Uncategorized

ROK Is Looking To Hire Two Writers

147 Comments

We would like to plug in some gaps in our coverage, and so we’re looking for two men:

1. Scandinavia correspondent, with a primary focus on Sweden.

Events in Sweden show that it is rapidly progressing along the cultural collapse model. We would like to report on various events and self-inflicted harm that the Swedes are doing to their nation and culture. The correspondent is also free to write about Norway, Iceland, Finland, and Denmark. This position will mostly offer reporting and commentary on news events, meaning the candidate should ideally be living in Sweden.

2. Masculine theologian.

We’re also looking for a man who can put past religious ideals, writings, and traditions into modern context to help men better understand the modern world and attain virtue within it. This position isn’t to preach the gospel or word of god, but to extract the best religious ideas of the past that can still serve men today. The writer will have free reign to pick his weekly topics to discuss.

Both writers are asked to submit an article each week that is at least 700 words. If you are interested, contact ROK’s editor, Winston Smith, with details of your background and any writing samples. If he believes you are a good match, you’ll be asked to submit two test articles to observe how the readership responds to your work. If those work out, we’ll bring you aboard to the team. You will compensated if hired (Winston will give you details).

147 thoughts on “ROK Is Looking To Hire Two Writers”

        1. Damn. Every person has their own road to travel. I wonder if things shifted for him once he quit on law school. Thanks for sharing that link.

    2. blair is gone? seems like he just interviewed w matt forney a few weeks ago. figured he was still writing for ROK.

    3. his writing was interesting but wasn’t aware he was a ‘masculine theologian’

  2. “This position isn’t to preach the gospel or word of god, but to extract the best religious ideas of the past that can still serve men today.”
    There is no such thing. Religion is not a smorgasbord of behaviors and ideas and beliefs floating around in the world, from which we get to choose what enriches, satisfies, tickles, or comforts us. God is not an advocate of Inclusionism, which is SJW/leftist nonsense which basically means I get to mash up a bunch of philosophy and opinions, toss in some ancient stuff to give it false veracity, and then present the results as Religion. Because who needs God or his Word, eh? Me and my buddies are just EVER so much smarter than any stupid, patriarchal old God. We’ll come up with something a LOT better. And more relevant to modern times. Just you wait and see! :O)
    Human beings don’t make their own religions. They obey Scripture as best they can. They study, teach, and disseminate the Word of God, and sometimes go a little beyond that, if the Lord calls them to.
    Making up our Own Religion is folly, arrogance, and rebellion against our better. Who by this time doubtless is pretty disgusted at having created any of us.

    1. Shut up already, ray
      If, after a decade, we haven’t got it… you are permitted to STFU!
      Please, Retire already, you eternal records of the Baby Boomers!
      You made a lot of money, but you failed to transmit positive values to the next generations!
      You failed!
      Exceptionally so! – unlinke any generation before you!
      Accept it and die young, will ya? So the rest of us have a fighting chance to survive the mess you’ve left us! You voted for mine and subsequent generations to get genocided by abortion so you could live in the new Babylon like the whores of old, and now you’re wondering why your free lunch hasn’t appeared to feed you into retirement!
      We’ve aborted now almost exactly the amount of the baby boomer generation over the past five decades, if you include the amount of children the aborted chldren would have had. For example – There are about 75 Million American Baby Boomers, and since 1973 we have aborted 53 Million American unborn babies, of which, at least half or more would have probably reproduced by now, giving around 75+ Million persons of natural born – that means in tune with our cultural hegemony – have been elimated from our population.
      The social system would have worked if he hadn’t killed off our babies like lemmings. In fact, this is what happened in the Soviet Union as well – there birthrates plumetted as they shoved women into the workplace.

      1. We defeat the abortionists with cocked and loaded DICKS!! BAM BAM THANK YOU MAM!! BAM BAM THANK YOU MAM!! Left-right-left-right.
        Sing a-loong the ROK war WHOOOP,
        You’ll have panties on the end of your SCOOOP,
        Swedish ice princesses stuck working in your CUBICLES,
        We’re coming at ya with our bayonette PUBE-icles,
        Left right . . eeh?

    2. yeah, because men are too stupid to write books with rules.
      i wonder, is there any rule on rok against discussing nonsensical beliefs without any evidence? i will say that the christians i know are good people and that religion provides something essential and cozy, especially in hard times. but that doesn’t mean that your books are written by god. my god.
      there are plenty of smart psychopaths out there who can put together good books of rules.
      how come indigenous tribes do not believe in this one god?
      christianity may evolutionarily be the most evolved and successful religion, making the best out of the people who follow it. the background is nonsense nonetheless.
      just a way to silence critics. like the guy who told me “who are you to question big men like plato?”

      1. What did Plato ever say or propound? I know he wrote plays with a hero named Socrates. Plato write something that could be questioned? Interesting…

        1. indeed interesting. thanks for pointing this out.
          nonetheless, he was a relativist. allegory of the cave, for instance.

        2. I agree, Plato’s Socrates is always manipulated by fundamentalist boobs to possess some type of “-ism” or esoteric thought(yes, especially the Straussians), when all Plato essentially is really doing is writing drama. However, the cave and every other representation employed by Socrates in dialogue with the local bumpkins of Athens are nothing more than linguistic tools, aka metaphors, nothing “real” or actual. Religion plays the same role in Modern society: metaphor. Plato a “relativist” definitely not. But, is he an artist of the highest order? Definitely yes.

