Should The Traditional Hunter-Gatherer Lifestyle Serve As A Model For Modern Living?

ISBN: 0143124404

Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse, has written a book about traditional societies, specifically ones that were discovered and studied by scientists. He describes their traditional ways before they was tainted by the moderns. (Note that his anthropological definition of “traditional” refers to hunter-gatherer lifestyles, while current usage refers to something resembling life about sixty years ago with a strong patriarch working to provide for his housewife and children.)

The shift from hunting-gathering to farming began only about 11,000 years ago; the first metal tools were produced only about 7,000 years ago; and the first state government and the first writing arose only around 5,400 years ago. “Modern” conditions have prevailed, even just locally, for only a tiny fraction of human history; all human societies have been traditional for far longer than any society has been modern.


..…in the last 75 years, the New Guinea Highland population has raced through changes that took thousands of years to unfold in much of the rest of the world. For individual Highlanders, the changes have been even quicker: some of my New Guinea friends have told me of making the last stone axes and participating in the last traditional tribal battles a mere decade before I met them. Today,


In some respects we moderns are misfits; our bodies and our practices now face conditions different from those under which they evolved, and to which they became adapted.


Traditional societies represent thousands of millennia-long natural experiments in organizing human lives.


Rarely or never do members of small-scale societies encounter strangers, because it’s suicidal to travel into an unfamiliar area to whose inhabitants you are unknown and completely unrelated. If you do happen to encounter a stranger in your territory, you have to presume that the person is dangerous, because (given the dangers of traveling to unfamiliar areas) the stranger is really likely to be scouting in order to raid or kill your group, or else trespassing in order to hunt or steal resources or kidnap a marriageable woman.

The book offers tons of detail on how traditional peoples lived, reproduced, raised families, gathered food, and waged war, allowing you to check the fantasy constructions of amateur evolutionary psychologists who are prone to cherry-picking data to justify their conclusions. The presentation of this book, however, was academic and dry, reading more like a college textbook, but there were many pieces of valuable information…

..the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon calculated, from Yanomamo genealogies that he gathered, that if one compares Yanomamo men who have or haven’t killed people, the killers have on the average over two and a half times more wives and over three times more children. Of course the killers are also more likely to die or to be killed at an earlier age than are non-killers, but during that shorter lifespan they win more prestige and social rewards and can thereby obtain more wives and rear extra children. Naturally, even if this correlation does apply to the Yanomamo, I’m not recommending it to all you readers, nor can it even be generalized to apply to all traditional societies.


A cross-cultural sample of 90 traditional human societies identified not a single one with mother and infant sleeping in separate rooms: that current Western practice is a recent invention responsible for the struggles at putting kids to bed that torment modern Western parents.


…food is a major and almost constant subject of conversation. I was initially surprised that my Fore friends spent so much time talking about sweet potatoes, even after they had just eaten to satiation. For the Siriono Indians of Bolivia, the overwhelming preoccupation is with food, such that two of the commonest Siriono expressions are “My stomach is empty” and “Give me some food.” The significance of sex and food is reversed between the Siriono and us Westerners: the Sirionos’ strongest anxieties are about food, they have sex virtually whenever they want, and sex compensates for food hunger, while our strongest anxieties are about sex, we have food virtually whenever we want, and eating compensates for sexual frustration.


A common Western reaction to danger that I have never, ever, encountered among experienced New Guineans is to be macho, to seek or enjoy dangerous situations, or to pretend to be unafraid and try to hide one’s own fear. Marjorie Shostak noted the lack of those same Western macho attitudes among the !Kung: “Hunts are often dangerous. The !Kung face danger courageously, but they do not seek it out or take risks for the sake of proving their courage. Actively avoiding hazardous situations is considered prudent, not cowardly or unmasculine. Young boys, moreover, are not expected to conquer their fear and act like grown men. To unnecessary risks, the !Kung say, ‘But a person could die!’”

The “alpha male” archetype has apparently come from studying ancient humans, but here we have data how these men show reluctance to engage in that type of behavior, doing so only as necessity to survive, not to feel alpha. While men who were warriors had more children, it’s apparent that even beta males who excelled at weaving, for example, got their slice of the sexual pie. Only in modern times do beta males seem to be nearly shut out from procreation.

