3 Important Lessons I Learned About Civilization From Living In A Hippie Commune

Every year, over 15,000 hippies flock to a national forest and set up an entire civilization for 2 weeks. This is known as the “Rainbow Gathering.” They walk into the middle of a national forest, dozens of miles away from civilization, and just start building. Kitchens, water supplies, shit houses, tents—they build everything out of the logs and trees in the forest, nothing is wasted. Even an economy emerges based off of the bartering system.

I had known about this event for quite some time, and had always wanted to go. Not because I aspired to be a wandering vagabond, but because I thought it would be interesting to see how civilizations are built, how the bureaucracy evolves, and how human nature plays a role in all of this.

I wanted to get a taste of what it was like for the English settlers to found America. I wanted to see how the women acted, what would happen to gender roles, what the legal system, medical system, and leadership system would look like.

The only problem was that you can only gain access to the gathering if you know somebody, who knows somebody, who knows somebody, all the way back to the “Grand Elders” who determine its location (it changes every year). They do this to keep the “weirdos” or “sociopaths” out, lest they take advantage of anyone.

Fortunately for me, I found someone who had this connection. I ran into this cute little hippie girl that I hadn’t seen in years—we talked for a while, and I found out that she was going to Rainbow Gathering. I told her that I’d always wanted to go, and she invited me along.

Over the course of a week, I helped to build a miniature civilization. I cooperated with the medics, the local park rangers, I helped build the kitchens, and I had my fair share of bonfire parties as well. I saw what the women acted like when they were free from the confines of society, and I saw both the generosity and selfishness in human nature.

Here’s three lessons that I learned from the Gathering:

1. Most Human Beings Are Lazy… And This Is Fine

When I first arrived at the campgrounds, the civilization was just starting to emerge. There were a few rudimentary kitchens, a water supply, some paths laid down, and a couple of shit houses. This may sound like a lot, but it’s not enough to support nearly 15,000 people.

The first thing that I did when I got there was get involved – I spent hours gathering logs for the kitchens to make fire, I spent the better part of a day digging a latrine, and I helped build a giant table for one of the kitchens to make food on. And do you know what I learned?

Most people are fucking lazy.

About 90% of the people there didn’t contribute anything to the society – they simply sat around, got high or drunk, and reaped all of the rewards that the hard working men fought for. And this is just fine. Do you know why? It’s because the people who were actually willing to put in hard work had it much better off. When I spent hours helping the kitchens, do you think that they fed me the same scraps that they gave the other 90% of people?

No. Together, we feasted like kings – and we deserved it, because we put in the work. When there was a new shipment in of alcohol or of good quality meat, who do you think the first were to taste it? We were, because we put in the work. When the food trucks came in every day, bringing news of incoming travelers who do you think the first were to hear it? We were.

Technically, there was no power hierarchy – but there was sort of an unofficial one that started to emerge. And do you know who it was comprised of? The people that actually did the work.


Most people just did this all day

We had a say in how things went, because without us there wouldn’t even be any “things.” We got to choose what was for dinner and who ate how much; we helped each other out, with food, but also with invites to tent parties, VIP access to the “shows” we put on (we built a stage and had local hippie bands play songs), and other things.

Basically, the people who put in the effort to build the society had all of the resources—this is the way that it naturally is. One problem that became abundantly clear was that in “regular society,” this is obviously not the case.

In regular society, you can work your ass off day in and day out, and you won’t get shit. In regular society the power isn’t given to the people who put in hard work – it’s handed down, and some little punk gets it, because his great, great, great, great grandfather worked to earn it in the past.

When you’re living in an emerging civilization, you don’t care all that much if others are lazy, because you know that if you work hard, you’ll get more access to food, resources, and women, which brings me to my next point…

2. Natural Gender Roles Emerged


When you’re living in the middle of the forest, there is no “we’re all equal” bullshit. The men were the ones who did the heavy lifting – they carried logs around, lugged water jugs around, dug shit holes, and built community buildings. The women (the ones who participated, at least) were in the kitchen where they belonged.

I do not mean this in some sort of a derogatory way, but the fact of the matter is that it becomes abundantly clear that men and women are different when you aren’t safe within the confines of civilization. There was one moment that really illustrated this lesson for me.

It was late at night – I have no idea when, because we didn’t go by time in the forest, we went by sunrise and sunset, but the point is that it was very dark. I was sitting around a giant bonfire with about 35 people. Behind us was “stockpot,” where all of the kitchen supplies were stored, and to the right was a campground. There were several little “outposts” like this set up throughout the forest, consisting of a kitchen, a bonfire, and a campground. They each had different names, and they were roughly 2-3 miles apart.

A group of women stood up, and slowly walked to the edge of the little “outpost” that we had set up. What were they doing? They looked kind of nervous, but I couldn’t tell what was going on. And then it hit me. They realized that they couldn’t walk through the forest alone back to their campground. They needed a man to protect them.

One of the men, I’m going to call him Jack, was a natural alpha male. He had been in charge of the kitchen and various logistical issues – he saw immediately that the women needed protection, and he volunteered to walk them back to their camp ground. I’m sure that the women were very grateful for Jack’s protection – who knows, maybe he slept with one (or five) of them. Either way, when a civilization is just emerging, women develop a natural appreciation for men, and men develop a natural desire to protect women.

It leads to a much more cohesive society—relationships form much more smoothly. This is in part why we’re seeing so many problems in Western civilization.

Nope – no feminists here.

Women don’t appreciate men, because they don’t need us anymore – in the forest, they needed us for protection. They needed us to build civilization. In the West, they don’t need shit because “Daddy Government” handles everything for them. This creates a sense of spite between the genders – men recognize that they aren’t appreciated and are practically worthless, so they come to develop a cynical, bitter view towards women

3. Women Are Attracted to Power… And This is A Good Thing

Like I said before, plenty of men develop a very cynical attitude towards women. This is only exacerbated in our society by the rampant “power-sluts”—women who will fuck any man who has power, so that they may get a taste of it.

In the forest, I came to accept that this was the natural way of things—women want men who have power. However, I realized that this is only a bad thing when you live in a very well established civilization, such as the West. The reason for this, as I alluded to before, is because the men who have all of the power in the West are manipulative, greedy elites who have a deep sense of hatred for the general public. So obviously, it isn’t very comforting that women are attracted to these men.

However, in the forest, the men who had the power weren’t the ones that were manipulative – in fact, it was quite the opposite. At The Gathering, the men who had the power were the ones who were selfless. The man who was willing to walk those women home, Jack, is a great example of this.

He spent hours every day organizing logistical issues, because he cared about the well-being of the tribe. He was always coordinating with the “food trucks,” men who would drive into town and bring food back for the people, he was always hard at work collaborating with the women in the kitchen to make sure that dinner was on time, and he was always welcoming newcomers.

The man even helped to build a “kid village,” for god’s sake—a designated daycare center for children that was to be free of drugs and alcohol. So when somebody had a question or an issue, who do you think they went to? They went to Jack. When there was a conflict between the men or the women, who do you think they went to? They went to Jack.

So what we start to see is that the men who are actually selfless and care about the tribe slowly become the leaders. People began to look up to Jack for guidance – and why wouldn’t they? He was the one who was putting so much effort into helping our civilization grow. I saw some of this myself, as well. As I began to help out more and more in the kitchen, I started to rub shoulders with some pretty cool guys.

Soon enough, I was a messenger – I ran between the kitchens (sometimes running 10-15 miles a day) coordinating who had what supplies and if they were short on butter, olive oil, beans, or some other essential cooking food. So when people in the kitchens had a question, who do you think they went to? They went to me. When a group of men wanted to have “seconds” (the kitchen served breakfast and dinner every day), I got to decide if we should give out our valuable resources to them. If they were assholes, they wouldn’t get a single grain of rice.

I began to become a leader, just like Jack – not because I was a greedy, power hungry, manipulative wall street exec, but because I was a man who cared about the tribe and put in effort to make things better. And that’s the difference – in a “baby civilization,” women fuck the hard working men who protect the tribe. In the West, they fuck spoiled, rich trust fund babies who don’t give two fucks about the world’s suffering.


There is no way in hell that this girl would have any power in the forest

Women’s biology can’t distinguish between the two – they’re attracted to power, plain and simple. And like I said, this isn’t inherently a bad thing. In fact, I’d say it was a good thing for 99% of history.

But when a civilization devolves into what it is today, where the men in power are corrupt, selfish, evil human beings, it clearly becomes a bad thing. The problem isn’t women’s nature, it’s our dogshit society that puts evil, corrupt men in power.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: 5 Things I Learned From My Second Time In Jail

376 thoughts on “3 Important Lessons I Learned About Civilization From Living In A Hippie Commune”

  1. Great article! It’s amazing how the gender roles automatically fall back into line immediately. I was curious if you had any examples of people’s greed and how that played out at the gathering?

    1. Yes! I actually want to write a multiple part article (this being the first) because I learned so much.
      Here’s one – this guy brought me to go dig a shit hole (pretty hard work, shoveling the dirt for hours on end in 85 degree heat) and helped for like 10 minutes.
      Told me he “forgot he had to deliver a message” to some guy building a shelter and he left.
      Came back like 3 hours later after I did all the work and took credit for helping me. I later found out he actually just left to get high and fuck around.
      He tried to act friendly with the guys in power, but we eventually put the pieces together by talking/socializing with one another and realizing that he was just a general user.
      So we stopped giving him food and he had to go find some himself.
      Maybe if one of the women in the kitchens was feeling generous he’d get a banana or something, but he became kind of an outcast once people realized how lazy he was.

      1. In the past, lazy fucks that did shit and con others for resources would’ve been dealt with through a good beating by thr working folks. They would’ve been shamed and no broad would be seen with such a dipshit. This is how it should be and not being celebrated for being a POS.

      2. In our world tossers like that become machiavellian phonies like mystery, and get rewarded with tons of skanky pussy

  2. Great article, exactly what happens when people have to fend largely for themselves without “daddy government” or the “hammock” of welfare to rescue them. Did the lazy still eat? Yes. But the harder workers were better treated. When politicians (especially liberal ones) say “we’re all in this together”, my next question is “well then what is the responsibility of the recipient class, if any?” The unofficial answer is “none” in the liberal view.
    Having said that, camping? Ugh. Put me down as a “No”. 🙂

    1. It seems fair that “the harder workers were better treated”. But I just realized–there were probably few seniors or people with disabilities who volunteered for this experiment, and over the course of two weeks no one became seriously injured/ill, and no child lost one or both parents. (If any such thing happened, one could rejoin “civilization”.) But what if this had been a real-life society? What would have happened to those who COULDN’T work? Or couldn’t work as much as they used to?

      1. Then those people would have to rely on others with whom they had either built or already had preexisting relationships to ensure their wellbeing. At no point should anyone be forced to care for someone else.
        Especially if that person is unwilling to participate in their own care in any fashion.
        I have no problem with helping those who truly can’t care for themselves. Most, however, are able to produce in some capacity.

    2. You don’t seem to understand the distinctions between dynamics of a group of a couple hundred vs a group of millions. A large modern society is infinitely more complex than the hundred such hippies in a forest. In a small village community, people work together without the government. I am sure that had someone become unable to work, that community would have worked to provide for them, but in a country of millions, not many people will just do that voluntarily.

  3. It’s nice, but last time me and my buddies tried to explore natural lands, England was turned into a pile of corpses… Sorry.

    1. Ive been watching documentaries talking about how your folks have had a long long history of southern migrations, at the end of the roman republic there was on such migration of about 300,000 (!) of your people makong their way to the region currently known as Austria snd also to southern France.
      When the tribes in austria called for Roman help, the migrants took one look at the Romans and offered apologies. The Roman consul in charge of the army had to accept the offer of peace, but then sent assasins to kill the Norsemens diplomatic party because he thought he couod win an easy war and gain fame. The result was that his army was utterly wiped out, and the enraged Northmen went viking on the region for the next ten years, kicking the shit out of any roman legion they encountered, this continued Until Gaius Marius was put in command of the Legions, opened the army to pessants, and proceded to kill every Norseman and woman in the region because the Romans did not want to take a chance on making these giant blond lunatics into slaves.

      1. Yeah, back in those days you had to grab an axe to migrate™ and have a land. Your children knew you shed your blood to have a place to sleep and eat.
        Now, Merkel and Juncker are sugar daddys and give it all away…

    1. “So did you fuck any?”
      And my question would be: if you fucked any of the skanks there, was there any sense of loyal pairing off? Or were the chicks loose and virtueless, and being passed around like a marijuana cigarette for every guy to plug?

      1. Some were surprisingly loyal, but only to the alpha males. This is honestly how it is in every society.
        There was actually a saying that I heard from literally at least 7 different people: “Never bring your girlfriend to the gathering.”

        1. Thanks. I wonder if the same amount of game is needed for chicks in the commune like it is in so-called civilized society where, as Roosh stated,(recently) you can’t be yourself because because if you show any kind of human fragility then she’ll immediately dump you. In other words, what defines “alpha” in that World? Does one need to be a psychotic asshole like in mainstream society?

        2. Game is a very vague term and there’s dozens of types of game, but here’s how I see it.
          Western women are bombarded with constant approaches from men and the media glorifies fake, arrogant confidence, so if you want a lot of hoes you have to act like a douchebag.
          A lot of women are also very emotionally fucked up so you have to act very narcissistic and uncaring a lot of the time (depending on the girl, obviously – not every girl likes this).
          In the forest, however, game was just natural. It was meeting girls and finding out you were mutually attracted. It was her seeing you putting in effort to chop down logs and sitting next to you during dinner time because she liked you.
          This is how it SHOULD be – no facades or stupid, fake personas you put on. No “wait 3 days to text her back,” or “act aloof,” bullshit. You just be yourself and some girls like you and some don’t.

        3. I don’t think the concept of “beta” or “alpha” really exists in the traveling culture.
          To start, there is a separation from artificial beauty. The idea of going to a gym to “beef up” is absurd, the idea of wearing makeup and having nice hair is often impossible, and both genders often lack nice clothing. Then there’s the idea that a person’s worth is not based on matters of income. A traveling kid with a beat up SUV is not “less” then a man with a Ferrari. In fact, that Ferrari would put off many involved in the lifestyle.
          I have one friend from a poor family who has been accepted into a well-off family, through the girl he met living the traveling lifestyle. His life prospects improved greatly.
          The closest to an “alpha” would simply be someone with naturally good looks or high intelligence. Past that, there are no variables that influence one’s status.
          Most deeply involved in the culture will refer to the rest of society as ‘Babylon’. My closest hippie friend often jokes to me, “I don’t see how you are happy living in Babylon.”
          As far as sex, they are unjudgemental, as one’s sexual history and lifestyle does not concern another. There are many who seek loyal, monogamous relationships, there are those who seek marriage. There are those who participate in “free love”, which is purely casual sex with many. There are those who have open relationships, they are together but free to have sex with others. At the end of the day, none of them judge one another for how they live.

        4. Given that bicycles are civilised urban technology, what is the town bike referred to at rainbow gatherings or travelling culture? Town dreamcatchers?

    2. Yeah I actually did. I wanted to write a very long article (like 15,000 words) discussing this, but ROK doesn’t like articles that long. Maybe if a lot of people like this I’ll make a “3 More Things I Learned From Living in a Hippie Commune” article 🙂

      1. In the comments you have covered how the women act, I would be interested in how the men acted. Did they all become workers, or did most just sit around and talk/get high/get drunk? Did the ones who sat around get any women at all?
        Would you consider most guys neomasculinists/red pill?
        Great article mate.

        1. I’ll answer your question despite the ludicrous screen name. At a rainbow gathering, you’ll certainly find women who don’t shave.
          The best answer would be many would prefer to shave. Of the few women I’ve let stay and shower, the first question they often ask is, “Do you have an extra razor? I haven’t been able to shave for far too long.”
          Many of those women do without artificial beauty like shaving, make up, straighteners and curling irons, hair dye, and even the chance to regularly take a shower. They do without makeup as without a constant supply of water, they would have no way to wash it off which would lead to damaged skin. The most they might wear is eyeliner, kohl. They have “unkept” hair as they cannot straighten or fix their hair daily. They often do not have the best clothes and may wear the same outfit many times without a wash. I know many who forgo panties, and if they are flat chested, bras because it is extra weight to carry around.
          If they carry any toiletries on then, it is normally sanitary supplies, usually tampons, not razors and foundation.
          The women are often beautiful, but only once one realizes that the beauty society feeds is completely artificial. If one likes their women done up like a Christmas tree, they will find no beauty in a gathering.
          On the other hand, if you find a woman beautiful, you’ll realize that what you see is truthfully her actual appearance and that beauty is real, not fabricated.
          Of course, this is for traveling kids, not those living in comfort who only live the lifestyle a couple weeks out of the year who may very well be staying in a hotel at night, hippie by day.
          Most traveling girls don’t hate artificial beauty, they do dress up when the means are there. They are girls after all. It’s just society’s beauty is usually unfeasible to maintain in their current situation.

        2. Thank you for taking the time to write that up.
          Now to address your improperness at the start of your reply. My user name is Greatness personified. Period. Because I know this to be True.
          You must also know this on some level because after all, you did answer my question in all seriousness with as much Intelligence, Wisdom, and Explicitness as a SoCal U student writing her Final Exam.
          You get a C-.

