer/self-improver types, anti-feminist types and perhaps others. Strength in numbers.
“Never by a drunk a drink.” Don’t add to the problems of the world.
Sex sells.
On a more realistic note, the manosphere caters to two mentalities.
1. It used to be easy to get chicks. What happened? At least, that was my case. Either way, some type of frustration/misguided idyllic reference points need to be resolved.
2. Ok, I realize human nature as a whole. Why did I waste so much time on “picking up chicks”? Let’s focus on improving myself and those around me.
Something along those lines explains the split in articles.
At first, neo-masculine sounds a bit like the new (pro feminist) man to me. But the “new man” is not masculine at all, yet he almost became the norm in our current society(s), so the term neo-masculine has its eligibility. However it can’t replace TRP, as you have to swallow it before anything further can happen.
Whether the best term is “red pill” or “masculine” depends on the context in which it is used.
To take the red pill, as derived from the movie The Matrix, and as I’ve commonly seen it used, means to understand the true nature of a thing. To be masculine, meanwhile, means to have the qualities of a man.
For example, an effeminate, weak, lazy and generally pathetic male human may not be masculine, but can still be described as “red pill” if he understands the anti-male nature of modern social politics. Similarly, a guy who works out, is jacked, works hard, is a self-made entrepreneur, and believes in individual responsibility, may be masculine, but still cannot be described as red pill if he does not understand the truth about modern social politics and the differences between men and women.
“Neo-masculinity” as Roosh defines it, is not actually new, but is an ideal that men have followed for millenia before eventually turning astray in modern times. To me, it seems that it would make more sense to describe ourselves as having “traditional masculinity” and to deride modern, effeminate men as being “neo-masculine.”
Suffice to say then it may well be “paleo masculinity”.
I would consider paleomasculinity a far superior and more appropriate term.
Paleolithic means ‘of the Stone Age’.
‘Neo’, as a prefix, means ‘like how it used to be, but done now’. Eg: Neo-Gothic architecture, built in a style of old.
So Paleo is not a suitable prefix, at all.
I understand the reservations about ‘neo’, but technically it is correct.
Personally I think ‘Traditonal Masculinity’ is best.
Also, great article QC.
Absolutely and utterly incorrect. Paleo means ‘Old or ancient’, although it tends to apply more often to geologicaly data, it is NOT specific to geology, and when used OUTSIDE of a geological context, it literally just means ‘old or ancient’.
“Neo” though, has two possible meanings. “New” or “Revived”. ‘new masculine” is objectionable on so many levels I cannot even get fucking started, and ‘Revived masculinity’ assumes that masculinity has died… or been totally corrupted and altered to the point where it has to be ‘reborn’. Neither is true, ‘old masculinity’ still exists, has always existed, and will always exist.
no, I don’t want ‘new masculinity’ or ‘revived masculinity’ Paleo is a PERFECTLY suitable prefix, and neomasculinity is a draw to faggotry.
But hey, if you want to be a ‘new or reborn man’, more power to you… You won’t care in the slightest if we call you a fag for it, right? Oh, and remember that the ‘good men’ call themselves ‘new men’ also, but I am sure that the parallel doesn’t bother you at all.
Woah! Keep your shirt on Brigadon. You won’t get laid by being a blowhard on the internet.
My definitions are acceptable.
No need to be autistic about it.
(rofl)
Not interested in getting laid on the internet. It’s singularly unsatisfying, especially with all the cables and such, and you really don’t appear to be my type.
But, you basically tried to semantically pick apart my definition… incorrectly. Need I mention that if you decide to go the low road, you have little room to complain about your own errors being pointed out.
You attempt to correct someone, you really should make sure you aren’t holding your dick in your hand at the time.
It’s like saying “Har har! yew don now hO tO speell yh!!1!11!!”
Yeah, it’s the “lithic” that means stone, with “lith” (Greek “lithos”) as the root.
I’m not sure that “paleo” is really an appropriate prefix, since we are seeing a distinction between ancient masculinity and the type of masculinity introduced by Roosh and described here by QC.
It’s splitting hairs, and to what end?
“Neomasculinity” sounds cool and catchy. Any movement that wants to have significant influence must acknowledge and employ the power of language.
The masses won’t care about semantics. Let’s do this.
Masculinity hasn’t died? One must spend too much time on ROK to think this…
Although I agree with the overall sentiment. I think the toxicity of your social chemistry in this gentleman’s overall direction to be a complete waste.
I think your energy would be better spent elsewhere. He was merely making the same point as you. But using the wrong pre-fix. Or are you going to go “idiocracy” on me and say I speak like a fag?