There is also absolutely no sign of individuality which we may take for granted as a rightful human condition. In fact, tribal life is downright socialistic. The pooling and sharing of resources were required for survival…

Plants don’t move around and can be gathered more or less predictably from one day to the next, but animals do move, so that any individual hunter risks bagging no animal on any given day. The solution to that uncertainty adopted almost universally by hunter-gatherers is to live in bands including several hunters who pool their catch to average out the large day-to-day fluctuations in catch for each individual hunter.


“Food is never consumed alone by a family; it is always (actually or potentially) shared out with members of a living group or band of up to 30 (or more) members. Even though only a fraction of the able-bodied foragers go out each day, the day’s returns of meat and gathered foods are divided in such a way that every member of the camp receives an equitable share.


…two areas located a sufficient distance apart are likely to have fluctuations in food availability that are out of phase. That opens the door for your group to reach a mutually advantageous agreement with another group, such that they allow you onto their land or send you food when they have enough food but you don’t, and your group returns the favor when it’s the other group that’s short of food.

Diamond seems to have lost favor with liberals because of this book, perhaps because he has veered away from the environmental determinism that suggested all humans are equal. He says that war may be genetically ingrained in humans. He implies revenge is a natural human outlet. He highlights the benefits of a traditional family unit along with more hands-on parenting by the mother (i.e., not dropping your kid off at day care). He implies that single motherhood is damaging to children from tribal evidence that states increased parent care increases the child’s survival. He criticizes how Westerners are eager to ship off their elderly to die in nursing homes. He is against obesity (and presumably fat acceptance). And he’s quick to point out differences in gender. The closer you get to the truth, as Diamond is learning, the more likely you will be outcast.

But even though states are much more powerful than hunter-gatherer bands, that doesn’t necessarily imply that states have better ways of raising their children. Some child-rearing practices of hunter-gatherer bands may be ones that we could consider emulating.


The adolescent identity crises that plague American teen-agers aren’t an issue for hunter-gatherer children. The Westerners who have lived with hunter-gatherers and other small-scale societies speculate that these admirable qualities develop because of the way in which their children are brought up: namely, with constant security and stimulation, as a result of the long nursing period, sleeping near parents for several years, far more social models available to children through allo-parenting, far more social stimulation through constant physical contact and proximity of caretakers, instant caretaker responses to a child’s crying, and the minimal amount of physical punishment.

Today’s humans fear death in the form of nuclear fallout, terrorism, or gun violence, but the most common fears of traditional humans were starvation, predators, and falling trees. Yes, falling trees. Traditional humans, which I must remind you are part of our ancestry, organized and evolved to avoid famine. This is why the human body is so great at extracting most of the energy from food, leading to obesity in times of plenty. This is why our kidneys are so powerful at retaining salt, a rare commodity in ancient times, leading to hypertension today. Our body perfectly adapted to survive the conditions of how the traditionals lived, but now that we have been removed from this environment, we encounter a host of “Western” diseases that are unheard of in traditional societies.

Under the conditions of low salt availability experienced by most humans throughout most of human history until the recent rise of salt-shakers, those of us with efficient salt-retaining kidneys were better able to survive our inevitable episodes of salt loss from sweating or from an attack of diarrhea. Those kidneys became a detriment only when salt became routinely available, leading to excessive salt retention and hypertension with its fatal consequences. That’s why blood pressure and the prevalence of hypertension have shot up recently in so many populations around the world, now that they have made the transition from traditional lifestyles with limited salt availability to being patrons of supermarkets.


Around the year 1700 sugar intake was only about 4 pounds per year per person in England and the U.S. (then still a colony), but it is over 150 pounds per year per person today. One-quarter of the modern U.S. population eats over 200 pounds of sugar per year.


Groups of Aboriginal Australians who temporarily abandoned their acquired sedentary Western lifestyle and resumed their traditional vigorous foraging reversed their symptoms of diabetes; one such group lost an average of 18 pounds of body weight within seven weeks.


