Reflections On The Roosh World Tour

It has now been around two months since Roosh visited London on his world tour. The day was very educational and revealing, and I feel it appropriate to discuss some of my thoughts, having had enough time to reflect on the event.

By looking back at a couple of aspects, we can get a clear insight into our current situation and come up with steps we can take to ensure that we can keep on developing as individuals and as a community.

Concerning the event itself, the testimonies on the Roosh V Forum provide great descriptions of not just the London event, but also the others on the tour from different perspectives. It is well worth reading through the reviews from the attendees and thoughts by forum members.

The Demographic


Roosh’s photo of London on a sunny Saturday afternoon, before the lecture

Although the demographic has varied slightly from city to city, the diversity of attendees especially at the London event was very significant. The event was not just diverse in age and ethnicity, but everyone had a different reason for coming. There were of course the young aspiring men, seeking game advice, but also fathers, seeking help for their children and people concerned with cultural collapse.

The majority of attendees had also traveled alone, and come from quite far in order to get to the venue. Unlike concerts or films, where one usually goes with a social group, this was a collection of individuals who most likely do not share the same opinions as their peers at home.

This shows us that the community is small and fragmented: rather than being a unified group who are all similar in personality and interact with each other regularly (feminists being a prime example), our followers appear to be distributed randomly across the country, spanning many different ethnicities, social groups, and ages, each with different motivations for attending the event.


We certainly didn’t look like this…not yet anyway.

Although this displays a great capacity for individual thinking among the attendees, it can be very difficult to establish cohesion with everyone hundreds of miles from each other.

It is therefore very important to keep communicating with others in this community and exchange Neomasculine ideas, give and receive advice, and most importantly to form friendships with people on the same wavelength.

A Feeling Of Unease

Stripping down the day to its core components: a lecture, Q & A and post-speech socializing, there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary. Historically a (mostly) all-male event such as this would have been perfectly commonplace.

However, there was a strong feeling at the venue that something clandestine and underhanded was taking place. Roosh made the point during the speech that in Berlin, they were hiding, whilst men in gimp suits pranced about just outside, gaily in the German “Straße” during the local “Pride” parade.


Those plotting the world’s destruction probably feel more at ease than us

It says a lot about the current state of society when a group of males discussing self-improvement are doing so behind closed doors. This leads us to ask: why is an event like this so unusual? Why is it so counter-cultural and niche, when the issues being contemplated are centuries, if not millennia old?

It is somewhat worrisome that something so ordinary has become so abnormal. Canada has since proven that a handful of men discussing important issues can arouse the most virulent hysteria, obscene threats and even criminality.

With the intensifying assault on male-only spaces and draconian attitudes towards free speech, it becomes ever more imperative to uphold age-old traditions, for even very basic things such as organizing a group of less than a hundred people together are now being looked upon suspiciously in our modern era; this leads us conveniently onto the next point:

The Reaction From The Media


Are they Stasi in disguise?

A much discussed aspect of the London event was the presence of the BBC. The general consensus is that they seemed impartial on the day but many highly distrust them as an institution; a perfectly reasonable point of view to hold. They added a sense of paranoia to the event. We can at this point, only wait until the documentary airs before coming to a rational conclusion.

One striking point about the BBC was their total ignorance of the community. It became apparent through their questioning (“So, are you a PUA then?”) that they had little knowledge of why everyone had turned up. It is very likely that they had simply patched together various prejudgments and ideas together to form an opinion of us; the BBC were actually quite honest on the day in saying that they were expecting a PUA gathering as opposed to an intellectual discussion.

BPC British Propaganda Corp

In Closing

The fact that men who convene together and discuss now-tabooed issues are looked upon with curiosity with a shade of contempt makes it very important to actively participate in the community’s ideas, form bonds with others who share the same ideas, and inspire others to do the same. As the community is so scattered and events like the Roosh tour are gradually being looked upon as more and more strange, it will be nice to see more days like this in the future.


I would like to thank the gentlemen who I met up with in the pub for lunch before the event, (and then again for dinner and a few pints) for giving me the idea to write down my reflections on the tour, and of course, to everyone who attended and made it such a great day.