      2. Nailing that hot wet bush. Seriously, from my experience, that’s really good stuff. Obviously intended to be that way before feminism dictated it to sheep skanks.

      3. Perhaps you could publish a full, comprehensive article in a blog describing all of your experiences and what you learnt? It would be a great read because it aims to answer the fundamental question of civilisation, so it would attract a lot of people, and without an obvious RoK connection it would make people reading forget their stigmas for a while. Great article either way.

  4. “When you’re living in the middle of the forest, there is no “we’re all equal” bullshit. The men were the ones who did the heavy lifting – they carried logs around, lugged water jugs around, dug shit holes, and built community buildings. The women (the ones who participated, at least) were in the kitchen where they belonged.”
    This nails it, and a fat chick with green hair would be offended by this without even realizing that this social system would be better for women anyway. Our society has become so polluted by ideological garbage that people seriously think men and women could ever be equal.
    I hate that the manosphere gets written off as “assholes” and “misogynist,” because in reality when shit hits the fan we’ll be the ones rebuilding society and making the world a comfortable place for women to live in once again. Men and women are not equal, and rather than us wasting our time trying to make it so we should be celebrating our differences through acceptance of gender roles.

    1. I just finished reading a “news article” that the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, but today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charlotte Bronte (the woman who write Jane Eyre). The author argues that we as a society should dismiss Shakespeare and instead celebrate Bronte, Mary Shelly (Frankenstein) and the woman who write Bridget Jones Diary.
      Anyone can see that you can’t compare the greatest author in the English language to the chick who wrote Bridget Jones. Their collective works speak for itself. But since “men and women are equal”, the thought police are there to tell us that we have to hold the both in equal esteem.

    2. Personally, when the SHTF I expect to be a casualty pretty quick. I am 60, have a bad heart, arthritis, weak immune system, am obese, and have little mobility. I will die pretty quickly, and I am OK with that.

      1. Half of masculinity is hierarchy, knowing your limits and your place are both important parts of a masculine society. I respect you sir.

    3. I’m more with the mgtws who won’t do jack shit for any skank. These are the abortionist, consumerist status whores who’ve basically subjugated men for 50-100 years. You’d be a total plonker to do anything for them. They’ve also eroded proper brotherhood among nen so there may not be much of that to go around post-shtf either.

      1. MGTOW has it all wrong, I get they are upset about the way men are treated but saying “I refuse to perform my role until you guys go back to being REAL women,” Is just childish. Not to mention kinda a victims mentality and really not alpha.
        In my mind if things can ever go back to the way they were men have to start acting like men again and it’s the harder option, but I think removing yourself from your de facto place in a societal structure because you’re mad that men are acting like little bitches.

        1. Acting like bitches IS protecting women. The key part of my comment is that fraternity and brotherhood have vanished. You talk about things going back to the way they were, but are describing things as they are now (men protecting women). Actually research how things were, and you’ll see that society was built by men protecting men, and backing each other to the hilt. Women just fell into line. Think about it for a second: what good is/would have been being loyal/protective to your wife, or maybe in your modern parlance ‘girlfriend/we hang out/hook up’? Well? Absolutely zero good. Men formed alliances with men over land, employment, everything, and that meant your family was afforded societal protection as a byproduct.
          Nice try with all the alpha, beta and bitch terminology, but you haven’t a shit clue what real men were like or acted, and are still inhaling the Hollywood vapours of dying for a herpetic abortionista, a la Kevin costing her nary a thought as she hooks up with her next bodyguard.

        2. 1. Protecting women IS acting like bitches (We agree on this point), providing for a woman and a family is acting like men.
          2. The downfall of society indeed has lead to the degeneration of male relationships, the homosexuals and the feminists have destroyed them in a successful effort to gain power in society. Fraternity is necessary to restructure a patriarchal society. (We agree on this point)
          3. I used the word alpha to refer to the highest social level of a male, I used the word bitch to refer to boys cuckolded by the feminist agenda (Whom we both agree are bitches). I never used the word beta. You’re ad hominem attacks aside leaves us with really one main thing we disagree on:
          Should being the provider at the head of a household be the ultimate goal for a modern man.
          What do you think?

        3. I actually thought from the slightly unclear wording of your closing sentence, I was being ad hominidly being attacked 🙂 Forgive my knee-jerk response.
          In short, I think yes. Although family and working life has been restructured in a way that will have suited women all the way up to the day they’re married (the day of their 38th birthday nowadays). So they have to be made aware of that, and bear responsibility. That might include bringing in some income (maybe not expected to work as hard as the head of household), and having substantial savings to pay for their gala wedding event or childcare costs. These are generally college educated and notched women, after all.
          The man has been kneecapped to suit the FemImp, and will struggle to meet her modernity-conditioned expectations. And unfortunately, it’s not always the wisest move nowadays to befriend other leaders of men, as a variety addicted poon hound will put the moves on wifey. So in summation, society is how it is, and men have to act accordingly if they want to lead a household. Being adaptive and nobody’s fool can prevent them from being naive lambs to the slaughter. I’m personally not at the point of putting any of this into practice, just formulating tactics, so would of course appreciate knowing of other possibly superior tactics.

  5. Nah, a friend told me there was a conspiracy of elites there that kept the best food and women for themselves and only gave leftovers to the rest of 90%. All of them were smug and hated the small folk (call them lazy and stuff all the time).

  6. The article illustrates very well how the aristocracy used to be the first ones to protect civilization in Great Britain. In fact, until recently, the aristocracy, by proportion, had more casualties in war than the commoners.
    If war broke out with North Korea or Iran, I seriously doubt Mark Zuckerberg or the children of any given Hollywood celebrity or bank executive would be signing up for OCS as Infantry or other Combat Arms Officers.
    But just over 100 years ago, it was expected. In fact, if you didn’t go, you got handed a nice white feather. When the “Rape of Belgium” stood a real possibility of becoming the “Rape of Britain”, British lasses were far more grateful for the protection of the British Army. And the aristocracy had a stake in preventing Kaiser Wilhelm from looting the Empire.

    1. Hollywood demi-people and banksters are not elites. They are burgeoisie, which have always hidden behind the city walls and hoped for true men to defend their lives and possessions. They were named after their cowardice (Bürger).

      1. There aren’t many true aristocrats anymore. The days when the Kennedy’s and Bush’s served in the front lines in WWII are gone, replaced by people unworthy of the legacies of their predecessors.
        Even aristocrats such as Lord Cardigan, much derided by history for his role in the Charge of the Light Brigade, were far more noble than the Hollywood elites of today.
        For all of Cardigan’s arrogance, he still led the charge personally, exposing himself to the most danger.
        I can’t see George Clooney leading a cavalry charge into several dozen Russian guns, flanked on either side by sharpshooters.

        1. There was a reason Cardigan was derided. He was a lunatic who got a lot of people killed needlessly. If Clooney wouldn’t lead such a charge (and I wouldn’t either) that actually makes him clever not cowardly. Clever is one thing Cardigan definitely was not and his charge was indicative of a catastrophic failure of leadership.
          Human lives matter.
          There is a peculiar notion held by some men that pointless suicidal behaviour is somehow brave. It isn’t.

        2. No one is saying Cardigan was a heroic figure. In fact, his failures as a leader extended the whole Crimean War necessarily. You missed the point entirely.
          The whole point is that in spite of the fact he was overly arrogant and lacked proper officer-ship skills, he still showed up when the nation went to war.
          If Cardigan, for all his faults, still showed up, cowards have no excuse. Those who haven’t “showed up” during wartime often have a number of excuses, such as “I’m too smart”, “the war is unjustified” or “I’m not wasting my life for rich people” etc… These are the most common excuses of today’s “elite”, which is ironic when they are the rich people. Even though Cardigan wasn’t much of a man, he was more of a man than today’s “elite” who are just as arrogant and shitheaded, but fail to show up, even to wars they claim to support.

        3. I’m not sure that comparing Cardigan to Clooney is a fair comparison. I’m sure that there were popular actors in the 19th century who never went to war. You are comparing a career soldier to a career entertainer.
          As for showing up to war generally. Do you really think one should show up to an unjustified war?

        1. Criticism of burgeoisie predates marxism by centuries, millenia even. the merchant class was always deceitful in its ways, and envious of the power Warriors, Priests and artisans had.
          I am more an Evolian or a Guenon admirer (with strong Nietzschean influences and guiding myself by the Tao precepts) than a Marxist. I couldn’t. I am not an egalitarianist, internationalist, atheist…

        2. Also, it’s interesting to notice how effective a marketing manoeuvre it was for marxists to harness anti-burgeoisie feelings among traditionalist populations and large sections of public opinion. There are numerous examples in southern and eastern Europe of historical conversions of absolute monarchist regions into communist strongholds (from Portugal, Spain, Italy and France to Poland, Ukrayne and Belarus; Russia itself, it’s more difficult to say).

    2. Despite your historical innacuracies, your point stands, aristocrats used to have a sense of duty, a noblese oblige that is not here anymore in our so called elites.

    3. Summing up WWI as Kaiser Wilhelm as trying to loot Europe is such a gross over simplifications it’s actually offensive. It was WAY more complicated than that.

      1. Asinine and outdated limey chauvinism. In these times of Anglospheric Cultural Marxism (brought to us largely by Jewry but also with the full cooperation of Anglo-Norman aristocrats and gentry), I somewhat understand the nostalgia for dashing officers and gentlemen; however, such a naively jingoistic view and doe-eyed admiration for the old-money establishment is absurd and hateful to the great majority of Caucasoids.
        Much unlike the hippie commune in the article, the British elites were waited on hand and foot for most of their lives by virtue of their choice of parents. The fact that some of them whose births were well-placed but ill-timed had to risk enemy fire as wartime junior officers, while still being above the soldiers’ labors of digging and such, does not make them heroes. They did absolutely jack shit to earn the right to lead; in fact, until 1871, aristocratic and genteel parents would purchase officer commissions for their boys. The British Army and Navy experiences featured boys as young as twelve, dandied up in scarlet or blue, shouting orders in not-yet-broken voices at men two or three times their age.
        And the despicable and cowardly white feather campaign was gleefully led on the street by the Pankhursts and other proto-feminists simply as an excuse to shame and browbeat men and boys. There should be no doubt to any Return of Kings reader that had the Germans won, British women by and large would not have been raped, but would have gone down perfectly willingly for the officers and men who killed and humiliated their erstwhile husbands and sons, just like the French and Jersey women did in the following World War. The notion that one side of the First World War was morally superior to the other is outrageous.
        I would remind “Lord Sommerset [sic],” at whom Britain’s elite and bourgeois probably sneer as lower-class IRL, that his unrequitedly beloved royals, who were never dethroned French-style and who have the bully pulpit, have totally dummied up with regard to the anti-white-male multiculturalist and Cultural Marxist treasons being perpetuated on their subjects. In fact, in the UK as well as in the U.S., there is nothing more ugly, vulgar, gauche, or white-trash to the upper classes than Donald-Trump-style populism; actually, champagne socialism has been the elite au courant view for decades now.
        Much of this essay can also apply to that purportedly French tool “Monsieur de Charette” who frequently comments on RoK and whose peasant ancestors were provoked into bloody revolution by their effeminate elites who said let them eat cake.
        If I am a Marxist for this diatribe, then so were Caesar, Bonaparte, and Hitler.

        1. Pretty much everything you say is true, and none of it really seems Marxist, if it is, then I guess I have Marxist influences. The whole war could have simply been prevented had the Austrians filed a law suit rather than declare war on Serbia.

        2. Caesar was emperor and reinstated Roman monarchy overthrowing “elected” representatives and plutocrats. Bonaparte became emperor and Hitler wanted to be der Führer for life. According to what you said most of the Caucasoids have been brainwashed to believe Democracy is the best system even though the golden times of Europe were under Kings and Queens. Presidents have presided over a fast decline.

        3. “In fact, in the UK as well as in the U.S., there is nothing more ugly, vulgar, gauche, or white-trash to the upper classes than Donald-Trump-style populism” As a mechanical engineer whose family has lived in the USA for over 300 years , maybe more, I am highly offended that you refer to Donald Trump appealing to “white trash.” exclusively He appeals to many others, including rednecks such as myself who are most assuredly, NOT “white trash”. Perhaps you should learn the distinction. Also, my 88 year old college educated mother plan on voting for Trump.

        4. You underestimate how tough the upbringing of many upper class men was. Getting shipped off age seven to a boarding school is no picnic. Roald Dahl’s autobiography Boy> tells how it was. Malcolm McDowell’s early film If… is another one that shows how such men get made.

        5. It would be poetic justice if the Jesus they are waiting for was birthed from his blood lines.

        6. Haven’t logged in for a few days, but I must clear this up. I thought I was clear that Trump’s supporters are scorned by bourgeois types as ugly, vulgar, gauche, and white-trash, and I’m right. I was educated in New England, and that snobbish lefty WASP attitude that leftism is “the sole intellectual tradition” and that the Republican base is stupid white trash is real. I shall be voting for Donald J. Trump in my state’s primary tomorrow. MAGA.

    4. Only a complete idiot would sign up for infantry to fight in a government war. If you are anywhere near a war you need your head examined.

      1. Which is why I enlisted as a USAF rear echelon motherfucker. Aircraft mechanic in Kuwait during Clinton’s ALMOST bombing of Saddam during operation Just Kidding. (Remember UNSCOM and all that in the 90’s?)

  7. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
    That’s the problem, too many with no ability but they sure as hell have their needs. Fuck them.

  8. If y’all want a “4 More Lessons I Learned From The Forest” continuation of this article, like this comment and I’ll submit it to ROK 🙂

    1. I hope you’re writing it right now because this article was amazing, although not surprising at all. Of course people who work get power, of course women aren’t like men and of course women fuck men with power. The people who need to read this are those who are so focused on their own comfort and their own little timespan in human history that they don’t realise that biology exists and that it still matters, no matter how high the number beside the word “iPhone” gets.

    2. Fantastic I loved the article. Wisdom derived from real experiences is extremely valuable.

    3. “In regular society, you can work your ass off day in and day out, and you won’t get shit. In regular society the power isn’t given to the people who put in hard work – it’s handed down, and some little punk gets it, because his great, great, great, great grandfather worked to earn it in the past.”
      Come on man, this article would have been great if you didn’t keep adding the liberal victim bias. Big trust funds are rare, and usually the kids who have them don’t run society. The men who built society are the men who built great empires that benefit society. I’m not talking about these modern tech faggots, Cuckerberg and Jobs, but the guys who create your favorite sports car, favorite form of entertainment, run for president, etc. They come to power because they help people.

        1. This type of society isn’t possible without culling 99% of the population. Unrealistic. Everyone who disagrees isn’t doing it out of personal affront.

      1. Quote: (Graft) “The men who built society are the men who built great empires that benefit society. I’m not talking about these modern tech faggots, Cuckerberg and Jobs, but the guys who create your favorite sports car, favorite form of entertainment, run for pre”
        I hear ya, but like it or not, Cuckerberg and Jobs have had their play in building society (though Suckerberg did steal his idea). You say that men who create your favorite form of entertainment are among those who count; then what do you think facebook and iphones & ipads are?
        I think the author has a valid point because in certain respects, a small communal society, the effort one puts in can be more immediately respected and results are more immedately seen. But in the final analysis there is a good reason why the communal “back to the land” societies never last long at all, or end up becoming cult like communties with some power hungry Jim Jones type running it. And eventually they end up needing modern conveniences to survive. But that said, regardless of living in a nature or the modern world, generally the more work someone puts into something, the more result one can see, especially if one is an entrepreneurer and willing to dedicate himself enough.

        1. Throughout my career it is obvious that the more effort one puts in the more one gets out. People often think of these “communist and anarchic” societies as examples of just a wonderful “back to the land” existence but this little society could not exist without the larger market surrounding it. In reality most of these people would live and die in misery just like the settlers before them.
          If you believe that your effort is not respected that is your fault. Not society’s, not your boss, not Steve Jobs. If you find yourself blaming others for your problems then you are either a woman or a child, because a grown man takes responsibility for himself.

        2. That can be true if you are living in a Society which allows you that and coming from the right social stratus (not necessarily the upmost, but surely middle class).
          Most times, you don’t matter. I dare you to climb the social ladder in Latin America, Africa or some “less Hollywoody” regions of the West. I am not saying you can’t do great things, but their scale is not up to you to decide (open a school in Zimbabwe requires more of you than having a $ 1 million business in the US).
          Extreme individualism is somehow a shadow of solipsist thinking. Solipsist thinking is a thing I can’t stand. This is the world you live in, not the world you choose to live in. Do the best you can, not the best you wished.

        3. Well fortunately I don’t live under a monarchy so I am able to benefit from my hard work.

        4. Living under a monarchy means you know your place in the Universe, there is a King, you are a subject; there is(are) God(s), you are a believer; there is a father, you are a son.
          It’s actually the same you do, but in another social reality. Yours is the capitalist one: you sell your mind and body and anyone pays you enough to keep you coming every monday. The day you don’t show up or ask for more than said person allows, you’ll be crushed as any subject revolting against his King.

        5. “Are you offended that I agreed with you?”
          Thought you were aiming your rant at me; my bad 🙂 Just a friendly suggestion Mr Bob (with respect): try using 3rd person eg: “If one believes that his effort is not respected that is his fault.” instead of “If you believe that your effort is not respected that is your fault.” It will be less confusing.