Get your “good-girl” latte at Starbucks if you do! LOL
Maybe it has, but it will resurface again. Being men, we have been, since the dawn of time solving problems and undertaking herculean labors. The modern blue pill shit is just like one of those shit tests of the past. We will, eventually overcome it. And yes, the feminists are afraid of us. They are afraid whenever men gather and talk about their problems and the problems of the society, They are afraid of the men’s only spaces, because there men being men, without the bitching of women, talk about all the shit. If you notice, they have completely eliminated men only spaces, whether it be Men’s center in the campuses or male only bars or any other men only spaces, feminists vehemently attack them and whine for women to be accepted there. Sites like these where men can gather, and talk are a great breeding point for the betterment of men and the society. That’s why I believe that people like Rooshv and doing genuine public service.
After taking the red pill Neo in “The Matrix” embraced neomasculinity.
You mean in one of THE MOST left-wing movie series of all time. Nuh-uh, sorry.
►►►►make $14600 in 4 weeks@15:
you
Can Find Out HERE,
►►► ►►http:.//Careers►Providers..com…<<<
Whatever it is, Q took an intellectual nuclear bomb gattling gun to the far left liberal BS.
I loved the Hell outta this article. I would caution against any political party, and am glad that he mentioned none!
If this article isolates, and scientifically defines the men’s movement going forward, with a Paul Elam/Roosh hybrid attitude, it is no wonder feminists and their ilk shit themselves.
Renaissance men, love them or hate them, are the most feared by the establishments of any era! Because ideas hold real power when they are of cataclysmic importance, and hold sway over not just public opinion, modern MSM, but also entail all the elements of the social periodic table. Essentially, science is going to use the language of God, calculus, and destroy the demons poking our collective brain for bishes behalf!
Old school patriarchal logic, coupled with modern knowledge burning a path of destroyed social-Marxist BS in it’s wake.
Bitches and politicans be shittin theyself yo!
If so, I want to be on the Paleo diet of masculinity.
Eat up, gentlemen!
“To me, it seems that it would make more sense to describe ourselves as
having ‘traditional masculinity’ and to deride modern, effeminate men
as being ‘neo-masculine.’
Russian Orthodox vs everything else.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/images/10628419_10152670523778103_240633564808685893_n.jpg
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2014/02/20/daily-show-tells-disgruntled-conservatives-get-lost-conservative-paradis
The billionaire gave Jones a tour of his church, which prompted this exchange:
VELIKY: It is normal to have a church at your business in Russia.
JONES: (on camera) That’s insane. Seriously it’s — it’s insane.
[…]
Rep. RON DESANTIS (R-Fla.), House Oversight Committee: We need to move to a fair or a flat tax.
JONES: What do they do in Russia?
VYACHESLAV NIKONOV, Russian state Duma deputy: We have tight budget. We have no budget deficit.
JONES: (on camera) What is your tax situation here?
NIKONOV: 13 percent flat.
JONES: 13?
NIKONOV: Yep.
JONES: And the low taxes and the lack of regulation have created the trickliest-down economy in the world.
(voice over) But what about immigration?
BRYAN FISCHER, American Family Association: We have got to raise
questions about whether we can afford to allow Muslims to immigrate into
the United States at all?
JONES: (on camera) What’s your feeling on immigration?
NIKONOV: We need immigrants because it’s cheap labor. But Christian immigration is of course preferred to Muslim.
JONES: (voice over) Holy (bleep) This place is awesome. In just 25
years they figured out the free market and institutionalized
xenophobia.
Is he back, anon?
http://i.imgbox.com/b4Fw713x.jpg
I think this one is far more precise:
However, even Hitler would have probably been insulted to be compared with this idiot who can’t even build roads.
I have to admit, a spitting image. Although if he was Caesar, the West would have already heard the die is cast and fallen by now.
I think the rainbow flag below perhaps more pertinent? Although, be he Caesar or not, I wonder how many of our agents saw that hard look as the last thing before leaving earth they ever saw?
Sometimes, killers do make better statesmen.
But I think his career has maybe run it’s course. To go into a stalemate with a president as week as our current, and last one, is quite likely a telltale sign that you have overstepped your momentum.
alia iacta est
And you would prefer what exactly, thermonuclear war? I think the Russians are being very prudent in their dealings with the USA now. To call it a stalemate when the situation in Ukraine has not yet been resolved is premature. I predict it will fall back under the control of Moscow. The Russians are playing chess and the USA is playing.. lets flip the board over in a tantrum and destroy it when we don’t like how things are going.