        3. yeah, i don’t buy into the “i didn’t say it, my character said it” idea. are you implying that plato was in fact not a philosopher, but a playwright? do you base that on anything else than a style?
          of course it is a metaphor. one that is regularly used to support the notion that life is only a dream and therefore you shouldn’t worry and YOLO yourself to sleep.
          you are being too simplistic by claiming it is “just” drama. metaphors create connections in our minds and these can be powerful. i dare say that a lot of our social understanding stems from the stories we hear nowadays.
          the problem with abstract artists, of course, is that they can claim it is only the interpretation of the reader. that’s why i prefer “art” that is direct and concrete.
          what is your definition of art and why do you regard plato highly as an artist?

        4. You bring up many great questions regarding the reading of Plato. But, to start with the question of “art”: I’ve always considered it a mirror, a way for man to see his own reflection. Art allows man the oppprtunity to come close to answering the important questions that every cognitive human asks. Who am I? Where am I? How should I live? How should I die? Of course man is able to answer these questions by seeing his reflection with or against these characters. I agree with those who see Jesus as a spiritual man& Socrates as the philosophical man.

        5. interesting point, a mirror. when i read nietzsche, for instance, i imagined to see myself in his writings. showed me that’s not who i want to be.
          i don’t know if i would call this art, though. everything that confronts your beliefs and challenges you also reflects a part of you back. social interaction does.
          is there any particular way an artists achieves what you like about your concept of art?

        6. You bring up important issues with Nietzsche. I see him as a “trickster”, a radical poet of the Western, solipsistic, subjective self: he is mocking those who take him most seriously. I consider him an artist rather than a philosopher… As for artists, I think they achieve “art” by making appeals to minds of differing cognitive functioning levels: religion at lower levels upward toward Shakespeare and finally Plato. I think this happens in every developed society, and of course in differing mediums. Are there any living thinkers that you find credible? I am always open to recommendations.

        7. nietzsche’s vision is definitely solipsistic, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. the ‘truman show’ effect on your mind can be very freeing. i am a big advocate of selfishness, but it has to be the right kind of. i myself am strongly inspired by objectivism.
          as for living thinkers, i’m not much of a reader, but i came upon this man (https://drhurd.com/) whom i agree with in many points. he is a psychotherapist who has a very red pill perspective, although he doesn’t focus on women or game at all, rather confidence and self-interest. turns out he is an objectivist, too. law of attraction.
          shakespeare? are you implying that shakespeare himself is mocking what he is seen as advocate of? i loathe romanticism. it would be an interesting perspective. then the question would arise whether the artist does it consciously or is merely good at expressing himself, thus serving everybody but himself, because he provides everybody with the reflection he is denied. i like this idea of the functionality of art: http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/05/22/unlocking-unconscious-mind-art/
          i can’t help but find your wording about the cognitive functioning levels very abstract. are you trying to do art?
          i remember that i was a lot into ‘doing art’ when i was younger and had a very sjw/beta mindset. i kept things abstract and imagined them to encompass every possible interpretation. it made me feel immensely smart, but in the end, i was only avoiding to confront my muddy thoughts and formulate ideas with real-world implications.
          same question to you: are there any living thinkers that you find credible?

        8. I would be interested in hearing how you think the allegory of the cave argues for relativism.
          My reading of Plato is that he was not a relativist – in fact, that the whole point of his and Socrates’ work, was to overthrow the relativism of the sophists.

        9. The Dialogues are not plays or drama. The Greeks had a well-developed genre of dramatic work, and the Dialogues are not a part of it. Rather, the Dialogue format has always been used as a way of expounding one’s philosophical teachings, and remained very popular all the way down to the early Modern Age. It influenced the development of catechisms, for example.

        10. Dramas, tragedy in particular, expound a morality, a mode of living that supports a society, while Plato’s dramas expound the philosophical mode of life, which a society also needs.

        11. Poetic drama as the populace knows it “expounds” morality, while Platonic, Ancient Indian, and early Buddhist(particularly that of Theraveda) “expound” philosophical modes of life and thought. Both dramas have audiences, albeit of a much different order, and non-propositional pieces of wisdom.

        12. Drama is itself a Greek word, from δράω (drao, “to accomplish a great deed, to act, to offer sacrifice or perform mystical rites”). The Greeks used this word and all of its cognates to refer to acting, plays, dramas, etc., and not the philosophical dialogues.
          “Dialogue” is also a Greek word (διάλογος), and it means “a conversation, argument, exchange of arguments” This is the word they used to refer to the Socratic Dialogues; Aristotle spoke of οἱ Σωκρατικοί διάλογοι (“the Socratic dialogues”), and Plato used it as well (for example, in Protagoras 335d, where the discussion is a dialogue, and the action is called “dialoguing”). Examples could be multiplied at great length.
          The words drama and dialogue are both theirs, and they used them a certain way; Latin, the Romance languages, German and English have all followed suit. Therefore, it does seem rather affected to speak as though the dialogues are “dramas,” in any sense that the term has actually had in the original Greek or later tongues. Indeed, these have distinguished between these genres for obvious and good reasons. A drama is a drama; a dialogue is a dialogue. Obviously both are intended to communicate a message and involve a contrived setting, cast of characters, etc., but the similarities end there. You may as well call any novel a drama, if that’s the approach you want to take.