Read More: The Roosh World Tour Begins In June 2015 

72 thoughts on “Reflections On The Roosh World Tour”

  1. The fact that men who convene together and discuss now-tabooed issues are looked upon with curiosity with a shade of contempt makes it very important to actively participate in the community’s ideas, form bonds with others who share the same ideas, and inspire others to do the same.

    This is actually a mild symptom of a larger and very evil effort: the attempt to control thought by controlling our language and the “permissible” topics of discussion. There are many practitioners. No one is safe.

    1. That was a fantastic essay you wrote a couple of years or so ago. Still holds true today. Thanks for sharing.

    2. A quote from a song by The Police, “De do do do De da da da”
      Poets priests and politicians
      Have words to thank for their positions
      Words that scream for your submission
      And no-one’s jamming their transmission
      ‘Cos when their eloquence escapes you
      Their logic ties you up and rapes you

    3. All you really need to know is that male dominance joined with female submissiveness is now considered a kinky alternative lifestyle.

        1. ▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲ .:……..
          ➽Look HERE➽➽➽➽ ➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽ observe and discover more help by clicking any connection

    4. This poem may help further:
      Since exiled from Judah the ‘Wandering Who’
      Have time and again been given the shoo
      The handlers, the scripters, the pullers of strings
      The invisible power that makes or breaks kings
      Less than half a percent of the world population
      How on God’s earth did they gain domination?
      Eugenically-minded they’ve Olympian IQ’s
      They’re craftsmen of chaos and lingtwistic kungfu

      1. Roosh is a slick, dirtbag. This is not a happy man. And if you look closely, he has the 1000 cock stare himself. Just look at his eyes.

        1. The BBC is a fraud and the main propaganda generator and employer of the socialists in the UK.
          Roosh V – whether you agree with him or not – is just someone who’s voice should be heard.

  2. The BBC was at the London event and making a documentary? WTF? Haven’t you guys learned anything about the way Roosh was treated by Dr. Oz? The 20/20 segment on the manosphere? These people are the enemy. They’ll smile at you as they sink a knife into you. They have no interest in actual objective “journalism,” but selling a certain narrative and political agenda.
    The narrative the MSM likes is that PUAs are “insecure little boys,” or something in that vein. They seem oblivious that you cannot enable female promiscuity without also enabling male promiscuity. The two obviously go hand-in-hand.

      1. This was a good interview. I’m not a big fan of Ezra Levant but at least he did what no other pathetic excuses for “journalists” in Canada bothered to do: he actually read some of Roosh’s blog posts, tried to understand Roosh’s anti-feminists criticisms, and most importantly, he actually read the “rape” column by Roosh where he supposedly advocated rape on private property.. and correctly understood it was a thought experiment and somewhat satirical and not meant to be taken literally. When Roosh was here in Canada, every news item that mentioned him immediately stated as fact that Roosh is a controversial blogger who advocates rape on private property. These sorry excuses for “journalists” should be ashamed of themselves.. but they don’t really care. Roosh was a bad guy in their eyes and everyone is against him… that’s the narrative they jumped on and that’s what makes sense in their minds.