Yeah, why not just add: Hail Great Putin, the Savior of Motherland! or some bullshit. Seriously, I feel am on some Russian Nazi forum. Putinocracy is the last thing Manosphere needs. Just because Obama is a weak pussy does not make Putin Rambo or Terminator. First of all, Russia is heavily dependent on oil and gas. You can thank 9/11 and Iraq invasion for soaring gas and oil prices, allowing Putin to divert some small amount of money he and his corrupt goons did not manage to steal outright from the budget to Russian “economy” (if you could call that). Russia does not produce anything of real, industrial value. What’s left of soviet Union is deteriorating at rapid speed. Next, you forgot the inflation rates- Ruble is going down and down, while prices on goods are soaring so those numbers are not very impressive in the long run. If Putin came into power earlier during Yeltsin years, he would fail spectacularly. He is a KGB agent with no idea how to support a long, sustainable economy. In a decade or so, Russia will face an economical collapse, like no other country has in 21st century, not even Greece.
“first of all” shoulda been “the rest of the world, especially Europe, is dependent on THEIR oil and gas”.
“Russia is heavily dependent on oil and gas.”
Is this supposed to be a criticism of Russia? What is America dependent on? Hollywood and bombs?
If there is anything in the world I would like to base an economy on, it is energy, because that is the one thing we all need.
Russia doesn’t produce any heavy industrial goods? Compared to Germany or Japan perhaps not but compared to the USA and most of the rest of the world, they are doing great. I have never been to Russia, but they have an aerospace industry, and quick research shows machinery and heavy industry is the largest portion of the Russian economy, at 30%.
Russia also produces gold and diamonds, largest forests in the world, and a strong agricultural producer. Its levels of income inequality are even worse than the USA, but the US is also horrible in this area. Russia has a lot of corruption. But the difference is, conditions in Russia seem to be improving. Conditions in the US are worsening. Which is a better scenario?
Good points Giorgi. Putin is a master of appearance and illusion. I would expect nothing less from a former lieutenant colonel of the KGB. Although he is a very intelligent and competent leader, he is far from some “righteous” savior. I completely doubt the above stat’s legitimacy – any economic factors can be manipulated with the right variables.
The amount of support Putin sometimes gets on this site is laughable. Putin’s actions can be learned from, but he is not a virtuous man to be emulated. He’s a narcissistic megalomaniac who has had specific individuals assassinated – and don’t start pointing fingers at other world leaders, because two wrongs don’t make a right. He is a communist holdover who wishes to elevate his own position within a ruthless power structure. His appearance and actions all aim towards that goal. Putin seeks to empower Russia because it empowers him, not because it helps Russians. Russians are so bitter from their losses on the world stage that they see him as some kind of national savior. Russians, and even Russophiles, are completely blind to Putin’s alarmingly dangerous behavior and personality. You can see this denial all over the internet.
The economic assumptions and fallacies within your comment are astounding, especially concerning your understanding of supply and demand. BTW, here’s the top three American exports for you – exactly what you’re praising Russia for:
Machines, engines, pumps:
US$219,566,232,000 (13.5% of total exports)
Electronic equipment: $171,966,197,000 (10.6%)
Oil: $157,213,437,000 (9.7%)
Russia’s top three:
Mineral fuels including oil: $304,559,452,000 (57.9% of total exports)
Iron and steel: $20,050,729,000 (3.8%)
Pearls, gems, precious metals and coins: $14,367,047,000 (2.7%)
America produces over half the oil Russia does, but oil accounts for almost 60% of Russian exports, to America’s 10%. Being that dependent on any single industry is economically disadvantageous in the long run. Hope nothing happens to that oil…
Yeah, oil and gas doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world that Europe could possibly get supplies from.
actually they cant- gas is gas, you cant put it on a tanker and ship it from halfway around the world. It flows thru pipes.
liquifying the gas adds cost, and there arent enough tankers capable of delivering liquified gas anyway. putin could freeze out most of europe in winter, but you knew that already, didnt you?
In other words you found some data on Russian exports being smaller than US exports. I’ve never been to Russia and have no stake in this fight. I’m simply quoting facts and figures, and asking questions. It’s better to focus on the arguments and facts, as it’s not interesting to other readers to hear about me me me.
Russian exports are indeed about 1/3 of what US exports are. Is there a conclusion to be drawn from that fact? How does any of this relate to supply and demand?
The Soviet economy was set up to be self sufficient, primarily because the Western nations refused to trade with it. It’s not surprising that the USSR never developed a big export market. I don’t even recall Soviet goods being available in the west until after the Berlin Wall fell. The question of the strength of their economy is separate from the strength of their export market (although obviously the more items one can export, the wealthier one is).
I tend to see Putin as a strong leader, but had no idea he was that effective. Don’t have time to fact check everything now but wow, if true those are some quite impressive stats. Notice how all the stats in the US are moving in a negative direction–even if they are not bad now. The most important factor is the trend, not the current measurement.