Today, when many of us regularly ingest high-sugar meals and rarely exercise, a thrifty gene is a blueprint for disaster. We thereby become fat; we never experience famines that burn up the fat; our pancreas releases insulin constantly until the pancreas loses its ability to keep up, or until our muscle and fat cells become resistant; and we end up with diabetes.


Those of us whose ancestors best survived starvation on Africa’s savannahs tens of thousands of years ago are now the ones at highest risk of dying from diabetes linked to food abundance.

Here’s a preview of a documentary about a New Guinea tribe that Jared profiles (unfortunately I could not find the full version online):

The best parts of this book is when he relays personal stories of having lived with tribes, including a handful of close calls with death. I also enjoyed his recounting of traditional slices of life. The information was valuable and logically presented, but the book was boring at times and a challenge to complete. Nonetheless, I think it is an important work that allows us to look closer into our past in order to live better in the present.

Are you on Twitter? Discuss this post using the hashtag #BackToTheKitchen.

Read More: “The World Until Yesterday” on Amazon

78 thoughts on “Should The Traditional Hunter-Gatherer Lifestyle Serve As A Model For Modern Living?”

  1. Today’s society is too large and complex for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to work. I rather like the division of labor as well – I get to spend my time, working in the lab doing research, get paid in $$$ and use that $$$ to buy what I need. This is what allows progress to be made at a much faster rate – instead of barely getting by each year, and the constant threat of the whole community being wiped out by famine, disease, raids etc – the community can diversify and create innovations at a faster rate. That is why Western civilization thrives and why the hunter-gatherers are still living in huts and tents.

    1. I always wonder, would I be more happy if I would be living in a hunter – gatherer tribe?
      I think the answer would be yes. And I think this is what counts: your happiness in life. For me it seems civilization was only capable to make our life more miserable.
      Let me be a men, and let me live according to my nature.

        1. Actually, I remember reading a book called “Man the Hunter” about hunter gatherers, and in that the author shows how cavities/dental problems are a result of REFINED carbohydrates, IE sugar, cereal, bread etc. Hunter gatherers have none of these, and have literally no cavities. Their teeth wear down over time, but that only becomes an issue if you live to be like 80, which you probably dont in their case.
          But yeah I get what you mean, you could just say “until you need (fill in the blank with a lot of things)”

        2. So people only get cavities from decay? Well that’s funny, cos I recently had to have a root canal done on a tooth that had an abscess and had decayed so extensively that I didn’t even need anesthetic when it was done cos the nerve had died long ago. The cause of the decay – I knocked my tooth when I fell off my bicycle when I was a teenager (10 years ago). The dentist I saw at the time told me that everything looked fine. Fast forward 10 years and I have an abscess – which my dentist confirmed was a result of that accident – it allowed bacteria to get in and do their damage, but this took years, hence the first dentist telling me that it was all good (cos no decay was showing up on the x-ray then). I would suspect that a hunter would be more likely to sustain such an injury than your average modern man. So what are you gonna do when you inevitably sustain a knock to your tooth? If you’re lucky, then 10 years later you get an abscess like I did. If you’re unlucky and your tooth was knocked harder than mine was, then your tooth will chip, crack or outright be knocked out straight away. Either way, you’re gonna need a dentist, regardless of your diet.

      1. I agree, but there is something to be said for the benefits of civilization. Medicine and the capacity to build are modern benefits that we wouldn’t have in such a tribe. If there was some way to meld the two, life could be great for a lot of us.

      2. I always hear lots of people say, “I would be so much happier if…” who then go on to list something they can go do at any time, so long as they’re wiling to leave their allegedly less happy lives behind.
        Very rarely, however, do I ever see them do this thing that is supposed to make them happier.
        Personally, I bet a white guy would be pretty popular in any hunter-gatherer tribe he wished to go join. Only question left is, if you’d be happier there than you would wherever you are right now, why aren’t your suitcases packed, farewells said, and travel arrangements booked?
        My gut is, most people like to say they’d be much happier doing something else, but deep down they don’t really believe it.

        1. I would be happier, if I would have been born there.
          Going there now is very much different.
          But where things seems to be going, there is a high possiblity I have to live in a self-sufficient tribe of my own in the woods if I want to survive.