        6. Well I was using the royal “you” but I understand the confusion. 😉
          There are of course a number of people frequenting this site to which my rant does apply however… You know who you are! 😉

        7. Women were not always so responsibility adverse. When i was growing up i fully respected the older generation of women who ran my girls brigade and girl guides. They were militant, traditional and didnt take no shit or dish any shit. Theyd slut shame you for giving into vanity but they rewarded hard work and they always respected their husbands. Sadly the girl guides are full blown feminist now.

        8. Freedom is an illusion some socities are just better at maintaining the illusion of freedom…

        9. Constitutional Monarchy. Theoretically the Queen can disagree with Parliament but the moment she does… off with her head!

        10. That’s what I keep saying. Beyond rhetoric, the only thing that matters is what society demands from a person.
          “freedom” is a trap to catch naïve people. Think of the millions napoleon killed because “he was bringing freedom”. What s the freedom in lying dead in Russia or Egypt?

        11. One blizzard followed by an outbreak of Whooping cough and watch the whole ‘back to the land’ thing breaking down.

        12. Comfort is more of a trap, Freedom is the bait. How many men use comfort as an excuse for inaction???

        13. Bit of a paradox I guess the more people whine the less miserable they truly are…

        14. For the large (culturally) burgeois portion of our populations, that is indeed true.
          Comfort is dangerous not only because it is perceived and valued, but mainly because it has surpassed all other life purposes for so many people (even the intelligent ones, regretfully).

      2. Thank you for saying this. No one handed me shit, other than good advice from my father. Everything I got was from hard work and not from some trust fund.
        Its an extreme minority of kids who get stuff because of their trust funds and regardless, it makes no difference to you anyway.

      3. I’m not talking about business entrepreneurs, mate. I’m talking about old money like Rockefellers, Kennedys, Rothschilds – families who came into power in like the 1700s and are serious old money. These are the people who control elections and pull the strings.

        1. There are few places you’re more likely to run into trustifarians than a Rainbow Gathering. Burning Man and Marin County, maybe. I don’t quite buy the idea that the Rainbow leaders are all that hard working, either. One of my oldest friends scouts potential Gathering spots, and he’s as lazy as the day is long.

        2. People need to talk more about those guys and the “robber baron” days. Every state in the union was divied up between those guys. Every state has an elite “Aristocracy” of old money that goes back to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. And you’d better believe that they run both politcal parties in each state. They get together and decide who’s the next President. The U.S. has ALWAYS been agrarian in nature. Instead of sowing crops and harvesting a yield, they sway the direction of industries, actually work to develop money in the middle class, and then “harvest” it with certain Presidential administration. Our boom and bust cycles show where the money goes. And it’s always up the food chain. The average person’s labor and talent are only valued in this context.

        3. This is a very interesting point, my friend – I’ve long suspected that this was the case. Could you point me in the direction of a book or article talking more about this?

    4. Jon, good article and great experience. Keep them coming.
      A few things popped into my mind while reading this:
      The short time span – long term thinking of those at the gathering terminates where the rainbow gathering ends. Like Burning Man, this short time span increases the tendency for short term, high time preference actions and thinking.
      Environment and resource access – since food was obtained at the store, there was no outside pressure to cultivate and maintain resources. This is why so many could be lazy (plus the short time span). If resource acquisition, cultivation and preservation were needed, a lot of those lazy bums would either be enslaved (if the tribe needs more bodies, say for warfare) or left to die come winter or thrown out.
      Relative safety – even though the dark woods scared the women, the area was still relatively safe. No major animal threats and zero opposing tribe threat.
      Still had some modern convenience – food from the store and those pretty hippie girls probably still had with them their synthetic birth control options.
      I think your observations have value but the above factors make me think that your experience was civ-very lite. If anything, it’s hippie play pretend for a few weeks. The arrangement is meant to allow hippies to experience the society they think it would be if they had their way. The sexual behavior that appeared is what appeared not because of external factors, but because that’s what those women wanted from the experience. Those men were lazy not because of external factors but because they are lazy and come from a society that allows for it. If they really wanted the full experience, they would create a giant commune and just live like that year round. Of course then external factors would kick in, and survival would lead to human hierarchies, rules, and internal, cultural and external discipline.
      That said, there is still much to unpack from your experience. Heck, I had never heard of the Rainbow Gathering until now. If I was in my 20’s, I would have gone to just to see what went on an report on it. Look forward to more posts by you.

      1. Yes, it definitely wasn’t like the first settlers – nothing comes close to that, but I would actually disagree about the danger thing.
        In my original draft that I submitted (it was too long so I had to cut it short) I mentioned something quite startling.
        I was walking through the forest dark at night with a woman, and a man almost killed us both. I felt something was wrong, so I turned around, and I shit you not this creepy ass looking mother fucker in a trench coat was 1 foot behind us.
        I didn’t panic, because if I did the girl might have screamed and he’d kill us both – I just gave him a glare and slowly walked away with the girl. He just froze and stayed in his tracks.
        Someone was killed at the gathering a couple years ago (don’t remember when exactly) but my point is it’s actually pretty dangerous.
        I got a spider bite on my leg and almost died – the medics there (wanted to write about the medics, but again the article was too long) had to give me daily treatment. They said that if I waited another week I could’ve died (it was SUPER infected)

        1. It would be worth writing about that in another installment. Thanks for sharing Jon.

        2. Rainbow Gatherings ( and other gatherings like it) attract some really bad actors. I think its the drugs and cute, young women.
          My favorite gathering was Bread & Puppets Domestic Ressurection Circus. Held every year in the mtns of northern VT. Unfortunately they don’t hold it anymore b/c of a death due to some violent altercation ( drug induced)

    5. We’re at 120+ now! How soon can I expect the continuation?? Also, seeing as how red pill this stuff is, maybe RoK can create one of these bush gatherings?? That would be so awesome 🙂

    6. Hey Jon, I liked this article, more plz :):
      My experience of Hippie communes has been that the “Jacks” of the tribe live for being “Jacks of the tribe”
      Once the weather turns, The trust fund Hippie girls begin to miss their Snapchat and their Starbucks and so they leave Jack and head for the city – Jack doesn’t take this well. See: Kai. (Google him)

    7. Great article, please give us more. I want to know if you banged any hippy chicks.
      Seriously though, it’s refreshing to read things like this. If I were to be invited I would love to attend an event like the rainbow gathering.

  9. Just wait until Jack has dozens of concubines, a nice palace, and a bunch of sons among whom he needs to find a suitable heir. Do you think he will remain selfless?

    1. Jack would never get a palace, because if he asked all of us to build him a giant fucking house we’d say you’re arrogant and crazy.
      Dozens of concubines, though? Hmmm he might have already had those 😉

      1. I’m talking about the long run of course. Jack happens to be a hardworking man with an alpha personality, and he uses his skills to rightfully get into a position of leadership.
        But once that position of leadership (and the perks it confers upon him– maybe if the experiment goes on long enough people will build a mansion to him out of respect) gets to his head, the virtues that made him leader in the first place are likely to fade and he will maintain his rule based on inertia and force instead. Thus the communal anarchic society turns into a kingdom, as is only natural.

    2. Only if he wants to remain leader. Dozens of women and only one male – how does he propose to tyranize over his women when he is asleep, and a dozen or so with knives deal with him? No, if he wants to remain a leader, he will have to acquire the virtues of leaders.

      1. Hmmm…a group of women with (kitchen) knives? That might also have worked for self-defense in the forest. Sure, it was nice of Jack to walk them back to their campground; but there’s safety in numbers (especially if armed), so the women didn’t necessarily need male protection. Great deal for Jack, though. Bet he was well “paid”. (Of course, a man who did less of the camp’s physical labor could work the same “protection” racket for the same rewards.)

        1. The problem is that most women do not have the socio-biololgical foundation to respond with violence. I can’t otherwise explain the opposition of most women – especially of the SJW/feminist set – to women getting concealed carry permits. There’s a reason why pistols are called “equalizers”. So, it’s not enough to give some one a weapon – they they have to want to use it. Similarly, in this instance, the women have no use for a male who does not exhibit strength. A man showing no inclination to labor is is a sign to a woman that he is not a reliable source of strength – and protection.
          The example I gave was of a gang of women assaulting a helpless victim. Not the same thing as self-defense.

  10. Good article and a potent illustration of how things “should” be.
    They are however not like this in our current dystopia of useless eaters constantly given subsistence because of the endless toil of the productive class.
    This needs to change and more productive citizens need to form tribes of core believers in what you are all about.
    Embrace the villain archetype and with your core group form a watered down version of your belief/control structure that has a wider appeal and welcomes the lazier proles.
    Use your superior abilities to put them to work for your ends and inculcate in them a sense of communal belonging which ostracizes transgressors.
    Achieve your ends for You and your tribe.

  11. Modern feminism has nothing to do with equality. It’s a power grab. Even the most hardcore of feminists know they aren’t equal to men. Take Ray Rice, for instance. I don’t know what exactly his wife said that pushed him to knock her out, but I’d be willing to bet that if a man had said only one eighth of that same shit, he would have been knocked the fuck out well before they ever got on that elevator.
    I think back to some of the shit women have said to me and wonder, what if a man said that? Or when my evil ex started shoving me during an argument. If a man had done that he would have caught a fist in his teeth.
    So you feminists want equality? We can give you equality.
    Suit up and get your fat asses on the football field. When that 6’4″, 250lb linebacker runs you over, breaking nearly every bone in your body, tell me exactly how equal you are. When a man fails to hold the door open for you, don’t bitch and moan about how chivalry is dead. Holding doors is a patriarchal microaggression.
    When your boyfriend makes you carry your 100lb suitcase that you packed for a weekend vacation, don’t bemoan his unwillingness to help. You’re equal now, so enjoy it.
    When society crumbles, we’ll burn every single piece of literature, every building plan, every piece of advice on how to correctly engineer a city, and leave it to you pixie-haired-empowered lumps of lard to figure it out. Us men will tend to the kitchen and the kids while you ungrateful cunts work out in the heat and plan and build a city of your own. Good luck. Isn’t equality grand?

    1. The “pixie-haired-empowered lumps of lard” would not figure shit out. They’ll whore themselves out to the thirsty guy to do it for her. That’s what they do.

      1. Exactly. They prove their inequality daily, yet claim to be equal to men. Whenever a woman starts spouting off on equality, I start treating her like any other guy. It’s funny how fast they shape up when you refuse to help them lift a heavy object or hold the door for them.

        1. When you refuse to help, they start using shaming tactics (manipulations) to have you do it.
          This is where we men have to call them out on the BS.

        2. I have never met a “strong independent” woman yet that could handle me treating them the same way as a guy.

    2. Are you saying that anybody who says something you don’t like should be punched out? Would you want to live in a society where that’s the norm? What happens when somebody doesn’t like something YOU say?

      1. Lisa, I think what he really means is being provoked. You can only poke a lion with a stick so many times before it attacks you.

        1. Humans are held to a higher standard than lions. And mere words never justify physical violence in retaliation. Again, would we really want to live in a world where unpopular or unpleasant speech was routinely punished with violence?

        2. I believe in so-called fighting words. I won’t swing on someone straight away when they are used, but I’ll get to the nut of the conversation/argument very quickly and basically ask them if they’re aiming for a brawl, and if so, then why the foreplay?

        3. There are many places in the western world where that already happens. There is an unspoken “honor code,” in certain segments of society where disrespect or noncompliance typically initiates violence as a response.
          It serves to police the conduct of others…..
          This policing is either a positive (think athletics or the Infantry as examples) or a negative (look at what our current culture has become.)

        4. It’s a form of feedback. A big part of the reason most men don’t mouth off is physical retaliation is possible. For women, society constrains the feedback and therefore modern women do think it’s okay to mouth off and act like children.
          Standards, morality, ethics, rules…without feedback, repercussions to violations, such things have no teeth and loose their effect on people. Standards don’t exist ex nihilo in human behavior.
          If a person can’t exercise internal discipline, external discipline will need to be applied. Having a vagina should not be a free pass to be an asshat.

        5. You are right. You are dealing with a creature that is far more fearsome than a lion.
          And we already are living in that kind of world sweetheart. Stop kidding yourself.

    3. I could be wrong, but I think she actually hit him first. I think I read or heard that she slapped him or something. Basically picking a fight, loosing said fight, and then she gets eaten alive by the SJWs and feminists when she took responsibility for her part and decided to stay.

    4. “Take Ray Rice, for instance. I don’t know what exactly his wife said that pushed him to knock her out, but I’d be willing to bet that if a man had said only one eighth of that same shit, he would have been knocked the fuck out well before they ever got on that elevator.”
      She spit in his face.
      Bitch had it coming.

    5. Women have said things to me that were a man to have said them I would have been considered justified in striking him. In some cases I’d probably have been considered obligated to strike him.

  12. “It leads to a much more cohesive society—relationships form much more smoothly. This is in part why we’re seeing so many problems in Western civilization.”
    One of my favorite things to do with girls is to watch horror movies. No matter how tough or independent these girls appear to be they usually get freaked out really easily by these obviously fake movies and then look to me to comfort them and keep them “safe”. It’s situations like this where the gender dynamics feel RIGHT – She needs protection and I can protect her, even if it’s a stupid movie, and I’m usually rewarded by her being feminine and nice to me and/or giving me sex.
    These fucked up dynamics are also why dating, especially for younger guys is so tough. Women outnumber us in college and in the workforce so you’re probably playing at an equal playing field with them unless they’re more intrinsically successful than you. It’s easier to get no strings attached sex than it’s ever been, but the issues come when you’re in a relationship with them. They technically don’t need you so they treat you like shit. My last relationship was at its peak when my girl was working a dopey minimum wage job and living at home. Then suddenly she decided she wanted to go to grad school, and suddenly she was a mess – She stopped dressing up nice when I saw her, she was stressed all the time and snapped easily, and began complaining to me that I needed to make more money. A few months later we broke up. Meanwhile, if I had been the one who decided to go to grad school while she worked the same dopey job then no doubt our relationship would’ve been strengthened.

      1. Pre-red pill I dated a girl who was both a feminist AND a vegan (Is it any wonder I discovered the manosphere after we broke up?). One time there was a spider on her wall and it gave me the perfect opportunity to point out her hypocrisy and make fun of her when she asked me to smash it. As a feminist surely she could kill it herself. But as a vegan shouldn’t she allow the spider to live? I guess animal welfare only counts if it’s a cute animal, not a gross spider.
        This same girl also had another bug in her apartment that she let stay there for 4 days even though it freaked her out. Why 4 days? Because that’s when I was gonna see her next. So rather than deal with it in 2 seconds she lived with this thing and was in fear of it because I guess a strong independent woman can’t smack something with a book.

        1. The dichotomy that exist in women’s minds on a single thing truly inhibits them from taking action in just about anything. So they act on how they feel at the moment.

        2. Re: Taking action. Adam Carolla has a theory that if something is out of a woman’s reach she’ll just ignore it. Have you ever noticed women that live alone tend to have lots of burned out ceiling lightbulbs or a beeping smoke detector because the battery is low? Meanwhile, chimpanees have learned to use tools to get food, and they’re way behind on the evolutionary ladder compared to humans.

        3. Or when the toilet water float that is suppose to shut the water off doesn’t work, she’ll turn the water off at the valve at the bottom and open it up after she flushes each time rather than fixing it by bending the metal bar attached to the float down or replacing it all together. This could carry on for years or until that turn valve wears out or ruptures.

        4. Haha, my hippie ex used to argue with me to NOT kill the spiders because they were useful for pest control like catching and killing the more annoying bugs that float around, etc. I’d still kill those fuckers; I hate spiders.

        1. I know it’s technically not a Palmetto Bug, but that’s what we used to call these Water Bugs. Eww, these are some of my least favorite things in nature. They fly directly at your face too. You have to actively duck and lurch to avoid them while walking outside or standing on your balcony. That’s how it was in Sarasota at least.

    1. Or she would have complained that you needed to make more money. You’re well rid of that pill!

    2. I always wonder do males really believe we are really scared from a horror movie. I can’t speak for any other females out there, but horror movie are just not scary to me. However, pretending to be scared I guess could be compare to male game now that I think about it. I am not a girly girl, but when there is a man i’m trying to impress I get extremely feminine. I have no problem pretending to be scared watching movies, or shrieking with disgust when it comes to killing spiders, these are all things that come naturally. hmmm?,…so if your girl is pretending who’s gaming who? (disclaimer* last question is not meant to make you feel like you in particular do not know how to use game, I just realized that girl’s do use game. I just never thought about it.)

  13. great article; funny how femorrhoids are so keen to hippie values yet they never embrace the full consequences of a “natural” way of life. Waiting on part 2 of this one

  14. This article illustrates one of the problems of living in a big city – Nobody cares about anything because they figure someone else among the millions of people around them can fix a problem instead of them.
    Case in point: A few years back I was walking by Bryant Park in Manhattan when a delivery van hit a guy on a bicycle, sending him flying. Not only did everyone on the sidewalk pass on by without offering the cyclist help, the van driver ended up getting out of his truck and yelling at the cyclist for being in his way. If this were a small town or rural area then no doubt the driver would’ve been less of a dick and passersby would’ve helped. Hell, I walked right on by, I had a train to catch! Humans work best in small, tight-knit communities. Meanwhile, I live in a building with about 150 apartments and I have no clue who my neighbors are. The closest person to me that I actually know lives a mile away. Think about that.
    But when you’re in a forest hippie community away from society there’s a chance that negligence could lead to someone getting hurt or dying. Without this safety net it brings out our inner altruism, and I had no fucking doubt at all that everyone in the society was very gracious for the smallest of things.

