Neomasculine Dialogue: “A New Beginning”

The following dialogue took place between myself (RV) and Quintus Curtius (QC) on May 28, 2015.

RV:

For an idea that is less than three months old, neomasculinity is getting a lot of exposure, and some of it has been quite heated, with even conspiratorial accusations levied against it. I did not expect such emotions.

QC:

Men commonly react with hostility to things that challenge their preconceptions. The congregation enjoys being berated, but less often enjoys being reformed. Meaningful doctrines are rarely built by committees or by the consensus of many; rather, they flow as output from the creative individual. We do not construct our worldviews around the opinions of the masses, but rather out of a consideration of the laws of history. The provenance of speculative thought is not to be found in the herd.

I found it amusing to hear the complaint that we were not advocating something “original.” What a strange statement! In the ethical and moral realms, very little is new except arrangement. Only a fool or a lunatic is completely original. And why is this? It is because it is difficult to be completely original without also being wrong. What has been proven true by experience also shows what is demonstrably false. The originality is found in the presentation of old ideas to new audiences, and this is something that requires skill. The originality of neomasculinity lies in the fact that it is both “progressive” and “retrogressive”: it looks back in time for the principles that have endowed men with worldly greatness, and at the same time, it looks forward to adapt those principles to the needs of the modern man.

The neomasculist ethic is the offspring of both old and new: the old elements are the traditional virtues of the past, such as stoicism, the acceptance of struggle, advanced problem solving, breaking through barriers, and the submerging of the identity in the idealistic pursuit of a goal. The new elements are simply the flexible, tactical means of achieving these traditional goals. And yet at heart it remains a corrective movement, in the sense that it seeks to restore a proper balance to a wildly unbalanced state of affairs.

RV:

While you would hate to see firm attacks against an idea you know is an improvement, it would be even more strange if there was no criticism at all. If something you introduced did not rouse the emotions of at least some men, that suggests you were taking a safe step to the side instead of one step forward, for it’s forward movement that causes anxiety. It is not always pleasant to think of the future and the changes that are coming.

I see two big problems with the existing groups. The first is that they are unable to see beyond the tips of their noses. They usually have a firm grasp on the problems of today, but are not looking ahead, not even one year into the future. How quickly people forget the changes we have endured in the past ten years! But of course you would have to be thinking carefully of those problems for the past ten years, and based on that, make reasonable predictions of what will happen in the next ten. Existing groups were essentially ad-hoc, created spontaneously by the crowd with no defined purpose and no elders to navigate through the combustive cultural changes we’re experiencing. I fail to see how they can adapt.

The second problem I noticed is that they don’t give solutions that are sustainable. Game is an individual solution that will see less long-term benefits if the quality of women keep declining. Not only are you competing with more game-aware men, but you are competing for women who are getting more obese and deranged and seem to be more interested in virtual living through their smartphones than meeting decent men. Even expatriating is seeing less effectiveness as second and third-world countries become more Westernized.

Game and self-improvement is the individual solution, but without societal solutions that can also be applied, or solutions that are directly applied to women themselves, the decline will be so rapid that within only five years we may find ourselves in a situation where it will be difficult for men to improve their lot.

QC:

Virtuous men are those who take positive action to solve problems. They do not hide from the responsibilities of life behind a protective embankment of negativity.

Diagnosis is one-half of action; the other half is the cure. To go beyond merely identifying the ills of society, to hammering out a comprehensive individual solution: herein lies the great advance of neomasculinity over other systems of thought. It is sometimes necessary to robe old truths in contemporary garments, so that they may be more readily acceptable to men who do not have the leisure or inclination for speculative thought.

And I agree with your point about Westernization happening on a global scale. It is proceeding apace even now; soon it will be necessary for every man to arm himself with some form of neomasculine principles simply in order to maintain his sanity.