      1. It’s a very good idea to gain experience hunting, fishing and foraging, even if your current lifestyle doesn’t require it. A lot of people look down on that sort of thing as “something rednecks do” or whatever, but in a SHTF scenario I’d rather be a live redneck.

        1. Wait till the private Federal Reserve stops supporting the US dollar from collapsing….watch what you can buy with that worthless fiat currency….
          Outdoorsmans will survive just fine while we all become homeless bums waiting in soup kitchen lines…

        2. Where I am, bagging your limit in deer gets about 250lb. of meat on average. Makes a lot of jerky…

    2. “Today’s society is too large and complex for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to work.” This is true on a macro level, but it also results in the social atomization and unmet early childhood psychological & emotional needs.
      Ironically this social atomization allows for the creation, growth and development of individual nodes of communities with hunter-gatherer-ish values. I have visited several such communities, and know of many more that are organically arising. Humans naturally self-organize into tribe-like groups.
      One group I know of has been around since the early 1960’s and has produced a group of smart, well-adjusted kids that now have kids of their own. The group didn’t create enough in-group loyalty, so that group is falling apart as it ages. It’s a lesson, and I expect to see a lot more HG influenced groups pop up. Communal living is trending up now, and it’s not just for leftie hippies–look at all the survivalist/prepper multifamily groups, many of them faith-based, popping up in places like Idaho and Montana.
      The Mormons are another great example. If a man is healthy, wealthy, and alpha enough to maintain several wives, more power to him. I can get on board with that.

      1. When I grew up in the70s, the neighbourhoodd all around were more community oriented because the families were more traditional.
        Today with the rampant teen pregnancy and breakup of families, that’s all changed.I constantly returns to the old street where I grew up on and only 3 houses has the original owners. Everyone else are unknown people who has no intention of getting to know anyone on their street.

    1. Well, you finally used the word. May you enjoy your political correctness.
      P.S. Your moniker is completely false; a person with aspergers is much smarter than you.

      1. lol, nice alpha male avatar lol. I bet you pick up a lot of chicks talking about videogames and anime

        1. What are you talking about, person, video games and anime are awesome. I am WITH a gamer don’t you go talking shit about them. My sister and brother in law are gamers. They’re child will be a gamer. My sister and I love anime. Don’t you talk shit about it because IMO a lot of gamers are hot as hell. They’re casual IDGAFness is perfect to me. So yeah, he could pick up a lot of girls as a gamer or someone who watched anime with how popular these two things are these days.

        2. I am a gamer, but also study a vast range of subjects. I keep my mind active and busy, but also do comment on this site with different outlooks on things. I prefer balance, indeed.
          Also, I’m not fawning for girl’s attention spans, that’s not the end goal of life. The goal of life is to enjoy it, not lament over what you don’t have currently.

        3. Thank you! That is the goal of life and it’s very good you study other things and prefer to be balanced. The time gaming isn’t cool, is when it takes up all your time. I love watching people game, it’s entertaining, especially when they’re making funny comments. You spoke to the sage side of me with that last comment. You seem very wise, and that’s a good thing. Keep learning and gaming, I have a feeling you’ll go far in life if you haven’t already. 🙂 Good luck with your goals in life and in enjoying life.

  2. This article is wrong, the GODS created us about 12,000 years ago, using their genetic technology. Evolution is bullshit, we did not evolve from monkeys, we were created by the GODS!

    1. The human DNA is not 100% traceable within Earth… Do some research and realize that we might be part Alien part Earthling…

    2. There is no credible evidence for Macro Evolution, it’s a belief system just like Religion is. Macro Evolution is not part of Science but brain washing a (bate and switch) game played on you by Marxist professors. There is plenty of hard scientific evidence to support Micro Evolution but only the smoke screen of Billions years and a non existent fossil record to support the theory of Macro Evolution.

      1. Evidence by assertion, backed by some chode-worthy youtube detabe. Yawn.
        Even your micro-macro bullshit is a false dichotomy. Evolution is backed by vast arrays of evidence at this point. Man’s best friend provides ample evidence of gene flow via a common ancestor of wolves, over 100,000 years ago. Is 100k micro or macro in your world? What color is the sky there? Pink like your brony shorts?