    1. Another thing to consider is the Anarchy factor. Anarchy (no rulers) depends on the voluntary profitable exchange of goods and services. Without an indoctrination system to teach envy, obedience, and organized theft to use unnatural force to direct society, it is amazing how smooth things can be, even as the population grows. People will coalesce around leaders who are naturally selected voluntarily on their ability to get shit done. If they can’t get shit done, then they just naturally wont be leader any more. No need for an election.
      Libertarians have been preaching the concept of Spontaneous Order forever. However, even when seeing it in action. 99% of those hippies will go back to whatever their “real life” is and bow down to Bernie while clutching their Che Guevara shirts.

      1. Not these hippies, mate 🙂 the whole reason they went to the Rainbow Gathering is because they’re trying to raise awareness of tribal governments and how effective they are.
        People referred to outside civilization as “new Babylon,” and they were very eager to escape it. Conscientious objectors many of them were.

        1. It really is shocking that in 2016, with all the myriad of cultures and societies throughout the planet, that we don’t have a place where people can go that is not a citified industrial police state. Somewhere that is more like your hippie commune, but not full of people who just want to smoke pot and sit in a circle drum all day.
          I think there are thousands of people from various groups who would be naturally drawn to a society like that: ROK readers, true religious people, pacifists, hippies, native Americans, etc.

        2. This, and many other factors, besides it being so fucking depressing, is why I consider “Lord of the Flies” to be so much bullshit.

        3. Though not all of those groups would agree on how things should be done. Maybe there should be many such experiments.

        4. I have had this argument with statists (particularly the left wing variety) when they tell me to relocate to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
          People should be able to congregate where they want with who they want, provided that they aren’t violating other people’s rights. However, if people try to build a community of their choosing that doesnt abide by the “comunity standards” of the Big Massa(s) that presume to own the landmass of North America, they will be treated as terrorists for trying to defend themselves against the inevitable violence trying to quell the “traitorous rebelion.”

        5. They don’t have to agree. They just need to not agress agianst those that they disagree with. When one tries to agress against another (whether it is one or a million) they are attempting to “rule” them. That is where the worst of people comes from. Politics and government of coercive force is the most destructive cult in the history of mankind.

        6. “with all the myriad of cultures and societies throughout the planet, that we don’t have a place where people can go that is not a citified industrial police state. Somewhere that is more like your hippie commune, but not full of people who just want to smoke pot and sit in a circle drum all day.
          “I think there are thousands of people from
          various groups who would be naturally drawn to a society like that: ROK readers, true religious people, pacifists, hippies, native Americans, etc.”
          Russia gives away land in Siberia, but the last people that would thrive there are the pacifists/hippies and neo-pagan types. I doubt they’d make it through the first winter. My bet would be on the pacifists to be the first to get violent and on the vegans to be the first to resort to cannibalism.

        7. “Not these hippies, mate 🙂 the whole reason they went to the Rainbow Gathering is because they’re trying to raise awareness of tribal governments and how effective they are.
          “People referred to outside civilization as ‘new Babylon,’ and they were very eager to escape it.”
          Those hippies were the bleeding edge of the “progress” of Mystery Babylon (Rev. 17/18).

        8. Yes…and in this hypothetical society, some groups would agress against other groups when it came time to decide how society would function, and who would lead and how. Religious conservatives, religious liberals, atheists of all political stripes, ROK readers, pacifists, Native Americans–wait, that sounds like what we already have. (And how’s that workin’ for ya?) Separate experimental societies might work better. (With people able to choose to switch societies at 18, and get “remedial education” if the upbringing of their parents’ choice didn’t equip them for the society to which they relocated. Say, somebody raised in a low-tech society wanted to join a high-tech society and become an electrical engineer.)

        9. Somalia has 7 different Government s contesting the region so it’s a bulls hit argument

      2. Anarchy works until somebody goes on a conquest (or theft) binge. Then it becomes rule by the biggest bully on the block. Then the “block” bullies recruit armies and fight each other. Then the winning team forms a nation-state. Too often, a dictatorship.

    2. I’m convinced humans aren’t meant to live in cities. Cities make you shut down so many sensory functions in your brain, you start becoming a zombie of sorts. I get so tweaked out anytime I visit one. NYC is horrible. You can’t even see the sun over all the buildings.

      1. Check out Dunbar’s Number. From Wikipedia, it’s “A suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.” This means that you can’t really care about more than 150 people at a time. This is the perfect number for a tribe or small village in prehistoric times, but once you get more than that number in a community the stability of these relationships fails or is nonexistent.

        1. Tribes would have about 30 people, above that becomes a burden when trying to get food and less can’t produce as much stuff.

      2. As far as the sun being obscured by buildings in NYC, there was actually a law passed around 1920 that stated that if a building was over a certain height it had to have a “birthday cake” structure, where the bottom has to be thicker than the top. This is because tall, straight buildings were being put up all over the city and they would completely obscure the sunlight from hitting certain streets at any point of the day.
        I used to work downtown on an old street that had this issue. You couldn’t tell by looking out the front doors and windows if it was sunny or cloudy because the sun never reached the street. It was like working in perpetual darkness.

    3. I think this has more to do with Multiculturalism/Modern Society than it does with just the size of the city. Something I here a lot of old people actually say is society has just become more hostile, you can’t talk to people on Public Transit or say high while walking on the street anymore.

      1. Roosh’s article about the Midwest really hit home with me at the part where he said he was surprised to find a woman walking her dog after dark down a suburban street saying hello to him, rather than tensing up like she thought he was going to rape her. One of the most shocking things about getting out of the city for me is having cashiers chat you up while ringing up an order, or people going out of their way to hold a door open for me. Little things like that don’t exist in the big city.

        1. Get out of NYC. My brother lived an hour away in Jersey for 5 years and hated every minute of it. Said people were the worst–especially asian women for some reason. He was counting the days until he rotated back to the mid-west.

        2. It’s something I’ve been thinking about. For the most part my work and career aren’t affected by living here, in fact I think they’re improved by living here. I also live in a quiet neighborhood with cheap rent and have easy access to anything I need via public transportation. The biggest issues I have, though, are with casual social interaction on weekends. It’s getting harder and harder to have meaningful interactions with people anymore, be they male or female. I can’t remember the last time I made a true friend, and in fact most of the people I hang out with are from high school, which I graduated from over 10 years ago.

        3. And don’t get me started on interactions with girls here. I’m 30 and thinking about having something deeper with a girl than a fling/random hookup (No marriage or kids, though). While I have no problem hooking up with most girls I approach, hardly any of them have redeeming long-term relationship qualities. In fact, many of them are so desensitized to male attention that it’s a burden more than a compliment and they’ll be more annoyed than anything if you approach them at night (Hence why I’m interested in honing my day game skills).
          They’ve also become so desensitized to sex that they’ll dole out blowjobs like nothing, but if you try and hold hands you’re moving too fast. Case in point, at a prolific period for me last summer I slept with 4 girls in about 2 months. I spent $11 total to get them home (A beer for one, a beer for another, a bottle of water for the third, and absolutely nothing for the last). This tells me that pussy is worth nothing anymore. Yet the attitude I get from most girls tells me they think their pussies are made of gold.

        4. Yeah. It kind of sucks that anti social liberals have taken over American cities. It has caused a self fulfilling effect where people who aren’t anti social try to get out of the cities because of the anti socialness.

        5. I usually say something snarky like “if your pussy is that good, go home and eat it yourself.”
          We’ll, in my youth I would say that. I am not a greybeard yet, but closer that than anything else.

        6. I used to live on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. I do not miss it all. Much to do, but very bad for mental health.

        7. That’s the consumerism and fragmentation of multi cult and digital era taking hold. It extends far beyond NY to be honest. It’s a societal pathogen borne in the very device you’re holding.

      2. On the subject of multiculturalism, I think that could also lead to people not being as friendly. I took a video on the subway recently of the view outside the train’s window as it went above ground. The train was packed, but upon viewing the video I couldn’t pick out one word of English, it mostly sounded like Spanish and Chinese. In fact, to get the video I had to ask a rider if it was cool if I held my phone up to the window near their head. They didn’t speak any English and had no idea what I was trying to say. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are more alien species in Star Wars who can speak English than actual humans in NYC.
        I live in a multicultural neighborhood where a lot of different ethnicities merge together, and communications is so difficult here. I’ve been in this area 5 years and the staff at my local convenience store have all been there the same period of time, yet their English skills are almost nonexistent. If you have to talk to them about anything other than a product name or the amount of an order/change then they just stare at you and say sorry they don’t understand. Maybe the reason why cashiers in rural areas chat me up is because they can actually speak English.

        1. Consumerist, multi cult, (human) rat swarm.. with nice parks and food. Does that sum it up? It’s an easy place to take a shine to, but it can really grind down your humanity. And I guess very few who inhabit it pay much mind or are grateful to past inhabitants who built it.

        2. I live near a very historic neighborhood with strong Dutch roots and beautiful architecture……That is now 80% black and covered in filth and graffiti. I had to go through it recently and took the time to look beneath the urban influence and see the history there. It’s such a shame that what could’ve been an amazing neighborhood today has been allowed to go to shit. I’ll see a turn of the century building with some animal’s tag spray painted on it and wonder if anyone there actually knows about the history or gives a shit about it.
          You also have to wonder why decent neighborhoods turn to shit after blacks and other minorities move it. But then again, look at Africa and this is like Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous for blacks. Maybe the black community just sucks because of black people.

        3. I didn’t encounter much animosity there in a short few months’ stay. The sheer volume of people of different clans (with language barriers included) seems to limit the sense of a larger community, so people naturally stick to their clans in general. The consumerism is a roadblock too, probably, as people out to get theirs, as opposed to thinking much of others. I saw a video of an ex military spook, describing how the education system was purposefully designed to dumb down Americans (title is something like ‘forget Snowden, you need to meet Joe’). That can really be evident now and again, and of course there are lower iq subsets too.
          The unchecked immigration is a feature of so many cities now that it’s undermining people’s sense of history and link with the past. It’s a shame of course in many ways, but we’re just a mere flicker in time anyway so whaddayagonnado?
          Overall I took a shine to life there, but the consumerism, subway life, got to be a grind at times.

  15. Excellent article. This lifestyle is much closer to how most the vast majority of humans throughout history conducted their lives, and one could argue that it is the “natural” state of man. So many of the problems in our modern, industrial system such as obesity, depression, feminism, and intrusive government were close to non-existent in the primitive times, proving that they are unnatural to the human experience.

  16. Anarchy is awesome. Just gotta make sure and shoot the guy that comes up with the idea of a “tax” on something. That’s how shit gets started.

    1. It’s already started; people who did more work for the community got more food from the community stockpiles. Isn’t that a tax?

      1. No. The people whondid more work, were compensated for their work with more resources. That is free market exchange of services.
        Taxes on the other hand, are resources confiscated through coercive force. That is a big difference.

  17. Got a couple of hippie chicks renting two rooms downstairs from me. Its not a life I would advocate living but there are definitely a few things we could learn from them. I’ve definitely found myself being a little less materialistic. Getting off electronic devices a bit more and taking pleasure in the simple things in life.
    This things that I dislike about them is they don’t actually have jobs and are welfare leaches. But the rent come in on time so I don’t mind. And its a good polar opposite to what I’ve got going on, so the diversity is good.

    1. One of the closest things to a western Unicorn I’ve ever met was this 23 year old hippie chick. I didn’t meet her until after she was married and with a newborn, but I was instantly attracted to her. Long, blonde hair, passionate, kind, sweet. She wasn’t one of the angry-fembot-protest hippies. No, she was a more “eat healthy food and practice yoga and avoid chemicals and drugs whenever possible” hippie.
      She even invited me and the girl who introduced us over to her place for a vegetarian meal. I couldn’t stop staring at her. I think she was a natural birth nurse– a doulah? so she did have a source of income. I don’t know what her husband did for a living. They both seemed quite happy, with permanent natural smiles on their faces.

      1. I call those types of girls “crunchie.” Not full blown granola, but leaning towards it. I have a string of them in my past. Always fun, positive, and extroverted. Makes a good balance for cynical introversion.

        1. “..call those types of girls “crunchie(s).”
          That’s what tankers call dismounted infantry.

      2. Where I’m from there a different degrees of Hippy-ness. The spectrum ranges from, got dreadlocks once and went to a bush rave when they were 17, All the way through to full on living in the bush and never seeing a razor.
        We have massive hippy communities living in the jungle that have never seen Western civilization. I’m not even kidding. I live a few hours from the Daintree Rainforest for reference. Most of the hippies here are the acid dropping rave attending kind though.
        I think everyone could benefit from a little bit of Hippy-ness. But there definitely a limit where I would prefer my hot showers and toilet paper.

  18. Holy hell. Agreed. Great piece. I’ve heard of the rainbow people but I thought it was a full-time operation out there, not just two weeks. I always thought the points you made might be the case. Not surprised I was right.

    1. It’s a semi-full time operation. There’s actually events every month, just one big one every year (the one I went to).
      A lot of them meet people and leave with one another, getting odd jobs here and there (like working at a growery or something).
      I knew a guy who liked it so much he never came back. Just left his job and car and lives with some folks out in Oregon now, comes back to the monthly gatherings all the time.

      1. Nice to get an inside perspective. I suppose they’re nomadic the rest of the year? I heard they use crystals as currency.

  19. Cool story, bro.
    15… THOUSAND people? Wow.
    I’d certainly like to hear more about this–sounds like a fascinating social experiment. Would you recommend attending this event? What role would you say has the best payoff? For a short time, I could “fake” any role from the “Jake” director character down to a circle drum player. I would imagine the best payoff was a semi-authoritative role like the one you played. With that many people, there HAS to be some organization or else shit (literally) will break down really fast.
    I wonder how many single females are there though? Seems to me there are more hippie dudes, so most of the girls would be coming with their scuzmate. I’m sure there were some cuties though. I know a local grungie hippie chick at the local health food store who would be an 8.5+ if you gave her a makeover. But I imagine most of them with hairy arms or legs and lack of hygiene would be ruled out by me pretty quickly. Maybe some young college girls would be ok.

      1. No offense to any ladies reading this, but most women talk shit about being strong and independent, especially the younger ones. However invite them to something as simple as a petting zoo at a farm, and let the “Eeww, that’s gross!” commence.

        1. I just calmly keep looking at her while she is going on about “Strong and independent” . Then I Mansplain to her why she is wrong.

        1. Wrong. Most guys enjoy the comforts of hairless arms and legs on women. We don’t need them.

    1. Hey, it’s “nature”. Hairy arms and legs, and limited hygeine, come with the territory! Overall, no thanks.

  20. The countryside has less distractions as opposed to the city, allowing you to see what is really important.
    Unfortunately, those living in the countryside won’t really do anything politically until shit hits the fan. Like the proletariat in 1984, if they are kept at a minimum level of happiness they will do nothing.
    I would love to see the hardy hill-folk against the soft city folks. An unrealistic possibility, but I must admit it is a romantic and cathartic one.

    1. I ain’t doing shit when the shit hits the fan either. I’m gathering the pack and heading for the mountains until things settle down. In Mad Max terms, I’m going gyro captain.

      1. I’m already in the mountains, more or less. House is hidden in a dell along with a swamp and some hay fields that used to be an orchard about 70 years ago. Still some apples and pears, too. So naturally I’ve concocted some shtf plans, like a wood gasifier, water wheel, etc. Plus there’s deer, turkey and rabbit out the wazoo here. I’d just have to run into town to pick up my middle bro in my v8 “battlevan”.

        1. Nice. The plan is to move into the country eventually. We want land for chickens, goats, and more dogs. The next step is finding cabin land even further off the grid.

        2. On my commute to work I pass a few “hobby farms” with goats, sheeps, chickens and alpacas. Very picturesque. I’m considering -as a project for the sumer- making prototypes of some of my shtf gadgets. After I finish my cowboy-style boots, of course. I have a shopsmith that’s begging to be used.

    2. We do nothing because we have no power.
      A country accent alone is enough to keep one from being taken seriously. I live deep in the Appalachians though, perhaps not all country sides are the same. We have problems here, lots; they just don’t put it on the news. We are also predominately white, so our “shit” doesn’t actually exist according to those in the city.

  21. This article aligns with all my anecdotal evidence camping. It’s a good idea to take a potential mate camping. It quickly exposes their true nature. Does she try to collect wood and build a fire with the guys, or circle up the camp chairs with the other girls? Does she ask you for guidance or her role or go it her own (and fail) like a strong independent woman?

    1. Very interesting comment. The Closest I have seen are the “boys against the girls’ survival reality TV shows. The women failed badly ,so bad that they had to stop and split the men up to dilute the females into both groups. The men sent to the women’s camp knew and felt screwed as they were. The

  22. The feminist master minds figured this all out back in the 50’s, if not sooner. This is why they have advocated for big government, so that women can be free of their need of men. Of course, it is likely that they will find that our joy flows from our wants, and our wants flow from our needs. In short, no needs, no joy. Ah, I am rambling…Good article all the same!