      2. Good interview.
        “Women have been encouraged to chase after a really narrow ideal of what an attractive man is”
        That’s the one and only reason we study and improve our game. Because if you don’t become mr. interesting you won’t grasp a young woman’s attention. And even then. As a man you can’t fight against the impulses from a smartphone with Tinder, Facebook and Whatsapp. Sad but true. A woman today has more orbiters than ever. That’s for sure. Are you in a relationship? The phone numbers of your competition are already in her phone! You just don’t know it. The moment your relationship is declared done you are still wondering what happened and she’s already in bed with another dude. This to the hypergamous nature of women, which might even be stronger than the male sexual urge.
        “Learning how women really are is the gateway to learning how the world is”
        Definitely. Civilisations have fallen because of women. You see why a lack of structure and control on women’s behaviour leads to for instance single mothers raising future criminals and drug users. You can see how the government doesn’t take action in a positive way, or uses their power/tax money to subsidize the negative. The decline of the institute of marriage lead to the downfall of the nuclear family. Now we have women working and living alone more and more while being unhappy (no woman likes to become an old single mother or banging dozens of Tinder dudes really) We have a rise of mental sickness in society and the consumerist culture makes us antisocial robots. Everything in society is connected to the lack of social structures, the lack of rules (religion) that give us some sense of moral. The freedom woman have is also the cause of their unhappiness in the end.
        We men are biologically predestined to have sex with as many women as we can. But I’d personally rather would want a wife that is loyal to me, raises my children and does her best to stay attractive. We men won’t sign up for some past wall “had my fun” left over woman who wants your sperm and then you paying alimony while she goes on with her quest for dick. Even the men who think they have the best relationships get fcked with alimony when her “tingles” extinguish. “I just don’t feel like we don’t have a click anymore” was no valid reason for divorce 50 years ago.
        I completely understand why Roosh has 2 faces, one of the proponent of the nuclear family and one of the relentless player that men need to be to get ANY in this day and age. We men would like it to be different, but the rules changed. And instead of opting out, we play the game. Does that bring happiness in the end? Sex is nice, but the dopamine rush is short. So no, it won’t make us happy in the end. We shouldn’t lie about that. Like Roosh says, there is more to life than a notch count. A cause we can fight for. But I guess a World war 3 is needed for this situation to change.

        1. This is a great comment and a great rebuttal towards SJWs criticising us of hypocrisy, the so called “you want women to behave as traditional women, yet you like sluts”-claims. They don’t understand game is not the cause of the problem, it’s a consequence of the problem.

        2. Indeed. I would give up chasing tail if I could find the woman that was loyal, caring, has little baggage and has an easy character. I don’t think this is demanding. I’m not even talking about looks here. I was able to find these qualities in a few women I’ve had relationships with, but never all-in-one. But I should never blame women, but the society they live in. It’s not their fault that we nowadays have the technology that allows them to exploit their hypergamous nature to the fullest. Yes I’m talking about Tinder and other online dating scams. However, women also shape society themselves. They themselves wanted to work. And now our western economies have adapted to two income households. Now working is not an option anymore for most families, it’s a must! Thank your mothers and grandmothers young women, They had it good before when you just had to walk with a stroller and cook some dinner for your man. But it wasn’t exiting enough.
          I think men just want to make the best of life. Men generally are persevering and want to fix problems. Also in relationships. Women just give up easily. Nowadays 70+% of divorces are initiated by females. (purely statistics, look it up) I guess that says enough. They are the one who think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence yet they end up worse than in the previous relationships they had. Want to be a single mother or an old lady with a couple of cats living in poverty? Sure, leave him. Ride the cockcarrousel, do what you have to. We know how you were in your young years.

        3. Couldn’t agree more. Assuming your native tongue is Dutch, I recommend you to read this article:

          Pretty much sums up how brainwashed people, even some doctors, are. The article is like “yeah biologically speaking, it is better for mothers to have children when they are young, but socially, it is better to have children at 35. So 30 is a perfect compromise!” So this ‘doctor’ goes as far as even acknowledging biological reality while at the same time twisting the facts to keep pushing the liberal narrative and thus objecting the experience of many gynecologists.
          Other gem from this article:
          – “Kinderen opvoeden is evenmin eenvoudig in een snel veranderende maatschappij met vele verleidingen”. Yeah, let’s not specify these “verleidingen” aka riding the cock carousel.
          – “Vrouwen bereiken dit ideaal overal ter wereld waar ze voldoende vrijheid krijgen…Wij, mannen, beperken onze rol er het best toe hen daarin te ondersteunen.” Yeah I get it, freedom to fuck everyone you want, while expecting men to be beta chumps that will pay for your bills when you hit the second wall hard.