        13. Cui,
          You make a great point regarding the Ancient Greek meaning of the term “drama”: mystical rights, which our Modern World is lacking, are a means to impart a morality to a citizenry. This is where I see a little bit of additional inofrmation as being able to connect our initially differing, glib definitions of “drama”.
          In debate with a UC Berkeley prof I recently made this argument regarding drama and how it imparts a morality to a citizenry. During the debate I used Chinua Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart”. He wasn’t happy, however, he couldn’t reasonably out-argue me. In Achebe’s novel there is a chapter where a performance is staged by the masked, male elders of the tribe that serves as a mystical purpose and it was implicitly understood that the staged play by the elders imparts a morality. So, sure, Euripedes and beyond do impart rites to a people.
          However, As well, the ancient philosophical dialogues, like the Ancient dramas, impart a non-propositional “lesson”. Drama for the masses is a “mystical sort” that imparts morality, while the philosophical dialogues impart a mystical sort of “reason” that helps the philosophical initiate elevate or transcend the morality toward higher reason. Reading and debating Plato’s dialogues is not philosophy in its self, however, it is a crutch for beginners.
          Yes, I do in fact consider Faulkner’s “The Sound and the Fury” and “As I Lay Dying” to serve the same purpose as Ancient Greek tragedy. The “mystical effect” is the most effective means of transferring a feeling or enthusiasm to prescribe morality to citizens and reason to a young philosophical initiate. I think the key to both arts, and Faulkner, is the omission of a narrator. This omission allows the action of the drama to transcend transcribed law and ideology and the monologic, tyrannical voice.
          Please, fire away at any one item or all of them. I enjoy this dialogue.
          Mike

        14. Well, certainly I could appreciate the broader point you were trying to make. Yes, drama, dialogues, novels, catechisms, the rites of the Mass, are all designed to convey truth through a variety of symbols of varying complexity and structure, lexical or otherwise.
          My only dispute, was with the terms! We have different words for all these genres and, in my opinion, for good reason.
          Modern culture certainly lacks mystical rites of its own, because it is
          estranged from Truth. For my part, though I live in modern times, the
          Mass, the Divine Office, the regular procession for blessing and
          cleansing the property’s boundaries, are routine activities. Ritual is a daily activity, and I can barely remember what my life was like before I had them.

        15. Cui,
          You are truly one of the few humans that I’ve ever been able to discuss “mystical right” with. I have read Rene Guenon, do you have any opinion regarding his writings and thought? I plan on reading Raimon Panikkar in the near future. Any recommended readings?
          Mike

        16. There is much to admire in Guenon, but I of course disagree with his ultimate path. He was a brilliant man with many stunning insights; I especially enjoy his discussion of counter-tradition and counter-initiation in the Kali Yuga. I admire the sobriety and discipline of the Perennialists, for their insistence upon avoiding syncretism (in favour of their preferred “synthesis,” in which one had to discipline himself according to one spiritual school despite seeing the benefit in understanding unifying elements between religious traditions). I am a devout Catholic, and so I believe the Church is the fullest embodiment of Truth; but if one cannot be a Catholic, he should at least be a Perennialist! Still, a part of me regards this as the greatest spiritual danger, since this school of thought retains so much wisdom and beauty, that one may easily remain in it without moving on to acknowledge Christ the Saviour’s personal rights of Kingship over all creation.
          If you enjoy learning about mystic rites, I would suggest such books as “The Mass” by Dom Prosper Gueranger, “The Lay-Folks’ Mass Book” (a Middle English allegory on the Mass and devotional customs), and the “Rationale Divinorum Officium” by Durandus (some volumes of it are now in English). Commentaries by Amalarius of Metz are often interesting. An Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, was initially a Perennialist and a disciple of Guenon’s; he wrote several interesting books.

        17. Cui,
          Thank you for the recommendations. I will be looking into those titles and thinkers.
          Right now for the first time in a decade I am rereading Faulkner’s “If I Forget Thee Jerusalem” and it is glaringly obvious that this title along with “Pylon” are the author’s obvious attempt to show the loss of “mystic rights” and its effect on the populace. I only laugh, because there are many academics that cannot read or mistakenly affix outrageous claims to these two Faulkner pieces. I remember Morton had something to say about “Faulkner”.
          Mike

      2. Do you really think religion provides something “essential and cozy”? It seems to me that the history of religion is written in blood.

        1. which makes absolute sense. you want to fight for your tribe.
          i have seen an episode of ‘through the wormhole’ where they measured brain activity of people talking to their deities vs. brain activity of meditating atheists. they found significant differences – in religious people, the parts of the brain involved in real conversation with another person were active, whereas they were not for atheists.
          when i was very depressed in the beginning of this year, i did feel a tendency to believe in a god. it’s comforting and when you are in a lot of distress, your brain just doesn’t function so well if you aren’t used to it.
          i also read somewhere that the proneness to spiritualiy is indicated by genes that regulate one type of serotonin in the brain, where people low in that serotonin were more prone to be spiritual.

        2. Atheists always talk about hating religion because of the misery and suffering it has caused throughout history but they have no problem with government which has killed a whole lot more people in the last 100 years than all of the religious wars in recorded history combined!

        5. Libertarian is the sheik new way of saying selfish individualism or “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself” It is a positive attribute of aristocracies that the people within them are almost always closely involved in something outside themselves, and they are often inclined to forget about themselves. Libertarians are mostly atheists just like most communists are atheists. Libertarians have successfully realized that the Red masses are uninterested in facts but highly interested in emotions. And that they are unaware of rhetorical tricks that give them comfort and pretense to believe that Truthiness is close enough to the truth.

        6. You are proof that a little education can be a dangerous thing you fucking idiot. But thanks for changing your photo. Every time I saw the previous one I thought to myself – If Lemmy from Motorhead raped Elton John their love child would look faggoty like this asshole. You are a gross materialist just like the Bolsheviks. A political man. A Mass Man, and if the Mass Man cannot measure it, weigh it or quantify it then it simply does not exist. If the necessary machines did not exist that could PROVE the existence of germs or atoms you would not believe in them as well. You are already a Dead Man Walking through the prison known as Samsara.

        7. Atheism = More people killed since 1900 than in all previous wars combined. Worldwide.

        8. i’m sorry my beard gave you a hard on – must’ve been confusing.
          as to the rest of your paragraph: i don’t even know what you are trying to say. seems like you have some beef with atheists, which i am not.