        1. Ad hominem attacks will not make your theory of Macro Evolution correct.
          You just gave me more evidence of Micro Evolution which only proves that the DNA code is infinitely complex and different genes can be activated to produce different types of dogs.
          What evidence do you have for Macro Evolution?

        2. Is this the return of Kalos Lagos under a new handle?
          Settle in for many more weeks of inane Hegelian Dialectic.

        3. Fuck you Motherfucker I’ve been following this site since way before day one back to Roosh’s old site.
          I’ve been red pill from birth bitch. Some say I have the mark of the beast “666”!
          And I say Yeah: I’m over 6 feet tall, make over 6 figures and have a Cuban python between my legs my chicas call him Fidel.
          Your the fucking IDIOT comrade if you believe the Feminist, Marxist Gnostic bullshit of Macro Evolution.
          Keep Eating that Shit and die motherfucker.

        4. Macro v. micro:
          Show me where nature makes a distinction between “micro v. macro.” There is none. The micro/macro false dichotomy was created by religious zealots to give them someplace to fall back on when evidence for rapid evolution began to pile up like deep snow in a polar Vortex. The micro/macro falsity has become a philosophical and ontological Alamo, as it were.
          We have tons of evidence now supporting the process of genetic evolution in a wide variety of timelines. A Siberian animal breeder took the red fox, selectively bred for tameness, and got floppy ears, brindle colors, curly tails, and other “dog-like” signs within a few generations. It was in national geographic a few years back. You can actually buy a pet fox that has coloration like an Australian shepherd. It’s a brand-new man-made sub-species, and probably should be its own species based on the arbitrary rules of speciation. How’s that for evidence? Rhetorical, because no amount of evidence will ever convert the “True Believers”, short of Jesus H. Christ, in the flesh, with fresh wounds coruscating on his hands, feet, and sides, commanding you to “Listen to Darwin & Dawkins. They aren’t perfect, they’re kind of assholes, but they’re onto something.” Even then, the thickest of the anti-evolutionists would probably stand there, thumbs up your asses, muttering, “But, um,…my dad and my third grade bible study said…..”
          I remind you religious fuckwads who can’t science their way out of a paper bag that Mendel himself was a monk. The Catholics have it right–they simply believe that evolution is the hand of the Creator at work. They aren’t hamstrung by some cult-leader’s retarded machinations to take the bible literally like a tall glass of arsenic-laced Kool-Aid on a hot day deep in the Guyanan jungle.
          At this point it’s hardly worth the effort to rebutt the religiously thick, but it’s simply an entertaining slap-box exercise, like Tyson jousting with the local junior league champ just to keep his left jab up.

  3. About 10 years ago the colloquial meaning of “traditional” seemed to mean something like, “The way I think my parents lived, but since I don’t actually understand it I’ve got it all wrong.”
    Since then it seems to be morphing into something more like, “The way we did things last Tuesday.”

  4. this shit reads like an elementary school book report bruh.
    stop learning russian and step up your english game if you want to bleed fiat out of western dipshits to finance your splitting of eastern block thighs

  5. The quote which talks about how men in the tribe who have killed getting more wives and siring more children fascinates me. Could this be related with why some of us fantasize about post-civilizational “us versus them” scenarios where we kill or be killed? Maybe we’re hard wired to associate martial prowess with sexual advantage?

    1. Aggressively violent men get more children, and that’s all nature cares about. That’s why women are drawn to thugs and murderers.

  6. Considering how our countries have become de-skilled, and how instead of sourcing things locally, we now are dependent on an interconnected transnational logistical network that is only controlled by a few, those few people could ‘shut down’ modern society if they wanted to at any time. This is why hunter-gatherer lifestyle knowledge is essential, along with its more advanced variant, homesteading.
    People of the past were not as technologically advanced but they were wiser than us. Their model of society could last tens of thousands of years – ours is arguably dying out as the women-welfare state model upends and destroys our societies. I think another key point is that a society where all our paychecks are controlled by the state is not a society – I mean, if i am, say a doctor, and I contract with you for something physical, like gold, then that is a transaction between two free individuals. But if we are both paid in fake fiat paper dollars by the government, then it is the government that controls our ability to pay for goods and services that we offer to each other, as opposed to us being able to offer such services to each other on our own free will.