You are correct that “traditional masculinity” is the more precise term.
But “traditional masculinity” is derided by progressives as “toxic masculinity”, and they still hold too much normative power / power of interpretation.
I think more of the undecided people would be put off by the implications of the term traditional masculinity (as defined by the media) than by the term neomasculinity.
If people get put off then fuck them.
I don’t give a shit what progressives think on any point. Its like how “disabled” became “physically challenged”. This was to make it sound more “positive”. And yet immediately people began making the same old jokes but with the new label.
We don’t need a new label. We just need to have the balls to say what we are, unapologetically and proud. “I am a man, a masculine man, a macho man, and fuck you if you don’t understand.”
I agree with you on this. In fact, merely “masculinity” will do for me.
Not only that, “Modern Man” can simply be described as effeminate. Masculine doesn’t apply to them in any form.
I really, really believe – call me crazy – that we really are more feminized then previous generations in the biological sense.
Fatty diets, less exercise, less competition, passive environments and more have literally made us less male, with less testosterone and rewired brains.
I don’t think you’re crazy I think you are right with one exception. Fatty diets make us strong. Old school strongmen used to eat tons of full fat dairy and believed in a HFHP (High Fat, High Protein) diet to make themselves big and strong. It was only in the 70s that this low fat craze started. That works for bodybuilders taking steroids but not for you and I. Its this high sugar, Kellogs diet that is turning men into fags…
Right. remove ‘neo’ from masculinity and we are all in.
RP works. It appeared organically, and anyone who’s seen The Matrix gets it. Simple.
Neomasculinity? Sounds like something a college professor would try to shove down your throat. Which is exactly what Roosh and RoK are trying to do here.
I do indeed hope this grows more and more.
But, and i hate to say it, the clamping down of racial thought in the manosphere (and no, I do not mean the rooshvforum since its house rules are conducive to the atmosphere it wants) is ultimately betraying neomasculinity.
If we are to live up to the ideas of our forefathers, tribalism was a part of that.
And racelessness is a weapon used against any sort of constructive masculinity: Don’t fight for your tribe white man.
This does not mean the manosphere needs to buddy up with stormfront. I have no love for that website. However, sniping at people with these heretical views simply for having them is cowardly and unbecoming.
I disagree. Tribalism MUST be set aside for ‘familyism’ in order for civilization to prosper, and without civilization, greater achievements in science, technology, medicine, and the arts are simply impossible.
“Familyism’ is the replacement for tribalism that was designed from the ground up to cater to man’s instinctive need to form related groups, without the chieftan politics and territorialism that prevent related groups from interacting and forming greater civilizations.
Tribalism without conversion to familyism is what keep third world countries third world. It is the reason why Native Americans never had a chance against the english settlers, and the reason that places like africa will NEVER be able to achieve parity with more advanced societies.
I understand people like Jack Donovan push tribalism relentlessly, but they are enmired in their own personal sexual fantasy of broad-chested hunters in buckskins struggling manfully against each other and nature … while this is indeed our heritage and instinctual desire, some instincts MUST be moderated in order to achieve society… The family is one of the greatest structures invented, as it allows civilization and instinctive tribalism to coexist peacefully.
I agree.
How many families do you see here?:
yes, but in a tribal society those men wouldn’t be sitting there, they’d be killing each other over a hunting ground.
The point is that societies of men are not incompatible with a society of families; although I’ll note that some of these men ended up divorced due to their wives being unhappy with their husband’s dedication to their work.
As for the latter point:
http://www.mikewallteacher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/over-the-top-at-the-somme.jpg
Oh. I agree, however, tribal society and advanced society ARE incompatible.
I see the heads of many, many families actually.
Exactly. The heads of families who nevertheless spent most of their time in the company of men, doing things that, for all practical purposes, only men were interested in doing.
The point I was trying to illustrate to Brigadon, based on our exchange downstream, is that Jack Donovan’s concept of Man as a Gang Member does not imply tribalism.
Jack himself is tribal for two reasons:
1. He’s a homosexual, so he has no personal interest in women.
2. He is in the camp that believes we have passed the point of no return and the only way forward is to burn it down and start over.
But that isn’t core to his philosophy of masculinity.
…
There is nothing ‘Neo’ about masculinity… it comes from within. and while faking it till you make it is a good way to get started on the path to masculinity, it is still an entirely internal journey, concerns about promoting the APPAEARANCE of masculinity without the substance (Neo) are strictly the domain of shallow pussy beggars.
“Neo-masculine” reads somewhat like “Neo-nazi”.. or is it still just the fixation on the Matrix theme “Neo”?