        9. that would be more a symptom of industrialization than of atheism. unless your argument is that your dear religion wouldn’t have allowed the science possible for industrialization.

    3. Ray, you’d have to be all things to all people. St. Paul preached using the unknown god that had an idol in town. Agustine used Aristotelian logic to argue against gnosticism and for Christianity. Francis Schaefer used the horror of nihilism to crush a persons soul so that they would confess their foolish sins and repent. All 3 were very masculine and godly, leading many to Christ.
      If your neighbor asks for a loaf of bread (some wisdom from God) would you give him a stone? Would you let him go hungry? Would you stuff him with pounds of quail until it comes out his nostrils?

    4. “Who by this time doubtless is pretty disgusted at having created any of us.”
      Ray, claiming to read the mind of God is a pretty big step.
      Where’s the stock market going to be on 10/15/2015?

    5. The perfect counter-example for what you’re saying is called Islam. If you look at Islam’s holy texts and the background of its ‘prophet’, you will see that it’s a religion invented with practical use in mind. It’s dead wrong on the way the world works according to modern science, but it’s a potent means for social control, which is why it’s so succesful. I’ll explain this in detail.
      Supposedly, the Quran was dictated by God, word by word. But when it comes to descriptions of the world, the Quran shows an understanding of the world that’s hopelessly outdated now. It claims that the stars are closer to us than the moon, that the heavens are divided into several layers and that the sun revolves around the world and asks God for permission to come back up in the morning. In describing pregnancy, the Quran is inferior in the eyes of modern science to a text by Galen which is several centuries older.
      So, we can assume that not God (who would know the intimate details of his own creation), but Muhammed invented the Quran. Now, who was Muhammed? He was a combination of a bandit chief and a war lord. His followers raided the trading caravans in the desert for income, and throughout his life he picked fights with rival tribes. In one instance, after a war with the Banu Qurayza, he ordered all men executed and all women and children enslaved and given to his men. So, Muhammed was a man who did a lot of really nasty things.
      Islam was the moral system he needed to keep his followers in line. Where Christianity and Judaism were ambiguous at best about slavery, rape and mass murder, Islam said that it was acceptable if the victims were not Muslims themselves. What Muhammed did by creating Islam was dividing the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’, and telling the ‘us’ that they could carry out all their violent and sexual fantasies against ‘them’. And not only would his warriors be forgiven, but they would earn a special place in heaven, closer to God than anyone else. That was the incentive, the morale boost his men needed to follow him to the ends of the earth.
      So yes, it actually is possible to pick and choose.

    6. who do you think made up religion in the first place….. ?
      Christianity is entirely a smorgasbord of previous ideals and religions, including Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism… it’s arguable that Jesus never existed….there are even examples of other Jesus characters in fringe religions of the day that attempted to undermine both Judaism and the roman’s religion and they sound awfully similar to Jesus in all but geographical context…
      there’s even evidence that the Roman’s were smart enough to pick the Messiah idea from the old testament and under mine the Jews by then telling a story where the Jews ‘accidentally’ killed their own messiah… the Jewish zealots were causing a lot of trouble, fighting the Romans all the time and the Jewish rebellion died out after the ‘new testament’ hit the market….
      You don’t find it strange that not a single historical scholar of the day mentions Jesus, whilst all the story books… sorry gospels…. were written 100+ years after the fact, but presented like an HD 1080p eye witness account….
      I think we are free to pick and choose whatever we want… following some 1000 years old hogwash to the letter is completely daft… (and the cause of huge fighting and bloodshed around the world).

      1. Your ramble is riddled with pop culture myths and urban legends.
        As you clearly avoid academic knowledge, at least watch a short youtube debate to inform yourself:

    7. While I agree with you, that detaching religious beliefs or practices from their roots and attempting to apply them in a novel, syncretistic way is folly (and, in my opinion, is very typical of the modern woman’s approach to “designer” everything), I would also say that there is such a thing as “natural religion” (as the Catholic Church calls it), whereby even the Pagans and other non-believers know something of the Moral Law, and find ways to practice the virtues and to conform themselves to the Natural Law – including the Natural Law that drives man to pursue his supernatural end, no matter how confused their notion of this may be. St. Paul says as much in his epistle to the Romans – that even without the Law, the Pagans fulfill the Law, and that the existence of God is evident by means of the creation. While God’s grace is freely given, I think it would be a mistake to say that God is not inclined to show mercy towards those who are striving to live in harmony with the Natural, Moral Law as best they can, even if they are confused or imperfect in this. We see this happening, historically, and I think one of the best things that could happen for modern men, is for them to rediscover even natural religion as a kind of Preparatio Evangelica, as it were. I think repentance – specifically, the repentance called for at Fatima – is the only hope for Western civilization at present. But who will take seriously a call to repentance from the Blessed Virgin, if they don’t even understand and practice the first principles of natural religion?
      I am considering applying for the position. I would certainly not mince words, or write as though religion were a “do-it-yourself” hodge-podge of “spiritual” exercises; even when I pointed out broad spiritual truths, I would have to use my Catholic Faith as the primary touchstone and exemplar. But I certainly could describe Natural Religion – the benefits of fasting, contemplation, contrition and penance, of feasting and enjoying other goods in moderation, of constraining our faculties towards their natural ends, etc. – in terms that would be accessible to all men of good will.

    1. same with Lance Christopher. Cui commented on roosh’s article ‘do women improve the lives of men’ the other day

        2. Would love to read his stuff even if he writes one article per month. It is not the quantity but the quality that counts.