    1. We don’t have to go out and hunt all our own food, nor make fire with a bowdrill in order to make use of these ideas and well-tested social structures.
      The value proposition here will be found in HG social systems, the social organization, in their values and ideas, not so much the micro details of life. The practical pieces will develop organically, and economic activity can go back to being barter-based, or in some communities, the gift economy can work well.

      1. “We don’t have to go out and hunt all our own food, nor make fire with a bowdrill . . .”
        Although it couldn’t hurt to learn how.

      2. I would like to take this time to express my appreciation for your Nomen-anglification with your name of the Italian for “revolution”. Well-played, brother in arms, well-played indeed.

      1. Since our origins, humankind has been plagued by the desire of one
        individual to own another. The same issue will be the number 1 topic in the 21st century, in the West, as a manipulated economy makes slavery the biggest threat to the human race.

  7. Outstanding review, Roosh. This book is going to the top of the “to purchase” list, and will get read ASAP. These are important big-picture ideas. We need to be looking at ways to expand our influence, and having a true harem, not just a soft harem is a great way to start. Creating strong, healthy, well-adjusted kids through an HG style tribal living arrangement could be a powerful way to root manosphere ideas into social constructs that have longevity.

  8. The greater involvement of families and extended families in ones life is also observable in Latin American socirties for instance. They also have lower levels of material success than the Western world, but largely experience more love and care from their families and definitely have fewer “western” maladies…

  9. It’s still possible to live a modified hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I shoot the animals and catch the fish and my girlfriend freezes, cans and cooks them. We harvest berries, grow a garden, etc. She knows and embraces who supplies her food and sustenance and her role is primarily the domestic one. And I didn’t even have to go to Russia to live the dream…

  10. I suspect machismo bravery is largely a byproduct of large-scale command-and-control military thinking. A minimum threshold of bravery is required of all soldiers to maintain discipline in the face of mortal danger.
    For an informal group of warriors, bravery probably does not need to be cultivated. Natural bravery is sufficient and fear is a healthy self-preservation instinct.

    1. You are using the feminist definition of machismo. What it actually means is close to what is meant here by “natural alpha.”
      Something a bit closer would be the old phrase “a man’s man.”
      That is why it has been given a negative connotation by the feminists.

      1. I used the term machismo to distinguish the definition of bravery used by Diamond in Roosh’s quote from a more general concept of bravery.

  11. Certainly the way in which those societies handle the transition from boyhood to adulthood is something that should be emulated. I doubt any hunter-gatherer civilization would have made it very far if their rearing of boys was done in the fashion it’s done now- where a quarter of their lives is spent insulating them, feminizing them, educating them in a fashion that’s best for girls, and stomping out any traces of masculinity from their behavior.
    Young men today get dropped into the world without having been exposed to the world, so their expectations, responses, and reactions are all kinds of fucked up. It’s the equivalent of ancient man bringing his son on his first hunt without ever showing him how to fashion weapons, track animals, or efficiently harvest the kill. Survival back then wasn’t something you learned as you went, you were taught and trained for the inevitability of such things that came with adulthood. Nowadays though, a vast amount of effort is expended keeping the realities of adulthood away from children, especially boys, so that as grown-ups they lack the capabilities to handle the hurdles and pitfalls of life.

  12. The best way to model hunter-gatherer in a modern capitalist society is for every male to be his own boss. Corporate jobs should almost become a rarity that most men scoff at. Something akin to Glengarry Glen Ross, without the scam, would work for men as a hunter-gatherer model. For the women, reverting to something more communal, where suburbs actually matter and the women of a community work to make that community better by helping to care for the young and old, would work.