        4. It’s very interesting stuff, however I don’t think a lot of others will be able to enjoy it since it’s in Dutch. It’s a pity that you live in Belgium. With more Dutch members here I would set up a Dutch community in no-time. I’d love to meet more likeminded people.
          But concerning the article.
          This is nothing new. Women are postponing children as long as they can. The reasons behind that are simple, because children are a burden if any person thinks rationally about having them. Yet, the biological imperative is stronger than reason. And it may have an additional advantage. The more time a woman has to land down a good provider the better. That doesn’t mean she is going to be impregnated by him as we know from the statistics.
          I advise you to besides reading RoK to also read some material from Rollo Tomasi ( He has 2 books and a weblog which happen to be a less entertaining but definitely more informational. Almost intellectuel. It’s mind blowing material.

        5. yes but you see, the women that youve “used and abused” are going to be some other guys baggage one day. and it’s likely you’ll end up finding a women who you love but who is also messed up by some other guy that used and abused her. you’re part of the problem! YOU perpetuate the cycle. and dont call me some fucking white knight or get defensive. it’s the truth. maybe all of you fuckers need to reevaluate the lives you live. Roosh is slick, dirtbag. This is not a happy man. he has the 1000 cock stare. JUst look at his eyes lol. Seriously though… stop reading this site and look for girls in different places than your used to. dont repeat your folly, lest you become a dog returing to eat it’s own vomit

        6. I’m making a plea for the nuclear family here. Maybe you’ve missed it.
          But you are a troll that should be banned asap

        7. You just admitted to “chasing tail”. YOU are part of the problem. That’s a fact. God forbid you ever have a daughter one day – if you can actually find a woman! And a bunch of men just like yourself desecrate her.

        8. Thank you for this information. I read some articles on, and it tastes for more.
          I would like to add to my previous post that this newspaper paradoxically is becoming more and more politically correct.
          And correct me if I’m wrong, but what I’ve read on sites like RechtsActueel, a right-wing Flemish nationalist (and also “Heelnederlands”) conservative news site, and ‘t Pallieterke, a Flemish nationalist magazine, is that in Holland, journalists still tend to be more neutral. Yes, there is a huge amount of political correctness, considering the Zwarte Piet ‘controversy’ – which is also starting to infect our society as well, thanks to an ‘agnostic’ muslim extremist, supportive of Hezbollah, who has a column in de Standaard (yes I’m not kidding and curiously no conservatives have a column there). But it appears that conservatives and right-wing politicians are less vilified or censored in the Dutch media. And that freedom of speech there is still applied to some extent. Finally, there seems to be a strict ethical code for journalists, e.g. you won’t find them having dinner with politicians as it will violate their neutrality.
          Here, 80% of the journalists vote left and they don’t have any problem to spend their free time together with socialists and progressive politicians, dining together in fancy expensive restaurants paid by tax money. Needless to say that right-wing politicians and conservatives are censored in the mainstream media pointing out their corruption and hypocrisy or a failed immigration policy. Furthermore, they get criticism from leftists, but strangely, when they reply to these criticism, it is not published, “because, the news(paper) doesn’t support ‘anti-democratic’ parties and beliefs”. Who the fuck do these journalists and editors think they are?
          I would also welcome a Dutch community. However, I have to admit that not many people in my social circle or in Belgium are open to the red pill. Sites like ‘t Pallieterke and RechtsActueel (and also Doorbraak) are still very small. As such, it is good to find like minded people on sites like these from elsewhere. We can’t change the world, the enemy is too strong to do so. But we can stick to our beliefs and not back down. We can only hope that this attitude will inspire others to take up the red pill or neomasculinity.

        9. Well, politics is an important part of what shapes society. Next to immigration, technology and other things. But I think you should separate politics and the Red pill knowledge. You also don’t have to promote red pill awareness like religious fanatics do with their religion. Concepts like “hypergamy” are also very hard to explain to people who don’t have an interest in the subject. Most males, both intelligent and curious will find the material soon enough after they start looking up how the palimony-laws work in their country. I was like: “what? Paying 12 years if it doesn’t work out?” and I’ve seen countless tv shows with divorces. Men living in trailers, paying alimony, struggling. That’s a nice possible prospect for a young man in his sexual prime, right. Change the channel to TLC and you see women fitting wedding dresses, the future husband is just a pawn in the great scheme of female security a.k.a marriage. Once again. The brighter more rational males will find the red pill material by themselves.