      2. I also enjoyed Lance’ comments; I wonder what has happened to him.

        3. I was considering applying, for religious, since I have an interesting perspective and have proven repeatedly that I am capable of writing, but then I realized that I could only write four articles… galileo vs the catholic church, the inquisition, the crusades, and the thinking agnostic’s reasons for supporting religion… and then I would be fresh out of insight.

        4. So write’m as a guest author. I’ve always enjoyed your posts Id be interested to read something more fleshed out.

        5. admittedly I tend to be troll bait 😛 I keep accidentally answering them with facts, serious discussion, and reasoned explanation.
          Imagine my surprise when I am usually met with “You belong in prison and should be ass raped until you die”. Considerate, loving, tolerant people are so VIOLENT!

        6. How, exactly, does one write a guest article? I assume not by personal roosh correspondence.

        7. I think we can submit articles anytime. There is the occasional article by a non-staff writer as I understand it.

    3. I’ve been in contact with Cui for several months and he’s had some personal things keeping him away from here for the past while. Not to worry, I’m sure he’ll be back soon in force.

    4. I’m touched by the sentiment, Quintus, and by the kind words of others on the thread.
      I actually commented on a couple of your articles recently (once to say: “Al Masih Qam!”), but when you failed to respond, I wondered if you were disappointed that I had not written more articles for ROK, as I had hoped to do!
      I’m still around, but this past year has been a very busy phase for me – far busier than I would have anticipated. For example, I should be polishing my Greek skills right now! But I couldn’t resist coming to see, when you told me of the inquiry for a couple of writers.
      I’m considering applying for the position. Either way, as usual, I wish the very best to the good chaps at ROK. And I hope not to disappear entirely, in any case.

  5. I would be willing to write more about theology if people are interested. I come from a peculiar perspective but I’ve enjoyed writing for Return of Kings, and I’ve been encouraged and inspired by the responses.

  6. Look forward to hearing the latest atrocities from Sweden

        1. Not from my observations and the majority of comments I have read here. Not an attack just telling it like I see it. I would love to see fewer atheists hanging around here.

        2. Ok. I should mention you haven’t been on here all that long, i can tell you from experience that most here have some sort of religious affiliation from my encounters with them on the numerous articles i’ve commented on in the last year or so.

        3. I don’t think there are many atheists…
          Agnostics, sure, but many agnostics still recognize the value of religion, even if they do not personally subscribe to it.

        4. almost all human beings have a religious affiliation of one sort or another. Christian, muslim, the cult of egalitarianism, the nonexistence of God… everyone has blind faith in something unproveable.
          Faith is not a bad thing, one simply has to make sure that one does not place one’s faith in the WRONG thing.

        5. Well said.
          Even atheists can claim a faith, in that they cling to a belief system that denies the belief system of another using nothing more substantive than polemics and fanatical devotion.
          I have more respect for agnostics, who’s view can best be described as “maybe there is, maybe there isn’t a God” than the typical pseudointellectual arrogant sciolist atheist.
          I have met the seldom “cool” atheist but just like with Americanized muslims, they seem to be quite in the minority.

        6. Their faith relies on the stylings of the late, great, George Carlin.
          He was an excellent comedian. But he was a comedian. And he singlehandedly made ‘deity denial’ cool.
          What always amazes me is when anyone takes a comedian seriously.

        7. “What always amazes me is when anyone takes a comedian seriously.”
          That would certainly explain the millennial faith i refer to as “jonstewartism”
          You have to wonder at the awesome power of moronic energy that is capable of fueling a mind to believe that a talk show turd/self hating jew/comedian on a network with the word “comedy” in it is a more effective supplier of serious news than one that has the word “FOX” in it.

        8. “I don’t think there are many atheists…
          I tend to agree.
          The militant ones are the biggest suppliers of the world’s crucial need for bullshit so their presence is certainly exaggerated, here and elsewhere.

        9. be a minority and carry a fucking bullhorn, seems to be the operative word.

        10. sometimes I long for the good old days when Minstrels, Jongleurs, Mountebanks, and wandering players were barely tolerated and viewed with suspicion. Mostly because they were, in fact, thieves, rapists, and murderers.
          At least the latter part has not changed… but the respect we hold for those who’s sole job is to give us what we want to see and hear smacks of the worst sort of narcissism.
          Anyone that takes an ‘entertainer’ seriously, and that apparently includes the modern-day media, INCLUDING fox, is an absolute fool.
          At least many bloggers attempt to inform rather than entertain. That makes even the most ignorant child prattling on about his newest wii game a thousand times more ‘reliable’ an information source than a professional paid pundit produced by pernicious profiteers.

        11. Indeed. I used to watch FOX religiously until i grew dissatisfied with the moderate viewpoints of some of their talking heads like that arrogant blowhard Bill O’Reilly.
          I don’t much care for Hannity either because he’s one of those party line guys who would never call out a republican unless they’ve been called out by other republicans first.
          Megyn Kelly is another one with the occasional RINO moment.
          Also, ever since they were bought in part by a Saud prince, i had noticed a perceivable reticence to criticize muslims shortly before i stopped watching.
          The way they pushed Glenn Beck off the lineup left a sour taste in my mouth. I believe that was the last straw.

        14. A champlain provides more than merely spiritual support. I speak to my champlain all the time and I’m an atheist.

      2. You’re not going to find a godly woman to fulfill the Kingdom of Heaven among atheists. Best stick to whores and sportf*cking, but then you’re damaging the goods for future men at the same time too.

        1. It’s not really damaging any more than picking up a bunch of bottles at the local dump for range target practice is ‘ruining them’.
          The word is ‘Fuck’, not ‘f*ck’. There are men here. We do not care for word and thought control. If you wish to say it, say it… if it offends you do not… but no need to pretend a curse word is not what it is.