An unmoored generation finds itself caught in the turbulent interval between the collapse of the old world, and the advent of the new; the previous generations resigned themselves to corruption and luxury, and failed in their duty to protect the culture from the inroads of barbarism. Our ideas will become part of the new world which is currently taking shape. By helping create a cadre of men imbued with proper ways of thinking and conduct, we will be able to shape our environment. We aim to banish feelings of powerlessness, and inculcate in men a spirit of positive action.

RV:

You said that our ideas will become a part of the new world, but is this too optimistic? There is a part of me that is reluctant to cling onto hope, and while I wouldn’t be embarking on this new path if I didn’t have at least some hope that we can make the future better, lately I’m finding myself having to close my eyes and ears to the daily degradations the enemy is levying on our society.

Every day I can point out two news stories. The first shows us making one step forward, where someone, somewhere, unexpectedly resists the tide, and then the next story arrives and it’s three steps backwards. All progress wiped out. Just the other day I read a story out of New York where two men were arrested on the subway for having their legs too far open, which just a couple months ago was the latest feminist attempt to criminalize male behavior. Two men were legally punished for a trifling feminist cause, and this is disheartening.

But I will say that even if you told me there is no hope, and that we will only change one male life, I wouldn’t stop teaching the cure that is needed, because unlike so many other men, I can’t “enjoy” the decline. I can’t enjoy a city or a woman with the knowledge that in a short time this enjoyment will become impossible. In that case it may be better not to enjoy it at all.

Fighting is the only option, until the very end. With neomasculinity we must put forward the solutions, as intelligently and clearly as we can and then pray for a little good fortune that the wind will fill our sails and move our boat through turbulent waves to affect the world in a way that merely doing nothing does not.

QC:

Yes, this is well and truly said. It is understandable, and perhaps forgivable, that many of our brothers see a voluntary withdrawal from society as almost the only rational course. And no doubt, those looking for daily examples of injustice can find them all too easily. They are all around us: evil is of old date, and multiplies with geometric fury. Yet defeatism is unbecoming of a man.

History is replete with examples of minorities acting, against unfavorable odds, as the catalysts for positive change. The truth cannot be denied forever: an edifice built on a foundation of sand must, sooner or later, obey the inescapable laws of historical gravity. Remember that the greatest mass movements in history were begun by a conviction born of blind faith, supported by the winds and currents of fortune. We go the way that our convictions take us, and adopt the assurance born of instinct. Even modest success can be achieved just by showing men that there is an explanation for their predicament, and a prescription for their health.

And as you say, some men are constitutionally incapable of kow-towing to what they know to be lies and hypocrisy. At some point, a stand must be taken; at some point, lines must be drawn in the sand, or else there will be nothing left to defend. We also know—if I can paraphrase a famous Churchill quote here—groups that go down without a fight never rise again; and those groups which exert their zealous energies to advance their causes always rise again.

Positive labor in the service of a noble ideal is never wasted. There is always something that can be done, and there is always one more thing left to do. We refuse to abdicate our responsibility to preserve the ethics and culture of our civilizational heritage. We will not let their lies and corruptions go unchallenged. Certain things we cannot accept, and will never accept.

RV:

The balance, I believe, is to propose the big solutions for the future while teaching men the individual solutions for the present, because if we were to be honest, it’s highly unlikely that all our present problems will be pleasantly and smoothly resolved within our lifetimes. Judging from my travels through Europe, we still have a way to go before the bottom is hit.

For men who want to start a family, there is a clock working against them, so sitting and waiting is not acceptable. We must help these men figure out how to realize their needs. At the same time, there are younger men who are filled with testosterone and cannot be bothered to think in terms of family. Instead, they want to fornicate to relieve a sex urge that, if not fulfilled, can be debilitating to a man’s normal functioning.

While it will be far easier to help the vigorous man than the one who has passed his sexual peak, they will both be served by neomasculinity. A reader may see a contradiction of using game to serve the young man while advocating for tradition on the older, and how game, when applied for ego gratification or entertainment, can be corrupting, but it must be understood that in the modern era, the man without serious game practice won’t even be able to find and keep a woman to create a family with. Game is the big metal gate through which men must pass to experience what their fathers and grandfathers so easily did.