  13. Roosh, thanks for this suggestion, I’ll read it too!
    I worked as a teacher with American Indian tribes here in Quebec for about 10 years (Montagnais also called “Innu”, and Crees) and I lived with elders who were themselves born in the bush and lived through a transition to “White Man Lifestyle”, with all the bad effects it had on their traditionnal society (including problems related to family, and obesity too.)
    If you ever want to learn more about ways to survive in nature as it is in Quebec and many other parts of North America, try to find a copy of “I Live In the Woods” (“Vivre en forêt” in French) by Paul Provencher, a White guy who lived among Innus for decades. This reading could also be very interesting to many other readers from ROK.
    P.A. Beaulieu

  14. Roosh,
    @your twitter post:
    I’m not sure how neo-reaction is a “dumping ground for high IQ guys who can’t get laid” any more than the this part of the web is a dumping ground for, what, medium IQ guys who can’t get laid? I’m not sure how the former equates to a lesser value than the latter. It’s a small mystery to me how this community escapes your classification given that your ant-feminist agenda is precisely parallel to neo-reaction’s anti-liberal political agenda, just more narrow in scope. Where does the line exist between the losers and the winners in this part of the political world, according to you? It’s a rhetorical question, btw. Just something to ponder, at least in terms of the philosophy that you choose to spray onto the web. I really don’t care about where your mind rests on this issue. You do most of the talking, though, and so these type of questions should be expected when inconsistencies are obvious. In reality, we both know that your comment was merely born of emotional impulse. It happens to all of us. No worries. Moving on.
    Neoreaction digs into the causes of the problems that your clique superficially prattles on about but will be wholly and forever ineffectual against. Do you really think that you are converting any women to your perspective? Your crusade does not work unless women make the choice to dump feminism. Effectively, you’ve defined your role as merely preaching to the choir. You may gain some male adherents but, If anything, you drive women toward feminism as you write rather militant ant-feminist columns. This will always occur unless you become more politically effective in your rhetoric and strategy. You attack symptoms loudly, and merely draw the host defense in reaction. You’ll never gain any ground unless you seek the root. Feminism is inextricably tied to the ultimate political expression of liberalism: democracy. Unfortunately for the darkies here, anti-racism is also a liberal phenomenon. The intrinsic racism of neoreaction’s nationalist ideals are why you are against it. There would be little other reason for you to come out against such a grouping of related, still congealing high social potential philosophies that, as a whole, fully support your own cause. Ironically, you’ll never get away from the nature of neoreaction as merely being the true fleshed out political model(s) that describe the reasoning and cure behind what you lament in the world as far as women are concerned. There are no competing political theories. Racism is not only about superficial skin color (phenotype preference); it’s about inter-group resource competition and other inter-group politics. Reducing racism to anything less is disingenuous. Feminism is about resource competition as well, but it just happens to be a manifestation of anti-racism where two differing groups never before existed. Before the last century, the interests of men and women in the same group were never seen as disparate. Anti-racism is a somewhat precise mirror of feminism. You can’t get rid out feminism without getting rid of the other equality cancer: anti-racism. Until you learn that, and either rescind all of your material of the past few years and go dark (to not offend the black guys who have a resource stake in liberalism), or embrace all Darwinian group competition and self-selection, then you’ll merely be an intellectual side-show as far as your anti-feminist politics are concerned. You’ll never, ever, ever be rid of feminism without allowing society to revert to its naturally occurring, anti-individualist (anti-liberal) social state in full. You have to roll the entire ball back up the hill. Otherwise, your eventual fate is to be pilloried into submission by the establishment, eventually. It may not be pretty. You should stop spinning your political wheels, whatever side of the fence you come down on. Perhaps the solution is to go back to writing articles about pickup and to leave the anti-feminist crusade alone. I wouldn’t want to see that, but the long game is what is important.
    Apropos to your twitter quote about monarchy: yes, monarchy is seen as some to be better than democracy (which is a low bar). However, others rightly see monarchy as fully antiquated. If monarchy was desirable, then it would not have been so vulnerable. There are much better, less culturally and politically vulnerable systems that could be implemented. The culture is what you wish to protect, yes?
    Last, it’s funny when the men who write for you complain about the lack of “opacity” in the writing of neoreaction that happens to be completely clear to anyone with a modest IQ. Recently it went something like this on twitter: “Those losers don’t write in plain language! See here for evidence”: “quote in completely plain language”. “case closed!!” It would be funny if it weren’t tragic. Don’t worry guys, there’s a hole for every peg. Enjoy your clique, however politically dissonant it might be. We’ll continue to read enthusiastically.