    2. What does this pay… I know there are a few full time writers on ROK like Roosh and Quintius and half a dozen others who must be pretty well paid and living a good life.
      I am guessing as a new columnist maybe $20,000-$30,000 a year..?

  8. All Return of Kingsmen stand up for the national anthem of Sweden.

    1. hehe “I am surrounded by Mexicans… the lazy river has never been lazier”

  9. Guys, if this is Return of Kings and Roosh is our leader, then that makes us:
    “King Valizadeh and the Knights of the Rooshtable”

    1. Doesn’t Breitbart welcome the LGBT Community into Conservative Politics?

      1. I’m not sure I exactly understand your question.
        If you are wondering why I, a manosphere advocate, would support Breitbart in my nametag, despite his acceptance of the LGBT community, my reasoning is that believing sex with another individual of the same gender to be immoral, supporting the traditional family as essential for civilization, and opposing the mainstream LGBT movement, does not mean I oppose all LGBT individuals. I welcome as a brother anyone who stands to support Western civilization against the destructive SJW’s, even if I disagree with their lifestyle choices.
        Also, I am a big fan of the Breitbart news organization, one of the few I check everyday along with RoK, as well as of Andrew Breitbart the man, RIP.

        1. There are some conservative leaning homosexuals, although they are quite a minority within a minority.
          They actually have some fiscal sense, and some would go so far as to state that their lifestyle should never become popular, just tolerated, which i can agree with.
          I make no bones in my opposition to the homosexual lifestyle but if a homosexual who leans conservative (you can’t be a conservative homosexual, it’s practically an oxymoron like christian homosexual) supports the constitution and Christian freedom to disagree with his or her lifestyle, they are no enemy of mine.
          As far as Breitbart is concerned, he lost points with me for attacking Rick Santorum over his opposition to homosexuality. You can’t be a true conservative unless you are a social conservative: one who opposes homosexuality.
          I consider his conservative credentials exaggerated as a result.
          Of course that makes no difference with regard to my interactions with you good sir, despite your nomenclature.

        2. Your entire argument goes against everything Western Civilization was founded upon. You are a Liberal, perhaps in the Classical sense, but a liberal nevertheless. Nothing Noble, Aristocratic or Royal in your mindset, thinking, ideology, values or dogma; or lack thereof. It is actually the mind of the mob. Plebeian and Proletariat. Democratic and Demanding.
          We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. When Jesus stopped the stoning of Mary Magdalen He forgave her and then said “Go and sin no more.” He did not tolerate sin, He forgave it so the person would be free to live a righteous life.
          Tolerance is the catchword of the devil. You are ready to accept a demon who willingly lives the lifestyle and follows the dictates of Satan into your ranks in the War In Heaven? Will you accept and tolerate a lesbian on ROK as long as she accepts all Manosphere policies, ideologies and dogma? If Roosh hires a deranged, totally misogynistic lesbian manager who can out drink, out fight and out fuck (with her strap-on of course) any man inducted into the Holy Manosphere; would you tolerate her? Follow her?

        3. A misogynist lesbian is by definition opposed to the ideology of ROK.
          As for tolerance, there are some things which should be tolerated, and some which should not. I am opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, I support traditional marriage, and I support keeping gays out of the military. However, I also believe that all people, including gays, have a right to life and to legal equality (excepting marriage).
          I agree it would be best if all people were straight, but we must accept the world as it is. What is your policy solution? To throw all gays in jail? I do not see how that would help things.

        4. I kinda liked the ISIS solution. Although I would be the first to admit that fags make piss-poor boomerangs.

        5.  If Roosh hires a deranged, totally misogynistic lesbian manager who can out drink, out fight and out fuck (with her strap-on of course) any man inducted into the Holy Manosphere; would you tolerate her? Follow her?
          Depends on whose holes the strapon’s for.

      1. Didn’t Lancelot adulterously slide his manhood up King Arthur’s spouse’s womanhole, though?

        1. He did, but only because Arthur put the skank Gwinevere on a pedestal.
          Proving once again that even a King can fall prey to the White Knight syndrome, figurative and literally speaking.

      1. Christian’s got his own blog now, with his own forum. It hasn’t taken off like ROK, and I assume he’s trying to build his own brand, distinct from ROK. His site’s changed a fair bit.

    2. Really. His and AV8ER/A.V. Yader’s writings are worth reading and re-reading and re-reading!

  11. this would be neat, having a feminist spotting reporter in each region like india,middle east, latin america and asia….Give it time rok will be a news station

  13. this is an interesting development.
    Spread the ROK gospel in the heathen lands of Sweden where benighted pagans still worship the pantheon of pussy

  14. Have dated a Swede for a LONG time, have lived in Sweden, and am well-versed in that social experiment gone horribly awry. I could write academic papers on this subject for days.

    1. My background: female, UC Berkeley-educated in economics and Latin American studies. Very conservative, moderately Catholic, libertarian. Fluent in 5 languages, also very familiar with Russian, Vietnamese, and Brazilian/Latin American cultures as a counterpoint to Sweden. Lived in Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, Ireland (have family there), and am a Dual US/Canadian citizen. Could write for days about the collapse of gender roles, the family, and the church in each of these societies.

      1. Your input on the matter would probably be valuable but you wouldn’t be able to write from a male perspective. Why not start a blog, or submit to some of the more conservative rags?

        2. I could ask my male friends & bf for their input. Also, I tend to take the male perspective/side in most of these discussions. Something is seriously, frighteningly wrong with that country, and any input is better than none. Furthermore, I understand your concern about my not being male. However, the men born there hardly know what being a man is anymore. Society has all but castrated them. And US visitors (male & female) I’ve met who have gone there have been too enraptured by Swedish women/too drunk/etc to have the mental capacity to see things logically, as they are, and anticipate their eventual (and in Sweden’s case, certain) disastrous consequences, without letting their own genders or distractions impose agendas on their views. I’m sober, have a long-term (sober) Swedish bf, and have watched his struggles to learn how to be a man in the traditional sense since day 1. It has been mind-blowing (and rewarding) to experience/assist him in the unlearning of the Swedish experiment (at his request; he wanted to escape this, as well). I can at least help until you find a more suitable male to take over.