We may have to segment men based on the stages of life they are in, the “young” neomasculist who seeks practical advice to improve his life, and the “old” neomasculist who seeks deeper meaning and understanding. It seems to me that serving the young will be far easier than the old.

QC:

Every stage of a man’s life will be adequately served by the neomasculist core principles. Every man will project on to these principles that which serves him best. For just as children born from the same parents may acquire different looks and mannerisms, so too does each person contain within him perennial movements of the passions, and individual qualities, that may make him emphasize one point of neomasculist doctrine over another.

Especially important for us is to ground our doctrines on actual experience. Francis Bacon warned us that error can arise from three sources: “idols of the tribe” (fallacies common to all men), “idols of the cave” (shortcomings in an individual man), and “idols of the market-place” (errors that arise from a man’s interactions with others). In your neomasculinity article, you were careful to derive each principle not from theory, but from actual practice. I believe this is important.

What is also important is that now, at least, we have a comprehensive guide that offers a realistic alternative to what is presented to us by the mass media. At least now there is a program of action, however imperfect it may be. Even the most intrepid travelers need a guide. Our goal, I think, should be that neither worldly cares, journeys, or ill health should ever hinder us from practicing these principles. Success in these matters seems to come more from diligent practice and study, than from an inheritance from Nature.

What, may I ask, do you find to be the most encouraging signs you now see, as far as the popular culture is concerned?

RV:

The main encouraging sign I see is that the establishment has lost its stranglehold upon their controlled bullhorn. The fact that our dialogue will be read by thousands of men within a month of its publication is proof that “dangerous” ideas can quickly, efficiently, and cheaply find the minds of men who value them. If the establishment was still the sole gatekeeper to media publishing like they were before the internet, our reach could only be locally based, perhaps within a small men’s club, but now it’s global. This tells me that the internet, for all of its disruptive influence, is the main tool we have in exposing corruption and lies, and without it this conversation may not have even taken place.

The upside leads to an immediate downside: we’re not the only ones releasing ideas. With so much media content being published by both the establishment and independent creators, there is tough competition to grab a person’s attention in the face of unlimited options, and the fact that we’ve already been attacked shows that other groups don’t want us speaking to their existing followers. This means that, ironically, we’ll at some point have to mimic media establishment tactics to create more appealing offerings that make us more like them. When men encounter an article or video on the internet, they make a snap judgement on its presentation, and if that judgement says “amateur quality” then we have lost a key opportunity.

While it’s tempting to jump into things with big plans, I’m certain we should move slowly. For every idea we put out there, we must listen to men and see what their thoughts and concerns about it are. Yet there still has to be some friction to what we’re presenting, because only through conflict and debate can the right ideas and arguments rise to the top, and have them last for generations.

QC:

This is most certainly true. It seems to me that a suitable analogy can be found in how the muscular contractions of the human heart push oxygenated blood through the body. This systole and diastole of debate over ideas will act to circulate neomasculist doctrines within the collective body of our readership, in the same way that the beating of the heart circulates blood in the human body.

And with regard to ideas, yes, what is unfamiliar requires time to assimilate. Experience and time will reveal what is acceptable and useful, and what is not.

What is most important is that men remain steady and confident in the face of the great external challenges that are almost daily imposed on them. They must remember that they are the bearers of a great tradition, and the inheritors of an esteemed mantle. Man was created for great things, and he must make his way in reliance on this fact. We should be mindful of Cicero’s words in his treatise “On Laws” (I.7.22): “The animal we call man, who has foresight, wisdom, perspicacity, sharpness, memory, and a bounty of reason and counsel, was created by the supreme deity for a supreme position. Of all the living beings in nature, he is the only one who partakes of nature’s reason.”