    1. “you cannot enable female promiscuity without also enabling male promiscuity”
      The men on top of the pyramid will be vastly more promiscuous, sure, but this leaves the rest virtually disenfranchised from the sexual market place, and either left fighting for scraps or get nothing at all.

      1. True, but that’s what pick up culture is about. Becoming an “alpha,” which is what the men at the top of the pyramid are. There’s a social hierarchy, and neo-masculinity provides direction on how to climb it. Call it “self improvement,” but it’s all the same thing.

    2. Yes, you got it exactly right. These people are the enemy. most public
      broadcasters in the West, like the BBC, CBC, are heavily feminist and liberal. They aren’t in the least bit interested in listening or accepting there might be legitimate and intelligent criticism of feminism.
      This is the kind of hit job under the guise of “objective journalism” you can expect from the likes of the CBC or BBC:
      What we can learn from pick-up culture

      1. Ah yes, the “they’re weak and lost and need our help” angle. Those are the two angles you can expect from the feminist MSM. Demonization or condescension.

    3. I disagree, whatever exposure the manosphere/neo masculinity gets will help us. Yes, the press like to take damning, out-of-context quotes and attempt to vilify us but the more events that are held, the more exposure we will have, the more (probably bad) press we will get, BUT eventually somewhere sometime a news article will be “the untold story” in an effort to get ratings and they will present the truth; the self-improvement, the love and concerns about society, the honour, the values, the feminism double standards.
      Then the tide could turn.

    4. By the sounds of things it wont be a Dr Oz re-run as im assuming they aren’t Q and A’ing, and they wont have angry fat women lined up to tell us how beautiful they are on the inside (lols).
      I’ll be interested to watch and see how fairly they present things… at the least, RoK might be welcoming in a few more Red Pill converts.

      1. oh fantastic! more of his “epic” writing! can’t wait! he’s gunna tell us how we can smash more pussy. I always feel like a better human after I read rooshs “work” kek

  3. I can’t wait to see the BBC documentary. Whichever reaction it causes is mainly good advertising at this point. However – like in any other subject of scrutiny – the media will try and pick out flaws by any means necessary, and doubt they will stop until they are able to discredit us.
    Like the article says, men aren’t as united as we should be if we are to cause an impact socially, and make the FI and SJWs understand we are not going to change our stance, principles and beliefs for nothing.
    First though, men with stories worth telling have to reach out for each other, and find common ground (I firmly believe there always is some common ground regardless of experience, ethnicity, beliefs, socioeconomic group, etc) because Daddy Gov’t surely won’t do that for us…the likkle girls get all the attention with so much a bat of an eyelid.

    1. Is the documentary going to be about Roosh or about the fact that more men are getting rightfully disgusted of the current state of affairs and are starting to speak to one another?

      1. It makes sense to the feminist machine to sacrifice one visible, and discreditable scapegoat, than risk the awakening of more men.
        What the machine fears, isn’t one man, who can either be dismissed, neutralized, manipulated, discredited – it’s men with common interests together in a way that their voices cannot be ignored and their position won’t change. Those would have to be reckoned with.

    2. “I can’t wait to see the BBC documentary.”
      Did Roosh and company allow the BBC inside the actual venue and allow them to listen to and watch his speech?
      I would be very skeptical of any public broadcaster giving Roosh and his ideas a fair shake. More likely, they will do a hit job like the CBC here in Canada did. Here’s one example of their “impartial, objective” coverage:
      What we can learn from pick-up culture
      Basically, they dismiss Roosh as a con man who’s trying to exploit men. They bring out some feminist-appeasing mangina from the Good Men project who pretends to be “objective” but refuses to even address or acknowledge the substance behind many of the manosphere’s anti-feminist views.
      There cannot be any favourable or even objective, impartial coverage about Roosh and his ideas.. because the very notion that there are legitimate, serious and intelligent criticisms to be made of modern feminism and of the current Western culture is verboten. Any such notion is simply dead on arrival and will not even be considered. Most of the journalists and media elite in the West are feminist and liberal to their core, and have no interest in understanding any other points of view. They believe in their feminist views like it is a religion.. and they believe they’re on the right side of history. Everyone else is simply “misguided” or misogynistic. In their eyes, feminism is progress, the West is on a linear trajectory of social progress, and the rest of the world needs to adopts it feminist, sexually empowered, liberal ways.. .and it’s only a matter of time before this happens.