Nah, I’d rather stick with “Man”. Beyond that let the future generations label us. I’m not concerned about such trivial things. I’d rather Man, as a collective, finds a way to carve a path back into the history books that you/we draw knowledge from, Quintus.
It’s just that it’s a common part of the language, a prefix from Greek that means “new,” or “revived.”
Don’t go all SJW language deconstructionist on us.
Being a normal male in the west means having to spend half your time fighting against bullshit fabricated by college girls to rationalize their insecurities
While this is all fine and good, I still advocate the adoption of nationalism worldwide in order to combat the scourge
Terry: Were you once the commenter here called “East Asian Nationalist”?
Yes, Important point.
“Values were jettisoned like used newspapers. Gen X-ers and millennials had been totally sold out by their forefathers, betrayed on the most basic level. It was a bitter reality, and one difficult to accept.”
Welcome to 1918:
http://www.anzacsinfrance.com/storage/battle16.jpg
Well, heh, it ain’t *that* bad. Those poor saps from the Great War, an entire generation of Classical Liberal men that could have guided us to a fantastic future we cannot possibly hope to conceive of now, were literally sent out to actual slaughter. Us, we’re just kind of sitting in suburbs and being bored. Bit of a diff.
WW1 is why we have our current history. WW1 gave us the USSR, marxism and Hitler. It completely destroyed the old order in a few short years. Robert Graves “Goodbye to All That” explains. I agree GOJ that our current hellish present originates from the Great War.
I was not aware that others had theorized about this. I wrote a rambling, long article about it a couple of years ago on another site, now I feel a bit weird. Thought I was on to something novel.
Fuck but if WW1 wasn’t a nearly deliberate, if not outright deliberate, attempt of the then “new and fresh” progressive movement to eliminate ideological competition in one giant, bloody fell swoop. I don’t actually think that kind of coordinated conspiracy is possible, but if I were inclined towards conspiracy theory thinking, it would be hard not to conclude that WW1 was the culling of the Classical Liberal from history by a small group of nefarious Progressive “leaders”. Added bonus, it left an entire generation of young boys without fathers in many cases and gave us the first “single mom” epidemic.
Why do we need a word to describe it other than masculine? Why not just say masculine instead of neo-masculine? Basically what you are saying is that masculinity is up for debate. We don’t need neo-masculinity, we just need masculinity. Men are intelligent and innovative enough as it is that we can learn to adapt to our situation. That said, I agree with the qualities in Roosh’s list. We can call it being masculine.
I read both this article and Roosh’s article with the list. I think it’s fantastic that Roosh came up with a set of Neomasculine attributes (I have never seen such a comprehensive list in one place) and I like how Quintus placed it historically and culturally. Red-pill has its uses, but what I like about Neomasculine is that it gives me a sense of my place in history. The list of attributes gives me something concrete to strive towards and encourage others to strive towards.
In fact, I think some introspective writing is in order. To answer the questions: do I have these attributes? Do I understand each one fully? Where do I stand on each one? If other men were to ask my opinion on any of them would I have a logical and comprehensive stance? Where am I strong? Where am I weak? Are there men in history that had most, if not all of these attributes?
If we lived in a society where Men were valued, Fathers were present, and role models were akin to those of old, we would have all of these answers already. Nonetheless, a thought provoking and solid move Roosh and Quintus!
IMO, redpill is too widely-used by everybody to be replaced now by a new term like “neomale”, “neoman”, “neomasculinity” or something like that.
As yup said, if it’s not broken , there’s no need to fix it.
Great article
However, the red pill represents truth.
I like Roosh’s list, but the nuclear family is an unnatural structure for primates. Embracing monogamy should not be included.
Tens of thousands of years of successful species reproduction with marriage being the guiding mating plan of humanity suggests otherwise.
Shitting in a toilet instead of wherever you happen to be standing is also unnatural for primates. Perhaps we should be more than the sum of normal primate behavior.
Just stumbled across this gem. mind if I borrow it?
By all means!
Brethren, this is how a legal-system is supposed to work.
In the new movie “GETT: The trial of Vivian Amsel” we find a template for a perfect legal system.
The movie describes how the Israeli Orthodox Court-system works with regard to divorces.
It basically works like this: I the man does not want to grant his wife divorce, then there will be no divorce.
Regardless of what the woman wants, and even REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE COURTS SAY.