This to me conveys our responsibility admirably. I know of nothing that has as much power to console as the contemplation of this idea.

RV:

While it will be hard to remain steady in the face of rapid change never before seen in the history of humanity, let us now do our best to provide the guidance and knowledge that men need to survive these times. I hope we retain both the strength and energy to improve the lives of men for decades to come.

This dialogue was originally published on RooshV.com.

Visit Next: Poznan Institute – The Official Home Of Neomasculinity

103 thoughts on “Neomasculine Dialogue: “A New Beginning””

        1. the issue is that if many of these millenials had their way sites with ‘offensive’ opinions such as ROK could be in danger of being shut down. It sounds as though you are supporting government censorship based on ‘offensiveness’. You should make your position clear if that isn’t the case

        2. He muddles about in ambiguity for a purpose, namely, plausible deniability. So far as I can fathom he’s a leftist millenial who is likely a faggot and is intent on trolling this site to promote his degeneracy.

        1. Well, we know where you come from. Now we just need to hear the actual country. In Africa is it? Or Southeast Asia?

        1. So what? You’ve never had freedom to say anything you want in any society. It’s called being tactful in your speech for a reason.

        2. Someday dear, I hope you get the world you long for. I guarantee you will never make it out alive. LOL
          GO ahead, use one of your thee typical comebacks. You sad, pathetic little troll.

        3. Technically in this one, we do. If this is restricted it any society, it impedes the free flow of ideas and knowledge.

        1. You flirting? o.O I’m gonna let you know RIGHT NOW, I only go for WOMEN, dear. You’ll find your own true love, eventually.

      1. And 40% is still a minority, but a sizeable one nonetheless. Of course., take away Facebook and Instagram too, let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

        1. Same with pro sports. If the players go on strike, like they almost did back in 11, other than the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the local Cowboy fans, my reaction would be, meh. And Facebook, well, I can finally approach a girl without startling her because she’s too damn glued to her phone. Oh 90s, how I yearn for thee!

    1. 100% of me and my family think that they have no chance to censor us, given as we all have and practice with firearms.

      1. “100% of me and my family think that they have no chance to censor us, given as we all have and practice with firearms.”
        All well and good until you can’t buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast. Firearms would only be useful for a robbery or killing spree.

        1. Call me old-fashioned but I think it would be prudent to learn other forms of weaponry in addition to the use of firearms. I train in Kali sticks and knives and have thought about taking up some archery as well. Like you said, they can make guns/ammo nearly unattainable, but if you can make your own weaponry, it doesn’t become as crippling.

        2. Check out the guy who 3-D printed his own weapon. If yo are not learning electrical and electronic/computer theory, you might as well be living in the stone age.

      2. That is your last protection actually. What really protects you is Free Speech, and Freedom of Association. They are literally caught with their own words. Both of these rights work in tandem two fold.
        On one hand, they give the chance for sanity to shine. On the other, thy give the chance for insanity to out itself. In both cases, and especially in-conjunction with one another, they are able to be defeated by insanity. But insanity will likely get a Pyrrhic victory in the process, after thoroughly outing itself for the crap it is.
        Even if the founders did not mean it to be such genius. It certainly is. Backed up by gun rights, it makes the American people not impossible to defeat. But damn near impossible.
        In order to take us down, it is a long, hard fought road. Where you can’t help but be outed. TO take us and our Bill of Rights down, you would have to be one uber bad ass.

  1. It’s quite simple; the most revolutionary thing you can do today is not be a fag. Turn off the Talmudvision. Exercise daily; cardio and weights.
    The elites desperately want an emasculated man, because an emasculated man is a woman and women are easy to rule over. Emasculated men are cucks. They desire to have their country flooded with foreigners, and have their women and property taken from them.

    1. “the most revolutionary thing you can do today is not be a fag’ – – – quite the contrary. It is more revolutionary for men to NOT be afraid of loving men OR be mistaken to LOVE MEN! Notice, when a woman wants control of you, she will attack your sexuality? Women loving women is a-okay, yet when MEN start to love other men, or have their RESPECT of other men be interpreted as “Gay Love,” then the State AND women start attacking MALE SEXUALITY!