        3. Fair enough. Duly noted. However, wouldn’t an outsider’s observations perhaps reveal something important that insiders (males) don’t see? The destruction of gender roles in this Swedish experiment ultimately affects everyone. It is rapidly being emulated in other countries, extolled by liberals and the wrong kind of feminists as “progress.” Women end up learning the wrong behaviors and values, which (in turn) even further marginalizes traditional masculinity. I’ve witnessed this first-hand, seen what it has done to men (and women). It’s all connected, and excluding the insights of women who agree with you seems a bit short-sighted. You should be focused on getting all the information, from all sides and viewpoints, to best understand how this came to hapoen, and how best to prevent it and undo it, if possible.

        4. I was just expressing my opinion so I can’t speak for ROK. If your male acquaintenances are sufficiently motivated I can’t see why they shouldn’t submit something, but if they’re being pushed to do so by a female – in a sense that would be symptomatic of the scandinavian problem, however right-thinking your perspective might be. Swedish males are famously laid back, except when they’re literal uber-trotskyists like Stieg Larsson that is. I hope that impression can be proved wrong

        5. it’s not about the insight for me, but about the climate. i like the locker room atmosphere and you don’t get that in many places anymore. it’s just different when no one is secretly trying to impress some female or behave more well-mannered than they otherwise would. getting information is one thing, but discussing and ranting with fellow men is dear to me.
          it’s not my call to make, but if this was my site, that would be my decision.
          i am planning to set up a book portal, though, also for a male audience, where people can link good books and publish their own digitally. feel free to drop me a mail over my website and i’ll let you know as soon as everything is set up – maybe that will be of interest to you.

        6. He wants to contribute, but would rather me do it. I guess the next step is in order! He needs to tell his own story. If he wants. Because, under that learned polite, politically correct tact, damn does the man have strong opinions:)

        7. Ok got it. Can’t resist adding that I played on my HS men’s hockey team, and am no stranger to that locker room environment. Are my occasional comments welcome here, or do you all as a community prefer that I take them elsewhere? Your call.

        8. i am not the community, so i only speak for myself when i say that i don’t want you to. it may be worthwhile to have your perspective, but i don’t want it here. as michael suggested, go ahead and write a blog, it’s very rewarding to see such a project grow and having your own audience.
          the official statement of the community is to be found here: http://www.returnofkings.com/about

        9. Women are increasingly starting to invade ROK.
          I think this should remain a male-only space.

        11. I respect that, and from hence forward, will only read and refrain from commenting.

        12. well we just love learned polite and politically correct. Maybe there’s a Bezerker underneath though

        15. The men in your circle, especially your bf, could not give you a candid heterosexual male view point simply because they are influenced by their desire to have sex with you.

        20. Agreed. The Manosphere is struggling to get men to realize their inherent masculinity that’s being drained by our PC society. Too many men already caught up in relationships are polluted by our culture that needs to change. If a woman were writing about men’s issues, it’d come from men who were just telling her what she wanted to hear because they want her vagina.

        22. Guys cut her a break. She is clearly on the same side as us, and I agree since this is RoK that most articles should be written by men, but she seems intellectual and if she has a valuable insight, there is no reason to arbitrarily silence her. Also it is quite a feat to come out of Berkeley and still be a conservative, haha
          I get what you guys are saying about the locker-room atmosphere, but this is an online commenting board for goodness sake
          We need to support each other, and she is being polite and respectful while you (vampire) are trying to start a flame war for no reason.
          Channep this is a generally male space, but if you have a good insight, then share it

      2. “My background: female, UC Berkeley-educated in economics and Latin American studies. Very conservative, moderately Catholic, libertarian. Fluent in 5 languages, also very familiar with Russian, Vietnamese, and Brazilian/Latin American cultures as a counterpoint to Sweden. Lived in Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, Ireland (have family there), and am a Dual US/Canadian citizen. Could write for days about the collapse of gender roles, the family, and the church in each of these societies.”
        Yeah right uh huh

        1. Have been asked to not respond here anymore, so find me in another forum if you feel inclined to question the veracity of my statement. Would be happy to clear up any of your misconceptions. Perhaps photos of visas, passport stamps, my degree, and written essays on a topic of your choosing in each language would make an anonymous person online like you take me seriously. But what do I get out of this? Perhaps a few well-thought-out dick pics, bonus points if you incorporate donuts, and I would consider going to the trouble of impressing a random skeptical guy online. Do we have a deal?

    2. It’s almost a shame that the hottest women on the planet (tied with Ukrainians) are the ones that had the tit-power to turn their own land into an egalitarian hell first.

  15. Question to Roosh. On the ABOUT page you write ‘We are generally against men’s rights and how they portray men as victims in need of state assistance’
    Don’t you mean ‘against men’s rights activists’?

    1. actually, it’s correct.
      “Men’s rights” is ridiculous. men need no special rights. We simply need our hands untied, and our natural superiority will assert itself without the crutch of big-government interference deciding what we have a ‘right’ to do.