This is the legal-system we want. This is perfection. Behold:
Fantastic article. The only *minor* correction I’d make is that GenX’ers did not lose their optimism in the 1990’s as a whole group. There was a *hard* push from leftist media to make it seem that way, but there is simply no way to have lived through the rush and fun of the 1980’s as a teen/20 something GenX’er and then come out in 1992 as a depressed lout. The music of destruction that came from bands such as Nirvana all came from a movement that existed long before the 1990’s and was depressed and snarky from the day of their inception. It was simply new music and it was fun even if it seemed depressing, at least at first. The irony of GenX’ers attending parties with great laughter, fun and joy while Nirvana blazed in the background was lost on nobody. Plus, if I may gently point out, all of the mentors in our movement are GenX. The bulk of the original Tea Party is/was GenX. We never gave up the ghost.
Outside of that the article is smack dead on. And I appreciate the effort to rebrand and define the rebranding precisely. “Red pill” and “alpha” have become toy words that are used to validate or invalidate personal whims at this point, which is why I’ve criticized their use as of late. Don’t like what I’ve said about, for example, ball point pens? Why, that means I’m beta! Real alphas prefer black ink, not blue! Or whatever.
This article and Roosh’s guidance is a good start to really nailing our brand down.
Slainte!
Well said. In the end, we are all here because we want to be proudly masculine and become the best versions of ourselves. That is what matters.
I’d be cool with “Bitch STFU”
Wow, CLAP CLAP CLAP. This man needs a Standing Ovation. Well done Sir, Well Done.
Preach it, brother. I raise a glass to our masculine manifesto.
This is great. I think maybe the community should release a multi-author manifesto with this as a prime part of it.
As one of the aforementioned betrayed (a “red pill” millennial you could say), this article is something that everyone should read, whether or not they were like me and came seeking answers. I came seeking answers to the questions the little voice in the back of my head had been asking me since about age 13, if not for my whole life, about myself and everyone else around me. The Manosphere has given me these answers and pointed me on a more hopeful path. I’m a man. This is my life, my world. I’ll do what I can to make it a better one for myself. Even if the rest of society comes crashing down around ours heads, as it probably will, we can go down with our heads up and dignity relatively intact, and maybe take a few spoiled and defective modern women down with us.
Awesome post, I’m printing it out…this is a primer of sorts. Thank you for writing this, I’ve long since sensed what this post is discussing. At first I called it the “New Masculinity”. Now, gents our mission and purpose is clear this is our fight.
Great. Awesome post. Bravo to this author and Roosh for this new label, this new moniker. I like Red Pill and MGTOW but Neomasculinity sounds better. A “New Man”
“A New Male”…..cool…
I don’t like the term neomasculinity as the name of the movement, simply for all of the negative connotations with the term “Neo” anything. Neo-Nazis, Neo-Conservatives, Neo-Christians, all have been painted with a negative brush -deservedly or not- over the years. Neomasculinity as a movement will quickly get dumped into the same bin as all of those before it even gets going, simply because of its name.
If we’re going latin words, which I like, we should do some more brainstorming, IMO.
-Novo also a latin word for new.
-Vir latin for man, with many great words associated with it like virtue and virility.
I kind of like ‘Novirilitas’. As in “A New Age of Manhood”. The word itself is not something one would use to describe anything else. It sounds a bit like veritas, which means truth, which is what we are seeking as men. It has the word virile in it, which is at the heart of what we are trying to promote as a movement.
The term Red Pill can still be used to describe many things to do with the movement, but the movement itself needs a better name.
I don’t welcome struggle and conflict. I would say that I have more or less given up on America, but I know that NSA is watching and I don’t want to be on record as seditious (again, I have the greatest admiration and respect for whatever government agency or contractor is reading this comment – keep up the good work).
Any cultural reformation will require political revolution (ie., violence), as the State is the instrument of subjugation, and the State is pervasive and seemingly omnipotent.
If the nation could be broken up into smaller, more accountable political units, perhaps one could have some influence in his own fate, but, even then, the global elite will retain their power to influence and corrupt.
I suspect that laying low and quietly bitching under one’s breath may be the wise course of action for the foreseeable future. Anyway, that’s my plan. You do what you want.
Nice job, good article.
Good article, but no mention of the huge role that Christianity took on, beginning in the Reagan presidency. Reagan didn’t really care for evangelicals, and the church had always stayed away from politics, but from this election on, the Moral Majority, 700 Club, Christian Coalition, came to dominate American politics, and not in a way that was “Christian” in any previous understanding of the religion. Religion now dominates American life, but without the framework of a social institution, but more like the old corrupt church of old, where it is a tool used to manipulate the masses. Waging a war of choice? Morally fine. Fomenting and aiding violent, brutal dictators? Quite Christian, as long as it is done to oppose the “atheist Reds”. Furthering the divide between rich and poor? Find a scripture to support it and it shall be doctrine. I believe episode 2 of The Power of Nightmares goes into this chapter in American history in detail.
https://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-Episode1BabyItsColdOutside
Red pill refers to an epiphany about the false reality of the world that one has been raised to believe. The term “neo-masculine” infers a new type of man with no allegiance to the great men of the past. Thus both terms do not encompass the intended concept. I favor the term “authentic- masculinity ” or “authentic-masculinity” as it hints at the inauthentic male geldings and counterfeits while asserting that there are masculine ideals and qualities of maleness independent of culture and time.