      1. Funny, as in our last dialogue, you accused me an everyone who thinks you a moron of homosexuality. I guess this is reverse psychology no? Or merely you trying to flirt with us? Or I suppose you are one of those “straight guys who have sex with other men.”
        I take it you are mistaken for loving men a lot. But hey, if you are in reality, I won’t judge. Maybe you can use what you learn here to “be a more masculine straight guy who dates other men.”
        If anyone wants to see this genius’s reaction, you can read the comments in this piece: http://www.returnofkings.com/73993/3-things-which-worry-leftists-more-than-global-jihad
        to see Ross’s “revolutionary” vision in action. This dude is a serious troll.

        1. Did you even comprehend what I wrote, dear? Seriously! Why you stalking me. I told you before, I prefer WOMEN! I have NO issue with dudes that wanna love other dudes, if that’s your choice, just back off when a dude says he ain’t into you. ^_^

        2. Since we can expect nothing but useless drivel punctuated liberally with “dear” and not-so-clever use of caps-lock from it, the best course of action is to not feed it and instead ignore it. Flag it and eventually the moderators will ban it, along with the rest of the liberal left trash that posts here.

        3. Seriously, like OMG! You’re such a big stud. How can even us totally straight guys resist your superior masculinity. I mean seriously, like, I have never been more attracted to a literary one trick pony when it comes to insults.
          I can’t wait to go back to your mother’s mud hut basement, that surprisingly has internet (ol’girl must still get a lot of sex tourism work), and have totally straight sex. You got me……dear.
          LMAO. You’re really sad. I think you are in the wrong universe.

        1. Did you even read what I wrote, dear? Or are you trying to validate this part of my comment? “… or have their RESPECT of other men be interpreted as “Gay Love,” then the State AND women start attacking MALE SEXUALITY!” If you missed this part with your “Gay” response, it means you have a condition reflex put in by women and the State to attack another man’s sexuality out of fear.

        2. I can see both viewpoints, we should be more relaxed around other men, and not constantly have our ego up at all times so we can bond, but females in the workplace make it more difficult to do that kind of stuff. So every guy has to keep his ID shielded by his ego at all times because chicks make a guy subconsciously compete more for them.My theory is, if we started removing women from workplaces, and got rid if EOE bullshit guys could have a sense if comradrie(sp?) again and not have the biological drive to be competing against one another in the workspaces for the wrong reasons…But that’s just an idea

      2. There’s a big difference between between the love you would feel for your father and the kind of love that would happen in homosexual pseudo-marriage.

      3. It’s called biology. Historically, polygamy was the norm. Every man who procreated did it on average with two women. Evolution took care of the rest.

      4. nope, the revolutionnary thing is to deny the okayness of women loving women and for those who does it, stop fapping to those bi lesbian stuff.

      5. Ross is right. We must love and respect each other for the very reasons he stated.
        As long as we are divided against each other, We can not unite together against the enemy.
        My good friend, Justin, and I have been friends for 25 years. We’ve partied and fought. Laughed and thought. Talked about women and talked shit on bitchy men. Through all the thick and thin, our bond has grown so strong that brainwashed faggots mistake us for homosexuals despite us both having children and success with bedding women.
        He is my brother.

    2. Why would the Jews fear a country now better known for animated pornography that Japan’s youth jack off to?

      1. Absolutely agree with this. De-mystify our
        musical heritage, it is magnificent and wondrous.

        1. One of the most unfortunate victories of the Left has been the redefinition of the term “art.” Nowadays, every rapper and third rate pop singer are artists, and every feminist who menstruates in public is an artist, but the real artists who create images and sounds that will be enjoyed for centuries are derided as oppressors.
          If you don’t already listen and donate to kusc.org, please start. It is a way you can help preserve real culture. You can stream classical music on your computer 24 hours a day.