    1. Yawnnnnnnnn.
      Someone else trying to sound philosophical. Another long-winded tirade.
      One thing quite obvious from many of the commenters here; they love hearing themselves speak (write) and their comments lack any real cogent thought, clarity, vision or originality.

  15. yes it is. the “hunter” lifestyle is alive and well in many parts of the US. when i retire in 3 months, i’ll be retreating to about 7 acres in southern louisiana. i will sleep late, hunt, and fish.
    and the women are VERY feminine and nurturing.

  16. Not that I want to derail the conversation or troll or anything, but I’ve been reading around this site, and wonder what your advice would be to a woman who wanted to jump off the cock carousel. I can see that there is a disdain for women who hit their 30s and 40s after riding the cock carousel during their 20s and suddenly want to ‘settle down’ because they can no longer get freebies from thirsty guys in return for sex, and I know that a virgin, or at a push a woman who has only had 1 or 2 cocks, would be considered desirable, but what of a woman who is in her early or mid 20s who misguidedly rode the cock carousel during her teens and early 20s but has now seen the light? Would she be in the same category as a woman who wants to jump off the cock carousel cos she’s hit the wall, or would she be given a little more credit for getting off the carousel early?

    1. You’re currently hitting the wall now. It’s probably going to earn you disdain, as now you’re in the market for a provider, but it is not too late to tell girls not to ride the cock carousel. Inform other girls to not become whores and instead more feminine, and you can do something to fight feminism.

  17. Animal and primitive humanoid examples, may be useful to the anthropologists, but offer little to nothing, for the contemporary men and women.
    On the other hand, examples from advanced civilized societies of the past and their ethics, customs and ideals are of much greater use.

    1. Humans are what, 150,000 years old?
      The most advanced spent their lives for around 139,000 of those years as described above, and the least advanced… another 11,000 years to the present day.
      Knowledge shouldn’t be shunned because your feelings get in the way.

      1. Ιt has nothing to do with feelings. It has to to with logic errors. If anyone wishes to bring animals examples, this is a fallacy, cause the answer will be “animals don’t do lots of things we do”. Or “animals do lots of things we wouldn’t”. Any way it’s an error. There are plenty of excellent examples on literature, to make a point. We’ re not in the caves, and whoever believes we should, must stop using computers, medicine, baths, mathematics etc.

  18. I wish that all I needed to worry about was weaving, caring for my children and gathering plants and berries! I’d prefer the lifestyle of native peoples. How much more relaxing to be able to naturally fall into those traditional gender roles that the men on this sure are looking for. Unfortunately, we live in overly-large homes and feel the need to have so much that in most cases, women are pushed to work outside the home. I for one do not enjoy having to go away to work, and while I feel women should be entitled to work for whatever career they have a passion for, I’d rather have my home and my kids. Life involves a lot of work, and when you split the responsibilities of manual labor and the domestic duties, things work. I’ve even joked with my fiancé about having more than one wife just so there’s more time for everyone to relax.

  19. Reminds me of this quote.
    “Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself
    in a box the way we do. With no relatives, no support, we’ve put it in
    an impossible situation.” ~ Margaret Mead
    An isolated nuclear family is just too fragile to sustain for the long term.

  20. Notice in the top picture how large and well-developed the women’s upper bodies and legs are. In these primitive societies there is said to be less sexual dimorphism than in advanced civilizations.

  21. Good review Roosh. I’ve picked up all the books you have reviewed that I haven’t read yet. You and I have similar tastes. I have a few recommendations that I would love to hear your perspective/review on: James Bond series (namely From Russia with Love, Thunderball and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), Headhunters by Norwegian author Jo Nesbo, The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, both books by Nancy Friday. You may not like all (at least those you haven’t read) but you’ll definitely be entertained.

Comments are closed.