Professor Quintus Curtius puts down blood, sweat and tears into these articles. I know he had to sit back and do some intense research, along with his life experiences to make solid articles.
This guy makes me want to read ancient or archaic books, the books I once hated during undergrad. He has brought history to life!
Good job, QC!
Thanks, Dom. Much appreciated.
Quintus, thank you!
Good article, but fuck this neo paleo crap. We’re not a bunch of special snowflakes. Masculinity, in its actual non-feminine serving form, has remained and continues to be the same as it was in the time of Homer. To be masculine is to be a warrior; to be a masculine man and not a more feminine or balanced sort is to be a killing machine capable of deep contemplation.
The term Red Pill comes from an already dated movie with a “Kick-Ass Girl” main character made by a tranny libtard. Definitely time for a new term.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
One of the things that has always struck me as odd about the “red
pill” vs “blue pill” is that the metaphor comes from a movie (The
Matrix) which was written and directed, in part, by a now transgender man (I don’t consider him a woman) with brightly died red hair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…
Blue is a color that has traditionally represented masculinity, while pink has traditionally represented femininity. Using the “pink pill” for that scene would be too blatant of a gender reference, but red, the primary color which is the basis of pink, makes a perfect substitute. In fact, it seems that scene could have symbolized his own personal view of becoming a transgender.
Now, yes, that may be a stretch and it is entirely possible I am reading a bit too much into it – although I doubt it. But my main
point is that I have always found it odd that those who read and respond to masculine blogs refer to the color blue, the color most
traditionally associated with masculinity, as an association with
willful ignorance.
Likewise, they consider red, the primary color which is the basis for another color traditionally associated with femininity, as the color of enlightenment.
Even if you think I’m full of shit, please do me a favor and at least consider the source from which “blue” vs “red” came.
Or you might look at it from the perspective of blue being the color of loyalty even to an ideal of failure such as feminism holds. Or even as the color of depression, accompanied by whining and not really accomplishing or overcoming anything. Versus red being akin to the blood that pumps through the heart of the strong man as he pushes himself to overcome and some of which may become shed in the ensuing struggle to achieve a greater purpose. Point being symbols can easily be switched, manipulated, and twisted to fulfill any role, so you should look to what they represent to you and not worry so much about getting caught up in explaining it.
True. Good point.
I loved this part of the article as it reminded me of one of the main underlying strains in “Fight Club”, indeed, it was stated well by Tyler himself…”We’re the middle children of history. No purpose or place. We have no great war. No great depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives.”
Think on that, and consider the timing of that quote and “Fight Club”…the post above gets it perfectly, especially the angst of the 90s. Quintas says “Gen Xers were also pervaded with the feeling that there were few things in their world worth fighting about: the great struggles of the past (foreign wars, civil rights, etc.) all seemed to have been won.”
But here is the thing to really underscore, gents, we NO longer have an issue of purpose or existentialism. We, now, have a clear and concise mandate for our purpose and it is Neomasculinity…the total and outright rejection of this pitiful and disgusting culture and reclaim our rights and to live. And, gents, if you need an incentive, today, the technology and civilization we have is fucking awesome, save, for our culture and cultural marxism. This is a full spectrum endeavor just like previous historical trials ranging from the practical to the moral to the spiritual. For instance, we do this for our sons. In fact, we do this for all of humanity.
I’ll leave you with another one from “Fight Club”…”It was on everyone’s mind on the tip of everyone’s tongue…” Had to paraphrase that one, but what I mean is we all can sense and feel this in our bones and we know this is right and true and good.
God’s speed.
Ridiculous cherry picked version of modern history. What? No mention of the transcendant significance of Wedding Crashers? Lol
You could have contributed something of value. Snarking and sneering and adding nothing constructive detracts not just from whatever point you may have been hoping to convey, but also from your very credibility.
The pandering nature of this article belittles the vaguely designed concepts detailed within it. An ideology which physically engages its philosophical opponents might simply be one of the most inept and logically destitute metaphors ever constructed utilizing some excuse for the the English language. It’s embarrassing that RoK has become an echo chamber for the poorly articulated inadequacies of its readership. Critically examine this article: it successfully outlines the values of traditional masculinity, yet fails to logically construct a systematic framework for embracing and acting upon them. It loudly cries that feminism will be destroyed, yet helpfully lacks any precise indication of when or how. It’s not masculine to allow others to pander to you. RoK readers would do well to understand the truth regarding the fringe nature of the red pill movement, and stop constantly patting themselves on the back like a pack of overweight teenage girls.