        2. Yes, the “art” thing is ludicrous.
          Thank you for the link, I will add it to my list. Our family is quite fond of Baroque and earlier.

        3. You’re welcome! If you like early music, you should seek out works produced by Jordi Savall. He’s put out numerous high quality recordings of Baroque, Renaissance, and Medieval music over the years, both secular and sacred, and on period instruments. He’s basically the superstar of pre-classical era European music.

        4. Its amazing that the voice of vladimir miller is not known throughout the world, this one always gives me goosebumps:

        5. leftism and modern art are correlated. Both are expression of mediocrity : the first is mediocrity of men who have lost the sense of real masculinity, the second the mediocrity of people who lack real talent and do shit to express their feelings.

      2. They can’t defeat what they are too stupid to comprehend. Yet, in their hallowed halls of academia and diversity, hehe, they have people teaching the basics of this to everyone. You can’t destroy a seed after it has grown into a forest. It will produce so many seeds, planted in so many places, that it is a moot endeavor. You can change the landscape, maybe even change the nature of the trees.
        But the forest remains. It regrows. And eventually, like the ocean to beaches, wears you away.

        1. It really depends what you’re going for. I had the same opinion until I begin wrestling. Cardio gives the endurance you need to wrestle for more than a minute. While for pure bulking I suppose it’s less important.

        1. Platoon, Wall Street… and now….
          I’ve had a lot of childhood heroes but never have I been so deeply disappointed in one.

    3. Damn dude. As a vet, with grand parents and great uncles that fought those mother fuckers in both theaters including on ships, tanks, and in the air; your stance disappoints me. I will never support the Nazi cause. Ever.
      I am pretty sure I can find masculinity without hating anyone. My Christian beliefs shield me from Islam. My masculinity shields me from idiots and feminists. Like “Ross.” And my experience with the red pill helps me to clarify the difference as necessary.
      Desperately clinging to a defeated ideology that is just as bad as what you claim to hate is not something I find efficient. Even if Jews are as bad as you say. Or Islam, or whatever, hatred is a harsh task master!
      It is like having a proverbial monkey on your back that beats the shit out of you when ever you displease it. Hatred eventually makes you a spitting image of what you start to hate with.
      Anger is easy. Apathy is longer lasting. Contentment in all situations in almost impossible to crack. There is no pure race! Never has been. Never will be.
      Going after any race in order to preserve your own is to misidentify what your race is. I’m called white, but have Native Indian ancestry. Basically, I descend from a long line of successful fuckers. LOL
      Who am I to say anything other than thank you for ram rodding the vag they did?
      My sons are half black, and South Asian. If I ever have a totally white kid, it will be because I cheated, got divorced, or became a polygamist. My sons possess my strength. And the strengths of their other parts.
      It is up to me to make them stronger than the sum of their parts. The race does not have as much to do with it.
      The assumption that because whites have dominated for two thousand years is proof positive of superiority is I think a weak argument. What goes up, invariably comes down. Besides, the white Italians of Ancient Rome don’t exist anymore. The whites of Ancient Greece were largely fucked out of existence.
      It can be shown that though different, intact families of other races produce worthy offspring. It is as much nature, as it is nurture.
      I’m pretty sure that even if white pussy is your preferred choice, you have seen plenty of different flavors you would want to try if you have not already.

  2. Just an idea.. sometimes I get tired of reading long articles here. This would have been great as an audio chat. I also enjoy your youtube uploads, even though I only watch them when posted here.
    I am far more thoughtful in print and given time to ponder an answer than I am in on-the-spot interviews, so I understand the decision to use written format. I will read this at some point…

  3. neo-masculinity as an idea is still cohering perhaps. It’s a nice potentially descriptive term that can perhaps gather together what people here, and hopefully more broadly in the manosphere may be talking about and engaging in, but it’s probably worth not defining it too much unless you clearly want to distinguish the term / movement from alternatives. Ideally it would be more rather than less inclusive of men trying to position themselves within the tumult of the progressive onslaught. For myself I’m still getting to grips with the term, in terms of how to, and when to use it. Maybe its best as ‘background’ theory, than thrust too far forward just yet.