  16. I agree that the Scandinavian writer should ideally be situated in Sweden, as Sweden is the spearhead of European, and maybe global, cultural Marxism and the implosion of Western Civilization.
    However, Fjordman, a Norwegian living in Denmark after de facto being kicked out for criticism of Islam and Muslim mass-immigration totally out of control, is very knowledgeable and with a sharp analytical mind.
    He wrote about feminism, cultural Marxism and Western Civilization nearly a decade before anyone else:
    http://chromatism.net/fjordman/fjordmanfiles.htm
    He is on facebook and twitter:
    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009149304339

  18. For a masculine theologian, I would ask David Wood. There is nothing wrong with his masculinity, as he criticize Da’esh (the Islamic State) in full view, and under his own name.
    He normally writes on his blog (http://www.acts17.net/) about Islam related topics, but I am sure that he has his opinions about current affairs and perversion of our Western Civilization, as well.
    This is his criticism of CNN:

  19. I cant think of a better wedge that could divide ROK readers than anything related to religion. Just check out the shitstorm after Quintus’s last article this week or any other piece with religion in it. Keep religion out of ROK. The bible is THE bible of blue pill blind obedience. Big mistake.

      1. Yes. I respect all that you’ve done creating the movement and i back you on almost all your ideas. I just think religion has been the greatest divider among cultures and the source of most strife in the world. As a world traveller as yourself I thought you’d see the misery that religion has created. Its what will be the undoing of this world in has a great headstart right now in the middle east. My belief is that most of the institutions now are corrupt and obsolete. Red pillers have to adapt and be bigger and stronger and smarter than blue pill institutions that have men enslaved.

      2. Bibles are only good for rolling spliffs when you are out of skins. I don’t believe men needs such stories to learn how to be a good human. Religion is mainly for control and division.
        As for Sweden, who gives a fuck? It is a lost cause, just like hearing about Toronto. We got it sucks.
        How about a new writer that can help guide men farther on the quest of a good existance. How about someone who is what men seem to want to be showing them the way. Someone living “The Red Pill” ?
        Say,,,, A man who is closing his business, hoping on his 41′ cutter and heading out to sea? One who not only survived living in a filthy feminist city, but thrived? Im sure such a man would be better recieved.

    2. The Red Pill means seeing the world as it really is. Even if you think religion is a bunch of mumbojumbo, attempting to rope it off from the rest of life is delusional.

    3. Jesus was one of the all time hall of fame alphas. At no stage in his life did he ever claim to be anything other than the living incarnation of God himself and his one and only son, with total congruence on every level, 100% of the time.
      If that’s not epic overconfidence and frame control I don’t know what is.
      Mohammed was also alpha as fuck, but the only reason Jesus didn’t carve out a huge empire as well is because, for some reason, he wasn’t into violence and blood thirst like Mohammed was. In fact he totally spurned violence in an age where everyday ultra-violence was completely banal.
      In terms of alpha males of ancient history, you’ve got Alexander the great, Julius Caesar, and Jesus Christ.
      And of these three, Jesus Christ was the greatest, that’s my opinion.

  20. Good Luck Roosh! Most here are so atheistic and materialistic that it would make Mao Zedong cream in his jeans. Perhaps think about renaming the site Return of the Nuevo Socialistas.

  21. The Masculine Thologian thing sounds great. I’ve been studying Stoicism, and when you read about the Ancient Greeks it’s all about what qualities a person needs to be an upright man. When I read about Game and correcting attitudes/behavior about relationships, it’s all there in Stoicism. Being yourself, not being a puppet to things that aren’t true to your masculine nature, etc. And it doesn’t conflict with other religious practices; it’s just about living your life.

  22. If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates.

    Not enough white people! Ahhahahahahahhaaha!!
    You guys kill me.

    1. whites are the only ones who built a first world civilization. Russia, Britain, U.S. all have the most immigrants desperate to get in. what will happen when they all degrade to 3rd world shitholes? there wont be any nation left to bail out and maintain human rights

  24. For those atheist readers who don’t like the idea: Christianism is a religion, yes, but it’s also a way of living. We live surrounded by ideologies, ideas of how society should behave, how we should coexist. We choose ours, even knowing they come from normal people, from their minds. You are able to think that Bible is not the word of God, but it’s indisputable its logic and understanding of human being, it can works as an ideology if you don’t believe.
    We all know the disctintion between the role of men and women in the Bible, the logic and natural way we are, the same role we are trying to make return.
    The name of this site is not accidental…

  25. The essence of religion can be summed up as follows: “Life is not a zero-sum game.”

  26. If you’re going to use the phrase “word of god” then show some God damn respect and type “Word of God” you fucking Persian ingrate. PS the Shah is still the rightful ruler and was deposed by mongrels.

    1. Says the guy with the asian fiance. A man who can’t save himself (genetically intact) is not a man who can save others. The. End.

  28. This announcement could be pivotal in creating a foundation for a movement born out of the frustration that masculinity has been overthrown in Western Society. Law and order, along with logic and common sense has been all but erased, thanks to popular new theories and controversies over the origin of man and the definition of male and female; human and animal.
    Now is the time to challenge these trendy ideas, thought to be cute-n-funny on college campuses. It’s about time to end the sitcom that snot-nosed spoiled brats knows best and restore the patriarchal family structure that served civilized people for millenniums.
    Of course, that requires a going back to core fundamentals based on logical traditions and understandings, not to force any particular ideology in modern times, but to use what works, what has worked, and what will work to rescue man from its current state of babel and confusion.

    1. theres wisdom in Amish communities recognize what technology does to people. it enables all this bullshit behavior. When life required more physical hard work, everyone knew the score. Electronic currency, surplus of resources, automation, etc…. people get detached from the raw work required. theyre trying to push technology and socialism into creating their ‘progressive’ godless utopia. I’m agnostic but it’s possible God is angry when he sees our ‘faith’ in technology and we will be punished accordingly

  29. All of you guys are losers. Try getting laid for once in your life.. It’ll change your perspective.

Comments are closed.