You do understand that there is a limit on the length of articles here, right? If you expect the critique and detailed guide to a solution in a 1500 word essay, you may be expecting a bit too much to fit into such a limited length limit.
I have read this elsewhere on the ‘sphere, and thought it is worth sharing:
“The Manosphere is about to swallow the biggest red pill of them all –
Feminism is a demon ultimately conjured up by the cowardice, laziness, malice, and ignorance of men.”
Not quite sure how the author came to the conclusion that the 80’s were a time of celebration of the overcoming of the struggles of the 60’s and 70’s. Even his allusion through cinema is completely false. Just a list then back from the tangent: Robocop(87), Brave New World(80), RunningMan(87), Blade Runner (82), Terminator(84), Mad Max (79, hey the author included and 87 movie in his list of 90’s films so indulge me), Mad Max (79 and 81 rereleased), Cyborg(89)Escape From New York(81), and of course 1984(84).
In fact the 70’s were also filled with dystopian nightmares. the point is that the struggle isn’t reborn, it’s been ongoing forever. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, and it’s full of “red pill” wisdom. And it was in itself an attempt to push back the feminization of the country and the Marxists that drove it. If you wonder how Rand felt about the slutting of society check out her other novel ‘We the Living’ and you’ll see how she dissected the destruction of man through avarice and punishing accomplishment.
MEN need to stop thinking this is a new struggle or that it’s a singular battle that can be one. Much like Reagan said about Democracy, it’s only a single generation from extinction. It’s an on going, never-ending struggle, and only the strong will thrive.
Great article. This speaks to my experience of the 80s to the end of my teens in the early 90s. It also speaks to the growing fellowship I observe men enjoying, particularly as they find themselves united in the horror they feel at their kids, especially their daughters being exposed to Disneys paedophillia and the dysfunction of an under-fathered population numb to porn, stripped of values and bereft of work ethic.
Gnawing at all of us is the debt we owe our grandparent’s generation and the lack of conduit to contribute to the repair as women grow ever crazier with narcism freedom and debt.
Thank you for your moral courage mr q. Pay little or no heed to those would dispose but not propose a counter-argument. It’s natural that they are frightened.
Fantastic. I am on board with this 100%. No more giving ground. I am a masculine man and the world will have to accept that fact. Time to start putting the world back on track.
Who benifits most from neo masculinity? Women and misandrist society, or the men themselves?
A good article with some good points but misses on a few others. Probably the main catalysts of neomasculinity gaining such popularity and the manosphere in general is, of course, the rise of the internet: The ability of men to communicate freely, make web sites and blogs, share their ideas and their frustrations with women and the current culture like never before. This easy form of communication makes it possible for there to BE a manosphere and neomasculinity shared so easily.
I think QC is right in some of his “historical” observations of how men became “frustrated” to create this movement. However, as another poster stated, this struggle has been going on for much longer, not by the name of neomasuclinity, but in other variances ( Ayn Rand’s novels)
Couple the rise of the internet with the progressive decline of the quality of women with feminism reaching its apex ( as evidenced by such things as the popularity of shows like Sex in the City, et al). Men are fed up with masculine, feminized women who “don’t need a man”. The internet, as well as smart phones, also gave rise to women being able to be pedastalized via such things as Facebook, instagram and instant gratification and offers of dates by Beta orbiters via her buzzing smart phone. All this resulted in women getting entitled, flaky and unfeminine. Therefore, the frustration and solutions for it were sought out by men on that oh so easy place to communicate – the aforementioned internet. These are the main catalysts of the rise of neomasculinity.
Arise Crusaders!
Death to Islam!
Deus Volte!
Death to Feminism!
Clermont 1095!
Death to Marxism!
Up Pope Urban II!
Victory to The West!
Arise Richard Couer de Lyons!
Men arise!
Arise William Wallaces!
Arise Bravehearted Men!
Death to Sodomy!
Victory to Patriarchy!
Victory to Fathers!
Victory to the Extended Family!
Paterfamilias!
Death to Contraception!
Death to Abortion!
Death to Planned Parenthood!
Death to Cuckoldry!
Death to Infidelity!
Death to Promiscuity!
Up Charlemagne!
Up Charles De Martel!
Up Simon De Montfort!
Up El Cid!
Christus Vincit!
Christus Regnat!
Christus Imperat!