    1. Very interesting comment. The Closest I have seen are the “boys against the girls’ survival reality TV shows. The women failed badly ,so bad that they had to stop and split the men up to dilute the females into both groups. The men sent to the women’s camp knew and felt screwed as they were.

  23. How about women be attracted to character, not the same as power.
    The devil has plenty of power.

        1. I can appreciate your good intentions (and yes I looked at the linked page) but I already know all of that.
          I’d wager I’m the same as most men I know: not looking for “perfect”, but a basic number of criteria.
          That does including an attractive face/body etc in addition to other good characteristics. And why not? A man is entitled to a few things from a woman from all the burdens he has to bear.

  24. This article by Jon Anthony supports a comment that I have posted on other similar ROK threads. Here is my re-post for those that had not seen it previously:
    Modern Humans have been on earth for approximately 200,000-300,000 years, civilization has existed for 6,000 years and the “society” that we live in today, which has rules that we are FORCED to follow, is a little over 200 years old. What this means, is that MANY of the people whom we THINK are Alphas today, may in fact, NOT be Alphas at all. Simply put, the last 200+ years has given LEGAL advantages to crafty, backstabbing, two-faced, Betas, whom gain undeserved Alpha status, due to LEGAL protection from PHYSICAL retaliation, whereas in the previous 199,800 years of “mans existence”, these guys would have been the “follower” or quickly dispatched through physical retaliation.
    If you have any doubts, just think of people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. Could either of these schmucks have lead men and convinced them to give their lives for a mere “personal conviction” in BATTLE? Like say, ALEXANDER THE GREAT or HANNIBAL? Of course not, BUT, people like these guys are given a type of “Alpha Status” today because they are allowed act TOUGH, without any real threat of losing their heads or getting Tarred & Feathered by disgruntled peasants.
    I’ll clarify further, “Appointed Pseudo Alphas”, are winning in America because the “unspoken rules” and “legal system” have been designed to prevent “aggressive retaliation” by disgruntled underlings. Think back to the early Teamsters tactics that were used against stubborn business owners and how you don’t see similar tactics being applied any longer. Once you recognize the overt influence of “undue physical & legal protection” by government, it becomes easy to understand why “Appointed Pseudo Alphas” rule today. Note, its not because of superior leadership, nor because of any amount of endowed masculinity. It is because these “Appointed Pseudo Alphas” are receiving undue legal protection, that keeps the hordes of frustrated Betas from ripping these “leaders”, limb from limb. The current batch of successful business leaders, that we see today, would have been beaten within an inch of their lives during the times of the Teamsters or Tarred & Feathered, right in front of their factories, in earlier times.
    In Tribal and Chieftain level societies, the males that accumulated the most wealth and children were neither the “most fierce” nor the “most “timid”. “Successful leaders” in those times tended to fall somewhere in the middle, the main reason being that the “most fierce” warriors typically died in the hunt or battle because they could not temper when to be “bold” versus “when to hold back”. Also, on the flip side, it should be obvious why the “most timid” didn’t accumulate any wealth or children in a world based on hand-to-hand battles and hunts.
    If you need a modern example, look no further than the post-war years, after WWII. Who do you think returned back to the USA, alive, after the war? Was it the foolhardy? Was it the yellow bellies? OR the ones whom could properly weigh the situation and took PROPER action? The answer should be obvious because not coincidentally, that was a period of stable employment and high wages for EVERYONE. With that said, it should safe to assume that it was the most “balanced people” returning alive from the war, whom became “captains of industry” in the post-war years. The “foolhardy” and “yellow bellies” likley died on the battlefield or returned home too physically and/or mentally damaged to function in civilian leadership roles.
    What exactly do I mean and how did we get here?
    Well, it starts in K-12 education, where certain kids are publicly punished for being natural leaders and Beta Types are rewarded with leadership positions for being “yes men” and “yes women”. Other kids see this and then begin to develop an indoctrinated aversion to kids that have natural leadership, for fear of getting in trouble, by simply being around or associated with them. This mindset then gets extended into the workplace where “appointed authority” is the rule, with no exceptions being made for “natural authority” to usurp the direction of poorly run projects, useless conversations or bad policies. Once people get past a certain age, their “profiles” and “resume” begin to carry much more weight than their actual “endowed masculinity”. Sure, women don’t pine over Manginas when they meet them in the flesh, but they will pine over a “hidden mangina” with a perfectly crafted OkCupid or Tinder profile.
    So, do real Alpha types still clean up with the ladies? Of course they do, but a LOT of “hidden betas” are getting FAR more than their share, of both “first looks” and “last looks”, than they would have received in the previous 50 years (heck, even the last 6,000 years of civilizations existence for than matter). These days, this situation applies to both the career track and the surface preferences of females.
    Note, its not specifically that women standards have risen (we all know they have not), its that women keep on adding to the list of “non essential” traits that their potential partners and hook-ups must have, at minimum. So while going over that “non essential” list of traits, women unknowing eliminate what they ACTUALLY want and end up with something that they are ultimately dissatisfied with, an “Appointed Pseudo Alphas”. This exact same scenario goes for employers as well.
    I frequently use the old comedy film “Revenge of the Nerds”, from 1984, as an ANOLOGY, that illustrates where we were and the transition to where we are currently, as a society, today.
    When the “metaphorical JOCKS” were in charge of the “Greek Council”, parties raged, un-PC behavior was tolerated and everyone was having a really good time, with few harsh consequences for bad behavior (hence the antiquated term, “boys will be boys”). As we all know now, in hindsight, when the “metaphorical JOCKS” were in charge, people earned good wages, nobody was micromanaged (“use your best judgment” was a commonly applied principle), people didn’t get fired on a whim and life in general was good FOR NEARLY EVERBODY.
    Then one day the “metaphorical NERDS” gained control of the “Greek Council” and parties started sucking, people had to kowtow to PC behavior (so as not to offend anyone), EVERYONE became micromanaged (i.e. Lean) and people started having less fun in EVERY aspect of life, while consequences for uncouth behaviors were jacked up to the highest degree (i.e. zero tolerance).
    So I ask, was “life” better for EVERYONE, under the rule of the “metaphorical JOCKS” or better today under the rule of the “metaphorical NERDS”, whom are nothing more than “Pseudo Alphas” with “appointed authority”?
    Long live the “Betas of Nature” wielding “Appointed Authority”, I guess.
    I will also add, that this change in will also be to our civilizations demise.

    1. You clearly don’t have an even basic understanding of psychology and hey, if you don’t like “nerds” so much, get the fuck off your Computer.

      1. @Andrew
        Say what?
        First, I only reference the movie as an analogy, signifying how social constructs evolved American Western Civilization to its current state of affairs.
        Second, referring to the other portions of my post, the archeological record, FULLY supports all that I have noted above. “Psychology” and its associated medical classifications, USED TO ENGORGE THE MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLAEX, does NOT, under any circumstances, trump the basic social structures present in ACTUAL, functioning, Tribal level and Chiefdom level societies.
        Third, you CLEARLY need to read a little more from multi-disciplinary sources because you DEFINATELY don’t seem to have any idea WHERE humans came from, how we got to where we are today, nor how we are not really that far removed from an accidental reentry into a true and basic “state of nature” .
        You are in luck however, I do have a response to your ” if you don’t like nerds” comment:
        “Technology” progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created, to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (over time, as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology, used to previously control their actions).
        One simple example is Amoxicillin which was created by Beecham Group, using funding provided by Bristol-Meyers. Bristol-Meyers was founded by two NON-SCIENTIST, trust fund babies, turned investors, John Ripley Myers and William McLaren Bristol.
        A second example, is a guy named Howard Florey whom showed Flemming how to develop a method of extracting penicillin AND it was Florey whom secured the funding to buy the lab equipment needed to conduct the work. Again, the financial drivers of why tech is developed always points back to investment by the “Owners of Capital”.
        To put it simply, old world rulers, like Charlemagne, did not need tech like cell phones to help them control their holdings, so, no investment was made to develop such technology (because they could maintain efficient control of their holdings using human capital alone, which is cheaper than having to develop a brand new, untested technology). However, on the flip side, a modern business leaders cannot control their fiat holdings without the assistance of evolving technology, like Smart Phones & Social Media, because populations today are much larger than they were in Charlemagne’s era and those lower class populations also have communication tech available to them, that would allow for then to sustain much more organized revolts against said business leaders (unionization, boycotting, rioting, etc).
        “Technology” does not “progress” for ANY of the reasons that most people are taught to believe. Technology progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created, to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology used to previously control their actions).
        Two popularized examples of anomalous technology are the Antikythera Mechanism, which has been estimated to be from 67 BC and the Baghdad Battery, estimated to be from 250 BC. So, how would YOU surmise objects, such as, the Antikythera Mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not?
        Most people are not aware that there are archeologists, working in multidisciplinary teams along with other data scientist, working for the Feds, modeling exactly what described above. Wallstreet has also latched onto this idea within the last decade, which is why we are seeing such a huge explosion in venture capital funding and a reduction in traditional R&D spending.
        Big business and government can now predict technological advancements based almost solely on population growth trends. I worked as a grad student for a professor subbing for defense contractor in the early 2000’s, whom was working on this very topic.
        So back to my point, why do objects, such as, the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not? I did not give an answer, but will do so below.
        I mention the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery because despite likely being the first of their kind, they are one-offs, with similar devices not being created until several centuries later. So, regardless of their utility and advanced capabilities, the lack of other examples proves, in earlier time periods, to a degree, that the cost to create these devices was greater than simply using human labor to accomplish the same task, at that particular time. However, when populations increased, the utility of these types of devices increased along with that growth and the costs to make these devices ended up eventually being less than using human capital to accomplish the same task, specifically during those periods with the highest localized population levels. Hence, much later in history, you see many more devices, similar to the Antikythera Mechanism and the Baghdad Battery, in the archeological record.
        I’ll give a very small insight into the portions of the DOD project that my professor was asked to work on, which were not Classified (as were the separate projects being completed by the other academic archeologists). My professors specialty was in stone age technology and his most famous work was on how climate affected what specific Stone age Technologies were developed by isolated groups, whom were not in contact with one another. He found that the pending on the temperate zone, certain Stone Age technologies were guaranteed to be developed. So despite having had no contact with one another, groups of humans separated by thousands of miles would arrive at the same technological solution, in order to solve the same problem. He wrote a book in the early 80’s, that still sells many copies today and despite its age, most of it contents still stand today unchallenged.
        Now how does all this relate to a DOD study focused on technology development?
        My professor was asked to extrapolate his research even further, to see if there was also a correlation with population growth. He found that there were distinct population growth markers that would move a society from stone age tool makers into the early bronze age. It didn’t matter where these ancient people were located in the world, nor what temperate zone they were in. When the population hit certain levels, more advanced technology emerged AND the technology developed was always the same between unrelated groups, having had no contact with one another, located thousands of miles apart. By the end of the study he had a graduated scale correlating the population level to a specific tools development. So, as was found in his study, some groups did not develop certain technologies because they never reached, the determined, minimum population level, while other groups took far less time to develop the so-called “more advanced” technologies when their populations spiked over shorter periods of time than their peers.
        Now, he did learn eventually that another archeologist, that he knew personally, was also asked to work on this same DOD project. This professors specialty area was Iron Age trash site/dumps. He was asked to do the SAME THING, in his specialty area, as my professor was, which was to track population growth milestones and correlate those milestones with the creation of more advanced technology. His findings were exactly the same, when populations reached certain levels, more advanced technology emerged AND the technology developed was always the same between unrelated groups, whom had no contact with one another and were located thousands of miles apart.
        Now consider that many other academics were asked to do the same thing for their research areas (across all ages and eras) and it becomes quite easy to see what kinds of patterns the DOD was trying to deduce. Remember this wasn’t an NSF grant, it was a private sector DOD contract (under a defense company holding the Fed contract). This was 15 years ago now, so, do you REALLY think that big corps and government, at this point in time, can’t predict specific emerging technology and then use that knowledge, attempting to corner the markets before smaller inventors can grab any portion of the pie, while developing their own products, unknowingly, in parallel with the Big Boys?
        For example, what do you think is behind the push for self driving cars? Nobody will be able to afford them for another 20 years, at least, nor does there doesn’t’ seem to be any immediate need for them in this same time frame?
        I’ll tell you why, the introduction of consumer grade, Self-driving cars, depends entirely on population growth, nothing else.
        Things will not work out quite the way the “Owners of Capital” believe it will, IF, they truly believe in severely reducing the overall world population. Contrary to belief, their current power structure needs overpopulation to thrive. Without desperate hungry people trampling each other for jobs and resources, power will slip from the “Owners of Capital” hands quickly.

        1. “When the JOCKS were in charge of the “Greek Council”, parties raged, un-PC behavior was tolerated and everyone was having a really good time, with few harsh consequences for bad behavior (hence the term, “boys will be boys”). As we all know now, in hindsight, when the JOCKS were in charge, people earned good wages, nobody was micromanaged (“use your best judgment” was a commonly applied practice), people didn’t get fired on a whim and life in general was good.
          Then one day the NERDS gained control of the “Greek Council” and parties started sucking, people had to kowtow to PC behavior (so as not to offend anyone), EVERYONE became micromanaged (i.e. Lean) and people started having less fun in EVERY aspect of life, while consequences for uncouth behaviors were jacked up to the highest degree (i.e. zero tolerance).
          So I ask, was “life” better for EVERYONE, under the rule of the JOCKS or better today under the rule of the NERDS, whom are nothing more than “Pseudo Alphas” with “appointed authority”?”
          I am talking about this bullshit. They had better parties? 90% of what you are saying is completely un related to “nerds” and has too do with general societal trends.

        2. @Andrew, again it was a quick-and-dirty analogy, re-read my follow-up post, perhaps you might learn something new today.
          But then again, you probably weren’t even alive then, let alone of legal age in that era, so how in the world would you know if things have gotten better or worse since.
          As I said in an earlier ROK posts, things got REALLY bad with the mass adoption of smartphones and social media, by the general public, post 2008 (last I checked Nerds overseen by King Nerd, Steve Jobs, made these PRODCUTS appealing to the masses). Most things, in general, were REALLY fun before the introduction of said tech and working wasn’t so bad either. So, excuse me, if I don’t see how “tech” has made my life any better in the last 10 years because it has not. Its just one more nuisance to have to track and manage, day to day, like bills, taxes, legal correspondence, phone calls and contracts.

        3. “But then again, you probably weren’t even alive then, let alone of legal age in that era, so how in the world would you know if things have gotten better or worse since.” Oh, the typical, “back in my day, blah, blah, blah was soooooo much better”.
          “As I said in an earlier ROK posts, things got REALLY bad with the mass adoption of smartphones and social media, by the general public, post 2008” Yeah I would actually agree with that, but personally I don’t like to use cellular phones anyways, I think mobile devices are kinda boring.
          “last I checked Nerds overseen by King Nerd, Steve Jobs” That is 100% bollocks. first, Steve Jobs was first and foremost a businessman, he really didn’t have any understanding of technology. Second, most techies dislike Apple and Steve jobs. The only people I know who “like” apple products are generally technologically illiterate or like some niche feature either not available/poor on Linux or Windows.
          “made these PRODCUTS appealing to the masses” Again, Steve Jobs was a businessman looking to make money, he wasn’t really a nerd.
          “So, excuse me, if I don’t see how “tech” has made my life any better in the last 10 years because it has not.” I specifically refereed to the internet, but anyways, advancements in computers and wire communications have had MAJOR benefits to society, I couldn’t even list all the things that have improved. CAD modeling has made engineering significantly faster, easier, and more accurate. The internet has allowed for much faster communications and allows for transactions to be made much quicker. Spreadsheets have significantly streamlined accounting. With large Data storage spaces now in the terabytes, you basically don’t need paper anymore. The internet has also allowed sites like such as the one we are on right now to happen. The internet has given much more accurate and up to date data in the hands of billions of people (even though it’s wasted on facebuk and dumb shit, but for the people who want to use that information, they have it). Maybe it directly made life more “enjoyable”, but it has helped a lot of people and helped the economy.

        4. “‘Technology’ progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created, to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (over time, as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology, used to previously control their actions).” Not necessarily, ever heard of the World Wide Web? Or the Internet? Polio Vaccine? Lots of tech was made for reasons other than money.
          Anyways, reading your whole comment, it’s pretty much irrelevant and very debatable. Even if what you say is true, who are the rich going to hire to do this stuff? “Nerds”. And I am not techie btw, I am fairly technologically stupid (though more educated than the average person), but I still have respect for people who do understand technology (“nerds”). Most of your stupid ranting against them seems pretty incohesive and is just scape goating random stuff on nerds. If you really think they ruined parties, go have your own party with the rest of your now 50 year old college buddies.

        5. @Andrew hate to break it to you buts its the last 200 years that is the most fragile and LEAST RELEVANT in the overall evolution of man and society. Humans evolved biolovically to live like the article shows and we are far more likely to return to that state than we are to continue living in our current techocracy. Again, modern man has existed for at least 300,000 years, civilzation is about 6,000 years old and our technocracy is no more than 200 years old, making it nearly irrelevant in regards to the overall evolution of human kind. If you don’t understand that due to ignorance thats not my problem. You just need to get more background in the subject so you can begin to understand the basics of what I have written.