    1. It is the dagger used infrequently when you wield the rapier. When you use it, it is deadly.

  4. Masculine, independent men are a huge threat to the economies of the West, which are built on consumer shit, debt (spent on consumer shit), and high taxes (and debt again) that are used to fund a female dominated public sector. Plus factor divorce rape, bullshit college degrees in victim studies, etc etc
    If men stop being slaves to this shit then the economic bubble bursts.
    That’s why very few in power speak of this subject

    1. The media, consumerism, and handouts are a way to keep men fat, distracted, and docile.
      “Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things–bread and circuses.”

    2. Yes the bubble will bust like a pressurized boil full of pus. The west has mortgaged itself up to the eyeballs to cage itself within a grid of mindless entertainment, flimsy products, slow kill trough diet, spyphone culture and dysfunctional communication which is policed. The place is like a zoo, a moonbounce entrapment full of three year olds screaming. Only in the west, they aren’t three year olds, they’re actually the WOMEN of the west ungagged exclusively to howl in a cacophonic chorus and blast one another with their soapboxes. It will end soon. The party will be over. In a disposable society where everything is engineered to break, the greater encompassing bubble too will break. It will blow and speuke out its puss once and for all . . and soon.

  5. I liked the conversational flow. It did not appear like you were trying to out-word, or thesaurus each other at all. That said, had I not known either of you by reputation, I would accuse you of such.
    Yet it was enjoyable to read, albeit a little lengthy.
    The ideal is not new, but a renewed “novel concept.” Men hate changing themselves, but love to change others. A neocon, if that is indeed the new term, will be an interesting movement to watch. But I think it is too retrogressive for some, and too progressive for the others.
    Whether it sticks after being thrown on the wall should be fun to watch.

  6. “We (Greeks) are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes and we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness” – Thucydides, 460-404BC search the past

      1. They coined the term yes, but they also renounced it later on. Reading some of your comments I can tell that you are a troll who is sexually stunted

        1. Eh, you got that one right. I remember my Greek friends getting mad when I laughingly brought it up. They told me that the ancient Greeks called them “kinothos” (I think, it’s been eight years since I left) meaning “same in the community.” I think anyways.
          In other words, like now, it was the elite that tried their hand at all sorts of insane crap. Like our elites here in the states do, and demand we all partake of. But the average Greek, like the average American now, did without such nonsense.

  7. Beware of subtle signs of deception in any movement and it’s leaders. Even this one, particularly if neomasculinity goes mainstream. It pays for the individual to keep a watchful eye on where the information is coming from an who is controlling the narrative. The Hegellian dialectic is in full effect and seeking pliable minds to lead astray.
    I am a loyal fan of ROK and have been for some time, but every man has his price. Once organizations or movements get large enough, they will undoubtedly attract the attention of the elites who will want to mold the narrative to their liking. Keep up the good work ROK, but if you guys pull a 180, your readers will smell it a mile away and will bail.

  8. As others on here have commented, I too agree the dialogue format is a careful and well thought way to mould principle. The dialogue read like an exchange of essays, unlike a typical hotseat debate with quick hammer points and a battle of minds. It was a better read than a debate between opponents. The dialogue also was unlike the typical quorum or congress of grandstanding followed by vote. The dialogue was two minds in agreement to pursue the best solution to move foreward. I wonder how long the discussion took to write both ways and then polish into a final statement to leave in stone?
    The manosphere, neo masculinity, a revival and thirst to rediscover the spirit of patriarchy is organic and will grow in leaps and bounds but don’t count on growth being uniform and predictable. Unforeseen tests will litter the scape. The demise of the west seems slow and planned, like a timed euthanasia, but its resurrection will be explosive at times. A characteristic of life itself is that it introduces itself from the ether with an awakening boom. What is good vs what is negative course for man is best modeled after what would be righteous vs blasphemous in the eyes or in the reign of a patriarchal creator.