      1. “Most of the journalists and media elite in the West are feminist and liberal to their core, and have no interest in understanding any other points of view. ”
        If things are to change, then they must be brought down by any means necessary and understand that men do not have any interest in the bullshit the media is selling.
        Question: “Are the mass media interested in the objective crystal-clear truth, or simply trying to fill their covert agendas for profit by any means? Who are they profiting from, and who do they benefit? Who do they want to control? What is their real purpose?”

  4. O/T somewhat.. but has anyone else seen this yet?
    Behold the glory of sexual liberation and feminism in the West:
    Someone on Return of Kings should write a good column on this and dissect this piece. It seems to validate everything the manosphere says about female sexual liberation and the current hook-up culture. Most of the women in it don’t really seem to be even enjoying the sex.. and seem to be truly getting damaged. The men aren’t forming intimate bonds or having relationships either.. but at least they seem to be enjoying the sex .. or at least, enjoying the idea of sexual conquests, of getting lots of notches and bedding lots of attractive young women. This is a kind of accomplishment for men.. in a way it just isn’t for women, who just feel used and feel like fuckdolls. The funny part of the article is the author’s rationalization hamster working in overdrive trying to deny what seems to be fairly obvious, i..e, that women aren’t men, and aren’t really built to enjoy casual sex and hook ups in the same way that men are:
    “Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when
    something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go,
    ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a
    pervasive double standard. We need to puzzle out why women have made
    more strides in the public arena than in the private arena.”
    “puzzle out why women have made more strides in the public arena than in the private arena ”
    LO fucking L. It’s called fucking biological reality and differences between men and women, the different sexual imperatives of men and women that are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and not simply the product of socialization and culture. But feminists and liberals.. do keep pushing female sexual liberation and hook-up culture as “empowering” despite all the damage it’s doing to women, and to men and the society at large for that matter.

    1. Ugh,,,add “uses Tinder” to my list of things that disqualify a girl.
      Women have made more strides in the public arena because of a huge apparatus in place to tilt things in their favor, mainly put in place by white men.

      1. Dude, it’s 2015. Every girl is on Tinder these days.. even the so called “good girls.”
        This is our reality now. Whores, all whores.

      2. Any girl that is on Tinder is nothing more than a fuck doll to me. I could also never date a girl that was obsessed with social media.. definite deal breaker. Of course, I fully realise that is 99% of chicks but why should I value garbage? How can I possibly respect a girl who attention whores and gets fucked and chucked on Tinder???

  5. I am wondering why NO one has mentioned the fact that “the Establishment” is historically right wing? The accusations you make against the left are the same accusations that the left has been making against the conservative right. Now, as a recovering socialist feminist, I’m very interested in your movement and its emerging ideology concerning gender and its notions on masculinity and femininity. Having said that, I simply want to caution not to alienate supporters by adopting perimeters that are too narrow in this crucial stage.

    1. “Now, as a recovering socialist feminist”
      Interesting.. can I ask what exactly was the impetus that made you move from a socialist feminist to this point.. where you at least seem interested in listening and perhaps even accepting some of the anti-feminist ideas and notions about masculinity and femininity ?
      You’re right the “Establishment” has historically been right wing.. although I would use the term “conservative” over right-wing. Elites and “establishments” have always been conservative.. and always slow to change.. for better or worse. I would say in the 1950s and 60s, most of the establishment and media was fairly conservative and not particularly open to feminism.. but that has changed radically. Feminism and liberalism have now become the accepted truths and norms.. and the current Establishment is thoroughly feminist and liberal.. and any movement or people challenging those views are considered “radical” and dangerous. The current Establishment is conservative as always.. in that it is simply unable to accept any challenge to the doctrines like feminism that have been considered truths for decades now.

      1. I’m sorry to say that I was crushed against reality when trying to reform gender roles based solely on economic factors while trying to ignore history and biology. I became the primary bread winner in my household and thought that a feminist approach would make things work but my “alpha” partner was not having it and basically I had to rethink this whole issue and start anew after our family unit collapsed. Now I know that men and women are not equal. We are both equally valuable and necessary but we possess very different qualities. We compliment each other more than we know and we definately should not be competing against each other.

        1. I totally agree with this. I see so many relationships now that are merely competitions. It reminds me of a great Napoleon quote. “If you find yourself in a defensive battle, then the only possible outcome, is surrender”. Once a partner has achieved surrender from another then things get really really bad. Society suffers from it.

        2. Thanks for your response.
          “I became the primary bread winner in my household and thought that a feminist approach would make things work but my “alpha” partner was not having it and basically I had to rethink this whole issue and start anew after our family unit collapsed.”
          Can you clarify or elaborate on this a bit more? So at the time you were a feminist. .but you still somehow ended up with an “alpha” husband? That seems like a contradiction.. although perhaps maybe not.. given feminists pretend they want emasculated, feminist men.. but seem to spread their legs open for the masculine, athletic, alpha men.
          I think your experiences are important enough and can be learned from…. and more men and women need to understand that despite the feminist belief that women can be the primary bread winners, it really doesn’t work in reality. Women grow to resent men who aren’t bringing as much to the table as they are.. and lose sexual attraction to men they have to support. This is not the case with men.. who for the most part, don’t mind and even like being the primary bread winner.
          So what happened in your case exactly? Did you grow to resent your husband because you were the primary bread winner? Or he felt emasculated because of that? How did you end up becoming the primary breadwinner to begin with? You just had a more well-paying and high income job/career compared to him? Did you end up getting divorced as a result of all this?

        3. Yes sure, maybe if my ex would’ve been a white knight beta boy things might’ve been different. But I was never sexually attracted to beta males. So he never felt comfortable taking care of domestic affairs and I think we both began resenting each other. But the media and the mainstream culture were telling us that it was possible to reverse the roles and have a healthy relationship. B. S. Just because our economic reality has changed doesn’t mean anything else has, will, or ought to without thinking about its effects.

    2. And once upon a time the Mafia was a group that sought only to protect Italian immigrants from crime. MS-13 formed to protect Central American immigrants from Mexican gangs. Biker gangs were simply ex WW2 soldiers wanting to meet and gather and feel camaraderie again. Things change, and because they change does not mean its for the best. The left has gotten out of control and drunk on power. It is a disease that has spread like wildfire all thru the western world since the ending of WW2. The left of the 60s would be near Conservative like today. Modern times it is a sick, cultural marxist regime bent on destroying any fabric that made the West great. It is filled to the brim with people with social, sexual, mental disorders and resentment towards anyone who has what they truly want. We are simply in the early stages of resistance.

    3. I respect the fact that as a former socialist and feminist you’re willing to objectively listen to the points of view on here. I used to believe that socialism and feminism were the right way growing up, I was never heavily involved in either movement I just believed the media and people who told me it was the right way. Gradually as I got older I could see the hypocrisy in those movements and how their views didn’t match up with reality.

      1. I think it’s promising that more in our generation are starting to question things instead of acting like children and joining movements just to fulfill a human need to belong, a sense of identity and community without fully understanding who they are and what the movement is really about.

        1. People are but most people in society still follow what they’re told. Feminism and so called progressive left politics are the new state religion and political correctness is how it’s enforeced.

    4. A friend of Bill Ayers is sitting in the White House– the extreme left are the Establishment. If you want to kill time, run through the names of the Adminstration and what bios they have.
      How far along are you on your “recovery.”

  6. From today on I can’t read and comment as much I used to, because I’ve just started studying. But I will continue to do it in a lesser way and will continue to support our cause. Cheers to Roosh, to his staff and to the readers.

  7. Thank you for “enriching” us all “roosh”. I wonder if your home country would enjoy your message as much as they do in the civilized world?

Comments are closed.