        6. “Again, modern man has existed for at least 300,000 years” Last time you said 200k, and that is what most scientists agree on.
          Everything you have said in this comment has no relevance to the statement you replied too.

        7. So, if you insist on Spitting-Heirs, modern humans can be traced back as far as 700,000 years ago, but the typical range being cited by most academics is 200,000-400,000 years. It all depends on whether the researcher considers Homo heidelbergensis a modern human or not.

        8. @Andrew, umm, if you haven’t noticed, “metaphorical Nerds” seemed to have ruined women too, who today are nothing more than Smartphone zombies using Tinder, OkCupid, Facebook and Pinterist, for 10 HOURS A DAY!

        9. Actaully I just realized something, your metaphorical nerd Steve Jobs is actually the text book example of the rich people who create new technology, you should be criticizing the rich, not “nerds”.

        10. @Andrew, you are CLEARLY not reading my posts and are making out of context comments. I most certainly do address the roles of the Elite in my above posts.
          I’ll recap the gist of what I have said, “Metaphorical Nerds” are the “Handmaidens” of the “Owners of Capital”. They are one in the same because neither can retain their power without the support of the other.

      2. @Andrew, lucky you, it seems you have received a Feminist Approved Thumbs-Up from Lisa.

        1. Who is Lisa? Is that some sort of feminist in the comment section? Well I don’t care who likes me, my opinions are my opinions.

    2. Excellent points, Cuckerberg or Jobs would be shit in any society except the modern ones, they invented technological validation scams.

  25. Pretty much all of those hippies in that documentary would be dead in a matter of days in the real Jamestown or Plymouth colony in the 17th century, or in a wagon train crossing the country in the 19th century.
    SJW Hippies from 2016 would be the first to die in 1616 Jamestown.

    1. Not necessarily whenever John Smith was allowed to run Jamestown he would put everybody to work. This would piss off the nobles who hated work, they would then conspire to overthrow him. Once the nobles would take over famine would return. John Smith was a good leader and was able to make the colony work and survive. Unfortunately he was surrounded by lazy, entitled, nobles who undermined him and contributed nothing.
      If he was put in charge of this hippie commune, assuming there was no possibility of assistance from any civilized people, his first order of business would be putting everyone to work. Those that refused to work would not eat.

  26. It’s pretty sad how far our civilization has fallen. Back when the hippies became common, they were correctly seen as degenerate punks who should shut up and get a job. If the author of this article isn’t making up a bunch of bs, it would seem that the hippies are LESS degenerate than modern mainstream society. There’s drugs, alcohol, and fornication all over in mainstream society, so it isn’t much better than the hippie commune in that respect. The hippies seem to have taken on traditional gender roles, which mainstream society wants to destroy. We should be ashamed of the fact that the hippies are less degenerate than us, but the SJWs who control this country are proud of it. Sad, sad, sad.

  27. But we are not living in ‘a state of nature’. We know comparative advantage exists, and some one who spends 18 hours a day hacking code adds more value than a lumberjack. Yet, they should focus on what each does best. So, while I accept the point about how sex roles emerge regardless of how often they are denied, a society that does not require us to live in the wild is going to have advantages over those that do. All progress depends on the existence of a leisure class.

  28. That was only for two weeks, and then everybody goes back to the Amenities of the Modern world, and has fond memories of how fun it was. Now imagine that stay in the woods is the ONLY REALITY, there is no modern world to go back to, imagine what our ancestors faced who didn’t have the choice to prance from a hippie getaway back to the modern world, just for kicks or because they thought it would be fun, no our ancestors were stuck there for their entire lives. Though everybody got together well with the lazy bums ( 90%) this time, (because deep down everyone knew it was only for 2 weeks), imagine our ancestors who didn’t have the luxury of jumping between primitive living and the Amenities the modern world has to offer, and the season Fall was coming and Winter was on the horizon, and 90% of the population was doing nothing to prepare, back in those days there would be a lot of starving to death people, and those who survived after the winter would probably establish punishments for the Lazy people (90%) so their ass’s would get in gear and help store provisions for the next winter to minimize calamities. Everybody got together well this time, but in a prolonged scenario (Entire lifetime) in the primitive world the people who worked (10%) would start getting real sick of the Lazy (90%) who did nothing. Though I would take the Gender relationships of our ancestors over the gender relationships the Modern western world has produced under feminism. Also, the uncertainty, danger, and Adventure, that comes from the Wilderness that our ancestors lived in, there is no greater place for a Man to be.

    1. Survival is a powerful incentive. In primitive societies in the north the lazies died long before there was a need for punishment.

      1. Yeah, and when everybody knows it’s primitive living only for two weeks and then it’s back to the Modern world again ,the Lazies know they can slouch by. There would be know way a primitive society of 15,000 could sustain itself if only 10% were brining in the food, while the other 90% did absolutely nothing to contribute.

  29. It reiterates the point I’ve been talking about for years about how come women date jobless drug using losers and pass up good men, and why it’s so much more challenging for an adult man to find a good woman to marry. “Modern” society has been purposely engineered to remove the necessities that us men could provide in a decentralized society. Women then NEEDED us. Therefore, the guy that lived the “true forced loneliness” lifestyle in a free patriarch decentralized society was the lazy stupid drug using moron. A guy like that was no option for a woman. She wanted a man that could provide a home and support a family. Because affirmative action and EEO did not exist. Men dominated and controlled the job market because we created it and we hired our fellow brethren for jobs. Just simply being a responsible hard working guy with a steady middle class job made a man very attractive to young women of whom didn’t want to live with their parents or work a clerical job for income. A lot of women that didn’t marry usually worked clerical types of jobs, joined the church, or simply lived with their parents for life.
    But today, since women can get their affirmative action EEO office job or welfare, she can now go date mr. “bad boy, hyperactive ADD drug addict degenerate”, because by law she has a free ride through life to pay for her housing, car, food, and clothing. She no longer needs a responsible hard working man. The hard working middle class guy today is “boring” and “lame” to hot young females today.
    Take away affirmative action, welfare, and child support and all the sudden you’d see a shift over time of men dominating the job market completely. The middle class hard working guy with a salary and a house would have 5 or 6 women to choose from for a potential wife.

      1. That is so messy and unlikely. Its more possible to control a dozen or so power stations and flip the power phase 180 degrees (at the same time). Poof! No more grid.

    1. The solution is to be middle class, but single and crazy on the weekends while keeping your work hours in check. If you think you can get a girl to come back to your place for some weed, then do it, don’t moralize that bullshit.

    1. In my town, the police will send a person to jail for being homeless if they are caught after dark sleeping in public. The result is my town has “no homeless people”.
      The truth is there are almost 200 people living homeless in my community, they are forced to set up squatter camps and sleep deep in the forests surronding my town. While not all homeless are bad people, some of them are bad people.
      One traveling friend I know is married to a much older ex-military man who also took up the traveling lifestyle. I first met them in my town, I warned then not to let the police catch them in city limits at night. I told them there is the park, but to be careful because other people stay there as well. One day, I saw them and noticed he had a black eye and a splint around his finger. I asked what happened.
      They had been staying in a local park that is heavily forested. The girl was outside her tent when one of the local homeless men attacked her. Luckily, her husband was in the tent, heard her scream, and had to run out and fight the man off away from his wife. Had it not been for her husband, she would have certainly been raped and even beat up.
      That is why the forest is to be feared if one is near a populated community. There is danger in ‘the forest’. A hippie gathering is the same way, not all attending a gathering are to be automatically trusted.

      1. Male disposability on full display, considering most homeless are men. No shelter for you! (In soup Nazionale voice ). You are a man, go die in the wild.

        1. We don’t have a large homeless shelter here. There’s only 20 beds maximum. They prioritize taking in elderly and families.
          It’s only during freezing temperatures that the local shelter opens up the overflow which consists of a hundred people sleeping on the floor.

  30. Yep, most human beings are lazy. But are you saying the women didn’t “work”? In most traditional (non-industrial) societies, women work (whether at “kitchen” or other tasks) just as hard within their abilities as men do within theirs–meaning, more pounds lifted per man than per woman, but both sexes work hard. (For instance, who usually carries water? And children?) Or were ALL of the women at this event among the “about 90% of the people” there who did no work?
    Oh, and why did the women need protection when walking back to their campground? Were there rapists in the woods? (And I thought rape was a figment of feminists’ imagination!) Seriously, looks like the women had the right idea: safety in numbers. They were about to walk back to camp together–which would have been adequate protection against all but a large group of assailants, or one with a firearm. Or a bear, armed or unarmed. (Maybe women should pack heat, but no doubt a “hippie commune” doesn’t allow that. Too bad.) Nice of Jack to escort them, though. Wonder what was in it for him. (As long as he didn’t try to DEMAND payment; then he would have become the problem. Unfortunately, in “nature”, such things have sometimes happened.)
    All in all, thanks for the “food for thought”, and the heads-up; a “hippie commune” sounds like a good thing to avoid. (And surprisingly, it isn’t even socialist!)

    1. Woah… He never said that the 90% of people not working were women.
      As far as rape, traveling women are some of the most susceptible people to be targeted; most traveling women prefer to have a trusted man with them whether it’s walking through a forest or traveling cross country living in cars, tents, or stranger’s houses. Yeah, rape can happen and traveling women are well aware of the dangers, there’s also the more likely danger of being mugged. Jack did the right thing. Those women were likely nervous because a. their camp is far away, and b. they could show up to find an unexpected visitor at their camp, or several unexpected visitors.
      As far as working, yes… The men do heavy lifting and cooking. A lot of those women help their traveling partners by performing for busking purposes, such as hoops, poi, contortionism, and dancing as well as collecting money through begging. (Society is more likely to give money to a woman then a man, hippies know this.) I’ve known many who had a hobby like making hemp necklaces, crochet, and so forth who peddle wares to get those people to the festivals in the first place.
      When those girls have resources (money, drugs, food, and cigarettes for example), they often freely share with their friends and partners. On top of that, many gatherings have children present so another number of those people are busy watching their child.
      I’ve never had any interest in attending a gathering, but I have many friends in the family. I’ve also never met one who was hateful toward men… Even though many of them had been subjected to bad situations.

      1. The part where you mentioned women traveling with a trusted male is true, whether it’s a forest, a back alley, heck, even something as dumb as a haunting house.

    2. Take a small group of your female friends into an extremely remote location in the woods, where you’ll stay for a couple weeks , and see how fast they start having nervous breakdowns at every twig that snaps or crunching sound they hear in the middle of the night, then you’ll appreciate the protection a Man offers.

        1. If you can pull that trigger and take a life, sure.
          Not everyone can kill. If one is not ready to kill, that gun will cause more problems then protection.
          I don’t own a gun, I’ll likely never own a gun, because I know I’d hesitate about taking that person’s life.

        2. Ah yes, a Man made invention, but let’s imagine your stay is a little longer than two weeks, maybe months, maybe years, what will the women do when the bullets are all gone?

    3. Seriously, looks like the women had the right idea: safety in numbers. They were about to walk back to camp together–which would have been adequate protection against all but a large group of assailants, or one with a firearm.
      Haven’t ever been out much in the real world have we, dear?
      Women go haywire when real danger happens. Can’t even get into a street fight or things getting slightly out of hand without women losing their minds and running like scared children. When they’re not paralyzed due to panic, that is.

  31. Speaking of lazy, I give you the Dildo Drone. Just kidding. Apparently this is just a satire. However, judging by the horny slob holding down a burger, a beer, and God knows what, this might just be happening somewhere. May God have mercy on our souls. And just in case, NSFW.

  32. A fascinating article and from my time involved in teaching woodlore and outdoor survival years ago, I will say all your observations are spot on.
    I’ve never heard of the rainbow gathering, but would love to experience it.
    By the bye, when I saw the cutie in the crocheted dress whose picture introduces the article, I think I swallowed my gum (and if my research is anywhere near accurate, she is model Katheryn Layne).

  33. “In regular society, you can work your ass off day in and day out, and you won’t get shit.”
    This is not true. Most people are still lazy wherever they are.
    If it was, you may as weel shut down this site.

    1. It IS true in much and many ways, but the point is more that it is not enough to set one apart, and make you get ahead.
      Working your ass of and getting the same share as a lazy ass makes for zero incentive, that’s the issue. Not wether or not you get *something*.

  34. Apparently they have these all over the world including MEXICO… now THAT would make an awesome experience. Rainbow gathering with a bunch of thin, sexy Latinas. Anyone up for a trip?

  35. If this hippie civilization had gone on longer, would there have been a “Lady Macbeth” type who hooked up with one of the males-in-power and manipulated the man into doing her will, giving her power vicariously?

  36. Excellent article Jon! I submit however one additional observation for your consideration: the hard working men of today also, in fact, are (as Ayn Rand pointed out) the Atlas that hold up our current rotten society. When they shrug it off, it will be the same as you observed here. It’s only a matter of time. Either we get crushed underneath, or walk away. But in the end we rebuild the next society.

  37. You hit on what is probably the biggest problem in civilization today: some people have discovered that power can stem from their political connections and their ability to redistribute public funds, rather than leadership and hard work.

  38. “So what we start to see is that the men who are actually selfless and care about the tribe slowly become the leaders”
    A true leader doesn’t want to lead per se, he just wants to get shit done. Leadership is assumed by the lesser around him.

  39. Jon, the reason why women have become the way they are now? Because once their material and security needs were met, they then could concentrate on either competing with each other to see who would become the alpha matriarch or trying to out-agree with each other. Think I am wrong? Look at the behavior of women from two centuries ago and see what has changed and what a woman is supposed to be today.

  40. I’ll confess that I have a weakness for hippies. I can do without hippie men (they just seem odd to me). But the women seem to really blossom in a way that draws me towards them. It’s a sort of natural charm… their smile, their vivacity, their softness of temper and an affectionate kindness that entices me.
    Oddly, these much sought after virtues in women (with the addition of “symmetry of person… imagination and wit”) were paraphrased from Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principle of Population.”
    Thanks for the article. I really enjoyed the documentary and I was unaware of the Rainbow Gathering. I kind of lost it when they got shot up with paintball guns; you’d think it was Kent State or something the way they reacted. I look forward to your second installment.

  41. Brilliant post! Perhaps this is an argument against any country getting too big. In a smaller society, there is no place for these evil motherfuckers to hide. Now they can hide in washington

  42. “it’s our dogshit society that puts evil, corrupt men in power.” Amen to that. Dumbocracy at work here. Oh well.

    1. #5 The chick in the header photo of this article is way prettier than what you would actually meet at the hippie commune; but still a very cool article though 🙂

  43. Quote iboob: “Fantastic I loved the article. Wisdom from derived from real experiences is extremely valuable”
    Agreed. And bear in mind that if shit really hits the fan and war breaks out to the point that we may be reverted back, to a certain degree anyway, to small individual communities needing each other to survive. These hippie communes are a good way to learn essential skills, as well as the social dynamics while living in such a situation.

  44. #5 The hot looking young chick in the header photo of this article is way prettier than what you would actually meet at the hippie commune; but still a very cool article though 🙂

  45. This article makes me want to be involved in a Rainbow Gathering. There was one last year, in the Black Hills of South Dakota, near where I live.
    I guess the traditional roles of men and women were prevalent. I would suspect there was still plenty of feminism and leftist dogma behind it on the surface, but, when there was heavy lifting or personal security at stake, the men were required to be men.

  46. Fantatic post. Well done.
    “Most people are fucking lazy.”
    Yes. Across all cultures and periods of history. They are also habitual– they like routines.
    I noticed in the army and as well in the private sector your personnel will boil down to having 30% of the people doing 70% of the work.

  47. Book please. We can use it as a guide for rebuilding society once liberal elitists finish destroying ours. And you’re right about the biological divisions of a healthy society. All women know in their souls it is true.

  48. Was there a hierarchy within the hierarchy and, if so, how did that work? I’m curious as to who would be considered ‘higher up the chain’:
    A) Someone strong as an oxe and willing to put long hours in but lacking the skill to do anything more complicated than menial grunt work, and even then requiring some level of supervision (e.g. a coordinator telling him “Today I want you to cut down this tree and then cut it up into firewood”).
    B) Someone not particularly strong and somewhat lazy (willing to work a few hours a day, but not ‘full-time’ and nowhere near as long as A works) but more skilled than most – either with the leadership and logistical skills to be a coordinator or with the DIY skills to know how to build a hut, put in the plumbing etc.

  49. Kind of touches on how sugar daddy/sugar baby relationships work. When it’s clear that the SD is financially supporting the SB and she knows her role, it becomes a natural relationship, which modern feminists try to shame and destroy.

  50. “The problem isn’t women’s nature, it’s our dogshit society that puts evil, corrupt men in power.”
    This is the point. Ninny men like Sade, Laclos and Godwin, not to mention Sartre, invented feminism in the hopes of ripping women away from protective husbands and fathers so that they too could get an unfair leg up on the spoils. It seems to have worked.

  51. I don’t understand the appeal of this. Why would you want to live in the forest like a savage?

    1. Because we are biologically predisposed to it. Unless you want to argue that we can throw off 300,000 years of evolutionary development and say that man is fully developed enough to crave concrete and cubicles.
      If so, then why the proliferation of antidepressants and failed relationships?

    2. I can see the appeal of it. Often times it is refreshing to live life in an environment away from all the first world priviledges we have every day and take for granted.
      A man can develop a new appreciation for his own skills, what he’s blessed with in the easy, modern life, and learn a lot more about himself in the process (among other things).

  52. “A group of women stood up, and slowly walked to the edge of the little “outpost” that we had set up. What were they doing? They looked kind of nervous, but I couldn’t tell what was going on. And then it hit me. They realized that they couldn’t walk through the forest alone back to their campground. They needed a man to protect them.”
    Jack is for sure a good guy. But most women would prefer to live in a world in which no Jacks who protect them from rape are needed. And men would -just as women- look for a protector if they were in danger of being attacked or raped.
    Women have an innate desire for freedom, just as men. But women also have a survival instinct. In such a huge hippie camp, there may always be some lunatics, who can be deterred by the presence of a man. It’s not logical that one man offers greater deterrence than five women. But we are all the suffering products of 4000 years of patriarchy. What I don’t understand is the male pride of their role as protectors. What about shame? Shame that some members of your species make life for women miserable?
    Having said that: my compliments to Jack. Good guy!

    1. Idiot. Stop trying to impose your delusions of male-female equivalence on reality.
      And no, 5 women are not a bigger deterrent unless compared to a man in a wheelchair. Sports is proof. Rape is hardly what jack was protecting them from, more like bears, wolves, getting lost etc.
      Male humans are not a species you tard, humans are a species.
      And absolutely no shame whatsoever is felt here, far more women make men miserable than the reverse.

      1. “Idiot.”
        Thank you for your politeness, Noth666. For sure this will attract lots of kind people in your life and make your dreams come true.
        “And no, 5 women are not a bigger deterrent unless compared to a man in a wheelchair.”
        That’s exactly the point (and the problem). 10 men would attack 5 women. But 10 men would normally not attack 5 women plus 1 man (their protector).
        Let’s get real. Could those ten men beat the protector up? Yes, easily. But they won’t.
        They have more respect for that one man than they would have for five or even ten women. Doesn’t this mean that something is very wrong with the male psyche?
        “Rape is hardly what jack was protecting them from, more like bears, wolves, getting lost etc.”
        The bears will be so impressed with such a guy. Yeah. Keep on dreaming. And wolves. They don’t attack as long as just one man is present.
        No Noth 666, the females were scared of rape. Not of being eaten. Not of getting lost (women are not THAT disoriented, unless they are very drunk).
        “And absolutely no shame whatsoever is felt here, far more women make men miserable than the reverse.”
        Wishing you all the best for your reincarnation as a woman in Saudi Arabia!
        Whatever happened to you: men making women miserable and vice versa is a 50/50 thing.

        1. I will take competence over kindness any day. What I was referring to in terms of deterrence had nothing to do with respect, but rather that an outdoorsy guy is more effective at combatting or avoiding a threat in the woods than 5 girls.
          I have run into bears and wolves in the wild, but never a rapist. True story.
          Do you know what to do if you run into a bear, or how to minimize the risk of it? Can you fight off a wolf? I can. Do you carry a gun at all times in the woods? I do.

        2. there is no reincarnation dumbass, once you die it’s nothing else but eternal darkness.

        3. I live in a country without bears in the woods. And wolfs? Just a few. Guns? Not allowed. When I go hiking, I don’t take a gun. I would do so, however, if I lived in another region of the world. As for rape, unfortunately, I know lots of women who are scared of going hiking alone. Because of the danger that some lunatic might jump from behind a bush and… well, you know. I think their fear is exaggerated.
          As for your thoughts that my funky sandwiches deter men, which leads to some kind of frustration on my side… Sorry to disappoint you. Men are interested in me. But I’m neither interested in men nor women. Friendship is enough for me, and I’m happy to die as an old spinster some day.

        4. But my guru and my kadaitcha-man have told me so. Have already had twenty-five past life regressions, for at least 5000 $ each. But who said that women are good with money? Luckily, my therapy sessions with my personal spirit guide keep me grounded. After all, finding out that you’ve been G J Caesar in one of your past lives may be TOO flattering to your ego. While recalling my past life as Taygete on the Pleiades, I get so awestruck with Zeus that I pass out and fall into the strong arms of my shaman. Unfortunately, am only faintly reminiscent of my past life as Napoleon. Hopefully a donation of 7000 $ to Wizard Kumbleklore will change that.

      2. I hear you man Better to not give the female attention. This is red pill male territory.She can go make a man a sandwich.

        1. Yeah you are right, but something tells me even her sammiches smell funky, so they might not have much pull for a man… That’s probably why she is thinking about rape so much 😉

    2. But most women would prefer to live in a world in which no Jacks who protect them from rape are needed.
      …and therein lies another fantasy-land story.
      My fellow readers, take note: even the most anti-male, delusional, “strong and indendent” women will at some point look to men to save them, protect them, or provide. It never fails.
      Remember the golden words: Don’t believe what women say; believe their behavior and what they respond to.

      1. “My fellow readers, take note: even the most anti-male, delusional, “strong and indendent” women will at some point look to men to save them, protect them, or provide. It never fails.”
        Yeah. Ok. When I’ll live in a nursing home and will be old, fragile and in need of protection, then I hope that there’ll be kind people who take care of that need. If those people happen to be men…fine. Unfortunately, I have some doubts about the existence of nursing homes in the far future. Things are going downhill on a global scale and the weakest members of society will be in trouble. Having said that, I DON’T want to be weak.
        I don’t feel the way you described. My heart is prouder than that of the worst macho. If a man acts protective towards me, eg. walks me home after a date, I feel weak and humiliated. My response? He doesn’t see me any more.
        Since I know that this is not fair, I have stopped dating altogether.
        (Un)luckily I lack that interest in the other (or same) sex that most people have. Am a self-declared spinster. No kidding.
        If I was less sceptical about religious doctrine and my heart less proud, I would make the perfect nun.
        I know many women who are less proud. But then again, I’m not even at the most extreme end of the scale. Most women want a man to walk them home and to do all that kind of stuff. This I admit is true.
        But what does it give to a man to feel like “the strong one” in a relationship?
        Strength is not a constant.
        If a man is in a hospital, for example in a koma, and needs a partner who takes an assertive stance against the doctors, would men then really want a partner who helplessly shrugs her shoulders and cries: “he has always been the strong man. And now I don’t know what to do.” Isn’t protection something mutual?

        1. what being the strong one gives is sense of fulfillment because that’s the natural position of a man. Anything short of that and one feels like something is missing.
          And no protection is not meant to be mutual nor can a woman generally protect a man in any meaningful way actively.
          Most men who have not been brainwashed would assume that absent their direction and leadership, their family will not do well. That’s how it’s always been. Being in a coma etc would generally mean the loss of the family for the man.
          Men do not look for an equal or a partnership as such, they want a wife to fulfill the role of a wife, so bearing children and taking care of the home, anything else is a bonus.

        2. You prefer a world of chimpanzees, while I’m an advocate of the Bonobo-lifestyle minus the sex (what else could be expected of a spinster?). Since chimpanzees are more likely than bonobos to thrive in a harsh world lacking in supplies for food, water, oil and… the list goes on, I fear that the chimps will win. Thanks to overpopulation.
          “Being in a coma etc would generally mean the loss of the family for the man.”
          Having been in nursing for some time and knowing lots of families where tragedy struck, i.e. where the man fell into a coma, suffered locked-in syndrome or fell back on the mental level of a two-years old child, I have to say “Yes” and “No” to what you wrote.
          Some women stay with their man and take on a protective caretaker role for decades due to loyality for the person their man once used to be. They try their best to love and to care without getting much in return.
          Some wives run out of energy and move their husband into a nursing home, where they visit him regularly as clockwork – or with declining frequency.
          Some women find a new love and are torn between their commitment for their husband and their wishes.
          And finally, some women will always place their wishes and desires above anything else.

        3. There are always exceptions and outliners in these things. But yes you are correct, the chimpanzee would be K selected and the bonobo R selected. Long term stability VS short term gains basically. And I’m about as K selected as you can get, married to a housewife who will soon graduate to stay as home mommy.
          I would point out that civilization is a K selected thing, straw huts in Africa are the pinnacle of technology for R selected groups. Think about which one you want carefully…

        4. What I want? Well, a bonobo-like sisterhood (with space for spinsters) without the need for fighting and a comfortable living standard would be my dream.
          Could such a dream come true? No. Never. The system which lays the foundation for ambition, and consequently technological invention, is patriarchy. On that I agree with you.
          There’s, however, one danger I see: that patriarchy led us out of straw huts and brings us back into them. (coz of overpopulation, warfare, epidemics, global collapse)
          The more patriarchal a country is, the more children are born. In many cases those children have no hope for a future whatsoever. The expansive tendencies of patriarchy (ambition, invention, conquering new areas literally or mentally) can be a huge gift.
          Since most people, however, are “only” average, they tend to express the dark side of expansion: consumerism and endless procreation (behaving like r-selected animals). Just look at the populations of Bangladesh or many African countries. Maybe it would be time to stop the growth. To re-establish nation-states and national production, instead of all that outsourcing and technology hype. Taking retrograde steps instead of endless growth.
          Most people in these days barely earn enough for their own needs. Obviously you’re an exception. Congrats on your achievement!
          Patriarchy has turned into extreme capitalism and a lack of compassion for those who cannot compete. And this is where good, old, inert matriarchy comes in: less ambition, less expansion, basically less of everything.
          I think there’re good and dark sides to patriarchy (ambition – extreme expansion, aggression) as well as matriarchy (feeling of unity – lack of drive, defencelessness). Probably the solution to our problems lies in trying to strike the right balance.

        5. Well, overbreeding is only an issue in countries with extremely low IQ average and they are also incapable of democracy and many other things, and are as such not the most K selected groups.
          Northern Europe and north east Asia are the really heavily K selected areas and they don’t have overbreeding issues.
          Most working people in the west create enormous surplus, this is just eaten and distributed by the government for the benefit of the nonproductive parts of society, if this were not the case people would have abundance in the west. The working ones that is.

  53. Glad you were there analyzing. If you go again, maybe you should go with another set of dynamics to answer. God knows our psychologist don’t know jack due to the PC in their testing.
    Do want to point out the fact you had food trucks is changing the dynamics of what you already saw. The fact that it is fine if people are lazy was probably tolerated because you all had dedicated trucks of food coming in. I’m sure under “self sustaining” conditions you’d run off the lazy people since you need to hunt, gather, grow your food. I think we can ignore that for now, but in the future it may be interesting to learn what happens with lazy people in self sustaining enviornments.

  54. Very good article! Definitely one of the best I’ve read on ROK this year. Amazing that despite the types of attendees that you’d expect at a hippie getaway, feminism still wasn’t prevalent. That’s the most surprising thing to me.

  55. ‘…men and women are different when you aren’t safe within the confines of civilization.’ Men and women are different, period. Very interesting and informative article. More of the same please.

  56. More proof that neo-masculinity is a waste of time. Why? Because, we are going back to living in the forests and no one wants. Just face reality, women are protected and provided for, and will remain so. Not only that, as we continue to evolve, it will only get better for them. Women are able to live without us, we have to learn to live without them. MGTOW is the future .

  57. And all those corrupt men in society with position and power don’t have women fucking them regularly and are just as corrupt as these men?
    99% of history is the story of one foolish civilization of men and women having to learn and relearn the costly and painful lessons that they (i.e. men and women) basically aren’t God and don’t make the rules. They are here to obey HIM who created them both.
    And the rules are not about power!
    They are about the two greatest commandments, first and foremost and to get more
    specific the ten commandments then the eight beatitudes.
    Look around today, not just personally but generally, how is your philosophy working out? It is in effect.
    Amazing how cynics are always cynical of everyone but themselves.
    The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. We all need wisdom not power.
    Which is another way of saying we need humility and ultimately obedience to HE
    who has the power and makes the rules.
    No illusions about how easy this is, I just know finally after many painful years this
    effort is more beneficial in the long run than any other way.

  58. Ah yes. As someone who is skilled in few trades (carpentry, electricity, water installations), who isn’t scared of heights, who knows how to orientate in woods, how to gather, hunt, and prepare food, how to swim long run, and with lots of inborn strength I am motherfucking Alpha in every wood camp, hiking adventures , and similar.
    Too bad that doesn’t happen often so I get out-Alphaed by some kiddo with BMW and Justin Bieber haircut.

  59. Great article. This goes into detail on some of what’s pointed out in another ROK article, ‘How America Went From Greatness To Irreversible Decadence.’
    So if modern technology is to blame (and I think you & others have established a strong case that it partially or completely does) for the subversion of natural gender roles and hostility between the sexes then what do we do about it?
    Humans are lazy. For example, this is what we and technology have done to our communication: Why communicate face-to-face if we can talk on the phone < why talk if we can text < why text whole sentences if we can send Emojis < what’s next? We do this for EVERYTHING.
    Since we don’t have to depend on each other anymore, we don’t. 100 years ago it took all day just to reap the benefits from the earth to feed ourselves but we don’t farm, men don’t hunt, women don’t make bread from scratch and understandably in today’s society we don’t want to live on a farm.
    So what do we do? Even if we made a law requiring men to act like men and for women to act like women, wouldn’t it all just be an act? A pretense, a falsehood, founded on the fact that deep down we truly don’t believe we need each other.
    Now this brings me to Belief—that’s what needs to be cultivated. A belief that despite all the comforts of modern society (a society that makes us independent and destroys interdependency) women and men NEED each other. Our forefathers didn’t need this belief. Unfortunately, true commitment didn’t need to be cultivated 100 years ago because a hard life made everyone in America a Christian, traditional, and tough.

  60. This little “civilization” in the forest will work fine until a handful of J*ws find about it and infiltrate it using phony names and pretenses. Their subversive / parasitic nature will quickly create some sort of bartering model based on usury and they’ll set up dramatic stage plays every night pushing their destructive social agendas. Before long, they’ll have everyone hooked on the entertainment and likely some sort of hallucinogen that they paid a naive botanist to collect for them in the forest. Finally, they’ll use their thin veneer of power to take control of all the kitchens and use the distribution of food resources to establish complete social control.
    This scenario has played out thousands of times in history, which is why any enlightened society has to eventually create laws to get rid of them. Well over 100 countries and counting have done this historically, if you care to research it.

    1. Funny. Though to be fair usury was the scourge of countries even before Jews. Talmudic Hebrews just used it well to their favor in many countries. (Also the Talmud is highly negative and supremacist.) Still – most Jews were used as their shield and regularly slaughtered as “lesser brethren”.
      Also – usury brought down other civilizations like Rome and even ancient Persia. One of the less known facts was that the reason for Julius Caesar’s assassination was his desire to end usury currency.
      A country can at best stomach centuries of predatory usury banking, until the system collapses, since compound interest can never be paid back.

      1. No, I believe the concepts of usury, compound interest, fractional reserve banking — which can be traced back to at least Babylon — originated in the psychotic minds of those we now call Zionist J*ws. Of course, the term “J*w” began usage in the English language only in the mid-to-late 1700s, and wasn’t known prior to that, not even in the scriptures. Hebrew, Israelite, Judean are all much older terms, but not really related to those we call J*ws nowadays. More accurate terms for the bastards we’re up against would be Khazars, Pharisees, Magi or simply the money changers of the temple, who “Jesus” supposedly referred to. Andrew Jackson came to understand them perfectly when he labelled them as a den of vipers.
        The bankers of today are the descendants of Babylon’s bankers (both by blood and tradition) who never paid too much attention to the phoney veneers of the supposedly righteous religion we call Judaism. The ones who pull the financial strings are much more interested in the Cabala, Talmud and occult / esoteric doctrines best categorized as either Luciferian or Satanic in nature. We are dealing with a long line of black magicians really, who create enslavement (money) out of thin air as their main trick. They toppled Babylon, Egypt, Rome and many others. It’s always worked, so why change it?

  61. I think this article clearly explains the difficulty the manosphere has in determine what an actual “alpha” IS. Is an Alpha the leader of a tribe, or some “dark triad, half sociopathic, individualist”. The dark triad alpha only exists in modern civilizations where his selfish actions can be insulated by the anonymity of every day life. But in a natural society as the author demonstrate the alpha is the selfless one, and the dark triad would be an outcast, as he does not contribute to the society.

    1. Good question. I believe that the true Alpha is the one indicated in the post: hardworking, kind, protective…But, because of the fucked up society we live in, women seem to prefer the jerk, drug user, sociopath, rapist type, women beater type. I remember the post on ROK about why women like murderers so much…
      So, Alpha Jack, only works out in a more primal society. In our reality, its the Chris Browns, Mr Grays and Mansons of the world that seem to be the Alphas.

      1. Absolutely. In a society that upholds the individual above all else, who is not the greatest individual but the sociopath.

  62. ” In regular society the power isn’t given to the people who put in hard work – it’s handed down, and some little punk gets it, because his great, great, great, great grandfather worked to earn it in the past.”
    Oh dear you’ve gone and shot yourself in the foot

  63. I visited one about 40 years ago in Arizona – dropping off the kids for the summer with my ex-wife, their mother.
    I didn’t fit in and didn’t stay long so didn’t see all the dynamics, only plenty of lazy assholes.
    Never understood why teepees were so necessary.

  64. Nice one. You realized a valuable lesson there indeed. It was also clear that civilization is created by the men who maintain and build it – the carpenters, specialists, menial workers – and also inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs and organizers.
    What this society did not have were usurers who profited off by creating money and charging you interest on it, thus inflating everyone’s prices and forcing you to work harder just to support that usury income that benefits the 0,01% the most. Currently 50% of all prices are trickling upwards to the 0,01% of usury owners. This is the main reason why it’s so incredibly difficult to make the first million, while making the 5th million is easy since the compound interest economy makes it almost automatic.
    Those who don’t work – the heirs of the usury generation – have all the power in our society.
    Also your little forest society had also one element missing: psychopaths at the top who would have tried to usurp the power of the noble Alphas sooner or later. Given enough time they would have emerged and tried to get all the resources and women without any of the work. These are the Clintons and Bushes who are the executives in the world. The Hippie community had neither the usury-master-class nor the psychopathic leadership inherent in it.

    1. @Zelcorpion, exactly, take for example, the former Common Lands that used to be populated by English peasants. Land, which those peasants used to grow food and make their own clothes and tools. In the time of Adam Smith (the 18th century), peasants could labor to make their own shoes out of leather in about one day, BUT people like Adam Smith proposed that these peasants could be coerced into taking factory jobs, that would require 3 days of “labor” in the factory to buy commercially produced shoes.
      So, this begs the question, if you are an “Owner of Capital”, how do you get people whom don’t need to buy shoes, to start buying shoes?
      Its simple, you change the laws, so the peasants can no longer get what they need to make shoes from the land, coercing then to take factory jobs, so as to pay for manufactured shoes.

      1. Division of Labor and thus efficiency of the production process is positive. In this example with 15.000 folk some would start making shoes and do it much better than if all attempted to do it. In a larger community of 1 million there would be sense in creating a factory for the rest.
        There is nothing wrong with capital per se – a company founder and organizational genius like Ford could just as well create a shoe factory and pay his workers well. Tariffs would shield the little community from having to compete with slave-labor countries.
        What is however only destructive is usury predatory banking which should be banned: https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/about/
        Also a society has always to be on the lookout for psychopaths at the top. Unfortunately we are run by them since a long time.

  65. Very good article Jon Anthony. There is a great deal of valuable information and important messages for our current society in there. Well done sir.

  66. If hippie chicks actually looked like the girl at the top of the article, I probably wouldn’t mind them so much.

    1. in Colorado you’ll find a lot of the *real* hippie girls. dreadlocks and all.
      they’re more like feral animals.

    2. Some do, I have seen many and banged a few. The pseudo spiritual artist types are some serious freaks though. One redhead 9/10 colleague (she was funding her round the world art fart trip, hence the job) invited me to party at her house. Meaning she would invite over some friends to keep me busy until I was too drunk to go home, and she’d chase hem off, and drag me into the bedroom, and then again in the morning. She never once verbally acknowledged that we had had sex, even though this was a regular thing with 20+ bangs in less than a month.
      What I mean goes further, I would automatically do something like put my hand on her or so, and she’d tell me with a straight face to stop because she has a boyfriend.
      I wonder if that guy is still waiting for her somewhere…
      Edit to add: she was a freak in more ways, no kissing/affection, just bang and hairpulling etc.

      1. That sounds…awful. I can’t stand un-affectionate women. Can’t stand’em. If she’s banging me at night, she better damned well be kissing me and touching me during the day, or it’s deal off, and if there’s no deep, lip biting nearly raw kissing during sex, get the fuck out. I like’em draped on me, not standing to the side ignoring me. Always been like that, no idea why. What some guys might consider physically “clingy” I generally see as “pretty close to just about right”.

        1. Yeah it was not the best experience for me, but I like variation, and after all a bang is a bang, even if bad.
          Everyone else kinda knew and her being the prettiest thing around was just status+ for me. I didn’t give a shit about her as soon as I got to know her, and it wouldn’t have surprised me if she banged someone else too, but she was always around me so she’d have had to be real good at it.
          She was basically the best available to me easily then, so why not just coast on that for a bit. Mind you I never spent a dime on her either, so it was just like hanging out FWB type thing.

  67. Hey Jon (I tried looking for a personal message on your website but couldn’t find one),
    I understand you’re probably busy now, so feel free to not reply, but:
    What did your experience in the hippie camp show you about distribution of mates among a population?
    Is it correct to assume the place was full of hook-ups, one night stands and pretty much reflected the dating scene of society?
    I’m interested, and I’m sure you will be too next time you visit, because I heard an interesting theory about how large post-tribal civilisations form. It goes along the lines of: The key element of a civilisation is the distribution of resources. This includes food, shelter, water, and mates. Now I’m sure that you guys distributed food to people in return for their labour and other benefits. But did you distribute mates?
    Surely, a long lasting civilisation that hopes people will be loyal to it needs to ensure that everyone receives a mate, just like a civilisation ensures everyone gets fair exchange of food for their labour, to make people loyal? Without any etiquette for dating, hypergamy ensues (the natural animal order) and 80% of girls go for 20% of guys. (Perhaps, in your example, for the hard working guys and leaders. However, it is reasonable to expect everyone will be hard working if this was a real commune that lasted for year(s), so the effects of it will be amplified, and even among those who work, not everyone will get an equal share of reproducing.)
    Over time this leaves a huge amount of males frustrated because they are unable to get sex and/or continue their bloodline, and frustrated females who are past their prime and do not get attention anymore. This long-running dissatisfaction makes people hate the civilisation and seek to break out of it.
    So, the only way a civilisation can survive, in the long run, is not only to distribute food, shelter and comforts but to also distribute mates- by enforcing monogamy, so every man gets a woman, and banishing lust, as it can ruin monogamous relationships and encourage hypergamy in females. Without these (probably religious) social expectations of dating, civilisations simply collapse.
    Isn’t this what is currently happening right now, to males? Widespread sexual frustration because of sexual liberation removing dating rules, and allowing a toxic free-for-all when it comes to mating that cannot work for large populations?
    How do your experiences support or disprove the above?

    1. SoRa you dont understand very well how humans function. But its not hopeless, so let me show you the way.
      “Surely, a long lasting civilisation that hopes people will be loyal to
      it needs to
      ensure that everyone receives a mate, just like a
      civilisation ensures everyone gets fair exchange of food for their
      labour, to make people loyal?”
      THIS, is a major error. The basic foundation of a civ is not loyality – it is the will to survive. The peons are not loyal to the king because he gives them food or women. They understand they can not survive without him. The king is the only power to protect them; mostly from other kings.
      The idea to give every man his very own wife is both very new and very alien to human nature. Even in the roman church, not every man was allowed to marry.
      And even when he was allowed to by law, a penniless pauper would not get any mans daughter.
      But lets get back in time a few centuries.
      By nature 40-60% of fertile females will pair with the top 15-20% of males.
      The other females would like to pair with said males too but are simply too ugly for them. This is where “loyality” kicked in. The king was never de-throned by a some poor sob, but from other noble. So it was in the kings interest to share some of his goods – including women who were hot but not quite hot enough for his majesty – with his most honorable men. Again “loyal” is not the correct word; it was in the best self-interest of these men to keep the same king. So it all started….
      Today we live in a corrupted and perverted society. The collective of beta males – better known as goverment – has displaced the majority of 90+% of males from their natural position as head of family. They are the man in the house, but the true master of the house is the goverment.
      It is not the unequal distribution of wealth that is our problem (and if it was a problem i would be that us in the west consume way too much compared to the rest of the world, or more clearly we should be given LESS not more) but the unequal distribution of power.
      Goverment makes too many laws and takes too many rights away from the people while on the other hand giving out money they do not have to people who do not deserve it.

      1. You’ve said contradictory things here.
        “The king was never de-throned by a some poor sob, but from other noble.
        So it was in the kings interest to share some of his goods – including
        women who were hot but not quite hot enough for his majesty – with his
        most honorable men.”
        So the King needs their loyalty. What even makes the King a King? Monarchies started from armies forcing their way on populations. The soldiers cooperate with each other, and need to ensure their loyalty, to each other.
        Would the Nobles, Knights, and so on serve the King if they did not get a chance to get access to women and continue their lineage? That’s what a “will to survive” is, afterall, and so you prove my point that women are one of the fundamental resources that needs to be shared among men, if men are to continue cooperating.
        Now the Monarchy obviously had it’s power over peasants, and could sometimes disregard their loyalty, but if they wanted a long-term, stable working class, would they not use the Church to enforce monogamy to ensure this?
        If you want to see what large scale sexual frustration looks like, look at males today. And yes, I agree that the destruction of the family is what makes civilisation fall apart. But that is consistent with what I am arguing. If men do not share women, or just let women decide for themselves who to mate with, families will collapse as, as you said, most women will flock to the least men. The family IS the nation.

        1. Your arguments are true and good. 95% of what you write I would co-sign at once.
          “Would the Nobles, Knights, and so on serve the King” -> This is EXACTLY what i did (try) to say. The king shares some of his wealth, including hot women with his most loyal nobles and knights. Their best self interest is then to serve the king who gives the good shit. Thats the top 10% of the population maybe. The bottom 90% get nothing only the right to pay taxes.
          Now the large scale sexual frustration of young males is a nice perk for the king. Fresh canon fodder for his armies. Somebody has to fight in his wars after all.
          We can see this today. The millions of african/islamic young males who marched into europe last year. Do you think they did this because they have 3 wifes at home? Or was it more so that the higher SMV guys with 3-4 wifes make it so that the lower SMV guys get nothing? Could this have something to do with the many, many, many wars these countries constantly have? Think about it.
          If you want to build a big empire you need money, money, money and a ton of disposable young men.

        2. Interesting viewpoint, however, sexual frustration is affecting Western White males just as much (and asian males in Asia), and they are turning into weak, defenceless wimps rather than resemble the immigrants. All it means is that the males disconnect from the system and give up on it. That could lead to either emasculation as they are too lazy to fight, or to extreme violent breakdown.

        3. We have something new today, we didnt have in the past. It is called cyberspace. Fist-person-shooters and other MM online games (esp in asia and US/EU western).
          provide an option.
          These guys function in the real world just enough to hold a job/earn enough money but their emotions and spirit really lives in the virtual world. Their wow warrior character is maybe closer to their “dreamed-real” persona than the walmart guy they see in the mirror.
          This is sort of the next evolutionary step after religion. Religion tells you to accept a shitty life here and promises an amazing life in heaven (or whatever its called). Virtual reality does just the same, except you can experience it in this life, making it much more real than the old world religions.
          For the king, both system have the same purpose.

        4. Well I dunno, a country full of ‘manchildren’ (for lack of a better word) with a shit fertility rate is not profitable to any King.
          Cyberspace helps, but I disagree that this is a unique moment in history. It’s well known that Empires have natural cycles of birth and death. I suspect that today is a classic example of Empires in their decline- lack of religion, a search of instant gratification and hedonism (helped by video games and furry porn now), so it is more of a natural cycle, unfortunatly. That is why I wanted the author’s input to see if this is true, seeing that he spent time among the early roots of civilisation.

        5. You are spot on and you keep surprising me with your deep thinking. Very rare, even for a place like this. Now to the point. Cycles are an extremly (if not THAT most) important factor when considering our future.
          The world has seen everything and everything does repeat itself over and over. Why? Because our technology may change. Our numbers may change. Our science may change but WE do NOT change. Deep inside we are still the same stone age hunter or iron age warrior we have ever been. Our passions do not change.
          Our society is on the brink of death. Just like so many others before us. The spartans, once THE greatest warrior race of the country, fell for the very same reason. They got too wealthy and their women had it too good with too much ass-kissing at hand. When sparta fell they had infrastructure, armor and weapons to man 16 legions. But yet only enough real-life males to field 3 of them. The rest simply was never born. Their women did the same ours do today – all kinds of useless crap instead of having children at an age when we can still talk about children (plural). The one child a 35+ careeer woman may decide to get at the dawn of her fertility is not going to cut it for our society. Look what the other races do and you can see how this will end.
          Regarding the man-children you are spot on. This is what they are -> children, never made the passage from boy to man. Never did they have to endure pain or any hardships that make us stronger, let us grow. They are weak and full of fear. -> The perfect consumer and mouthshutting, ass-kissing *NON REPRODUCING* semi-castrated working drone. This is indeed very nice material for a kings house servants. They were often eunuchs in the past you know.

  68. You let your inner socialist slip there, friend.
    If I put in all the hard work to build society, while you admit 90%+ are nothing more than parasites, why shouldn’t my children, my family, and my heirs get to benefit from my sacrifice and labor more than your illegitimate fuckspawn?
    There are a small number of corrupt Jews that have established monopolies on a great deal of wealth and power over generations. These are the .01% you all hate. If you have a problem with these men you need not pine for all who are successful to suffer so your council elders can steal the family’s legacy out of “fairness.” You hunt the individual assholes down and bring a spool of rope you hand-wove from some vines, and a few sharpened sticks.
    There are no laws in the forest either. Just lots and lots of trees to hang people from.

  69. I know I would be the selfish prick in a similar situation. Just to make a point to all those needy dependant plebs, thinking they could use me as a work horse and give me nothing of value in return.

  70. I lived for six years in a cabin in Vermont . My only source of heat was wood, my water came from a spring line ( that I dug), shitter was an outhouse and my lighting came first from a oil lamps then later gas. Through that period of time, I learned to love being alone, found God and developed an unshakable iron mindset. Because of this experience I don’t fear solitary confinement, nor total societal collapse. If I had to I could face it all with a calm peace of mind.
    Every man in his twenties should do something like this.

    1. Your point is well made. Few people have the strength to endure that and even less the will to go through what many would consider “the end of the world” or “hell on earth”.
      99.999% of the people reading this will feel very unhappy if power supply in their house would be cut for a week. Me included. I wouldnt like that at all.
      Now I DO understand how degenerate and soft that is compared to your life in the woods. But thats how it is. You may not like it, but the majority of the people all around you do need the matrix to survive. We wouldnt want it any different – or else it would BE different 😉

  71. My father always said that the rise of technology would bring back feudalism. According to my mother he was saying that all the way back in the 1960’s His assessment was correct.

  72. History has shown many of these negatives happen when socities grow too large but what is the tipping point? The Founding Fathers understood this and tried to keep control at local level. Agree with the other 169 votes…

  73. No doubt most of the females sat around gabbling about sex and clothes, children and shoes, and insisted that they were doing the “real work” of a community.

  74. First of all – thank you for the article. I did enjoy the read very much.
    There is this one quote I would like to talk about
    “Basically, the people who put in the effort to build the society had all of the resources—this is the way that it naturally is.”
    This is not the case. Your “natural society” there is not at all natural. They let only a certain type of person in or should i say they do their best to keep a certain type out. It will be clear very soon.
    The latest season of TWD (The walking dead) does show this concept very well.
    First Rick and his guy go and build something, fight for it, make it secure. When the hard work is done and it is time to enjoy the good life – this is when reality kicks in. In case of TWD this reality check is called Negan.
    I do like Negan, because he is very much like I would act in such a situation, except that I am not as soft hearted as him.
    The point is, that Negan has the big club. And no matter who built what who did all the work he takes what he wants. This is how the first king crowned himself. By the force of his army.
    To bring this concept into the hippie-story at hand. ” I got to decide if we should give out our valuable resources to them.
    If they were assholes, they wouldn’t get a single grain of rice.”
    -> No, you wouldnt. Until the next day when you do your kitchen run and one guy suddenly stands in front of you and 3 in your back. Everything in your body will hurt. Every single step back to camp a pain. When they asked you what happened you would answer “I run into a tree”, if you spoke the truth you would – again – run into a tree. Until you got it.
    From that day on the “assholes” will decide who gets to eat what. Who is allowed to fuck whom. Who has to work and how long.
    Remember: When you build something with value – you dont realy own it. Negan wants his fair share. There is always a Negan around. He may be called “king” “emir” “calif” “goverment” “Mein Führer” “Emperor” or whatever but he is still a Negan. You do not mess with Negan.
    THAT is the foundation society is built on.

  75. Wait… I thought “the forest” was meant to be a feminist matriarchal utopia, where humankind lived in oneness with nature, gathering nuts, mushrooms and berries, making love beneath the trees and dancing like faeries??? Only to have that destroyed by a warlike, authoritarian, exploitative society of patriarchal animal-herding, meat-eating desert nomads.
    This is not an entirely sarcastic comment. I get the impression many feminists buy into a version of this narrative, whether the matriarchal utopia is seen as forest dwelling hunter-gatherers, or Mother Earth worshipping farmers (Marija Gimbautas for example).

  76. You had me at “walked a group of nubile hippie chicks back to the safety of their camp, spent the night balls-deep in one or more of them”.. at least, that’s what I got from #2 😉

  77. “Women don’t appreciate men, because they don’t need us anymore – in the forest, they needed us for protection. They needed us to build civilization. In the West, they don’t need shit because “Daddy Government” handles everything for them. This creates a sense of spite between the genders – men recognize that they aren’t appreciated and are practically worthless, so they come to develop a cynical, bitter view towards women”
    And the irony here? That “Daddy Government” comprises mostly of the military/police who so many on here worship.

Comments are closed.