  9. Very beautiful. powerful voice.
    Jussi Björling is indeed a legend (im from the same city as him) and probably the best tenor of the twentieth century, i guess thats subjective but when luciano pavarotti whas asked who his greatest inspiration was he replied: “every opera im about to sing i first listen to jussi and try to emulate him but i dont compare myself to him, im only but human.
    Also listen to him singing some swedish songs. “ack värmeland du sköna” is an old folk song that is very beautiful, also listen to “tonerna”.

  10. Example as to what you speak is perfect in the movie I watched the other night. Hopelessly plot mistaken and replete with unbelievablee timeline errors. It is a movie with a great idea that im sure could have been better. The postman with Kevin Costner.
    In a post-apocalyptic world a man discovers a bag of undelivered mail. He steals the corpses’ post office suit take the bag of mail and starts delivering it small towns in Oregon. He said to a man that insisted to take the postman’s oath that only a postman can oath in another postman.
    By the time people were dying for his cause and believe that he was a true postman of a new United States, he disbanded the movement. Only to find the postman’s that he had given oath, had already oathed in hundreds of others and there was no stopping the movement. For he had created an idea to believe in. This is something that cannot be killed even if you two were to end this site and call on it’s end.

  11. Why the quote from Francis Bacon? That pig of a man wrote “The New Atlantis” the model for the godless, heathen, new age, satanic new world order. Many of the elite used this Including the Rockefeller’s. And what did they create? Oh yea… Feminism

  12. The difficult thing is to harvest the best traditional principles of various religions without advocating any particular religion, as norms not rooted in ancient mythology tend not to stick. For instance, I would like to marry several women and have them not leave the house without covering themselves or without being escorted by a male relative, but I would never wish to be a Muslim.

  13. good article. Roosh is onto something. I do think he is onto something. Most people hate the feminazis. Our victory would already be total in the trollos-sphere if leftist sites did not constantly censor. I am no longer allowed to post on Mother Jones. Media Matter, Alternet, or Raw Story. Left can only hold on by censorship.
    In all cases, I presented ideas others found offensive but refrained from insulting anyone with obsenities, even though the obsenities were tolerated by moderators when it was the PC crowd railing against my own ideas.
    Even on their own progpagnada sites they lose the battle of ideas and have to censor. Cultural libertarians do not require safe spaces and can hold their own in the battle of ideas much better.
    Sites like Breitbart and Infowars only censor for things like threats and obsenity.Left constantly censors. Which shows that the enemy is weak and has no honor.

  14. One point that needs clarification is the apparent dichotomy between evolution and spirituality. My view of neomasculinity does not embrace evolution as a dogma unto itself rooted in ontological naturalism. On the other hand, young earth creationists seem plain whacky to me. Rather, what we have is a universe that is going on its merry way, and humans had to grow into the form that we have now so that we can embrace the bigger picture.
    .
    A lot of atheists have taken the red pill, but they have not thought things through. Roosh is a scientist by training and seems to believe in various aspects of evolutionary theory. However, the greater question about why we are here and what to do about it is rooted in spirituality. Hume and his is-ought problem pointed this out: you can find no point to any of this, no purpose or meaning in your life through empiricism. Purpose, meaning and morality can only be found through something beyond the physical – literally, metaphysics.

  15. Thanks for this; whatever hesitations and uncertainties I had about the concept of Neomasculinity (chiefly, knowing your conception of it, and what was “neo” about it), this cleared right up. It was gratifying to hear, as the interchange went on, exactly the kind of point and counterpoint that had played out in my own mind.

  16. The provenance of speculative thought is not to be found in the herd.
    There’s the reason mass democracy is a slow moving train wreck

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *