Roosh’s Search For Truth Has Put Him On The “Wrong” Side Of The Culture War

Operation Medusa. NSA encryption. Undercover infiltration. Disinformation operations. Transvestite informants. Counterespionage. Squeezing through border checkpoints. Sexy vampire wigs. Operation Goebbels. Conspiracy theories. Canadian government press conferences. Double-agent seductresses. Humor. Ambush and assault. No, these are not elements of the latest spy masterpiece. They are all part of the true story of giving a public talk to men detailed in Free Speech Isn’t Free, to be released by Roosh on Monday.

The Fight For Freedom

battle

Quintus Curtius provides a brief, non-ideological historical background, stressing the idea that no, things don’t just naturally eventually end up better over time, but instead history is actively shaped by the actions of those living in it. We all have the power to help shape the direction our society or world is moving in. And if we do not, many things we take for granted, such as free speech, wealth, clean air and water, attractive women, and travel, will be completely foreign ideas to our descendants. As Quintus states “Victories once won are not permanent; they must be re-won by every generation”

The book gives a glimpse into the background, rationale, preparation, and delivery of Roosh’s public lectures in six cities: Berlin, London, D.C. NYC, Montreal, and Toronto. The writing is fluid and thoughtful.

The Germany and U.K. talks were relatively uneventful. A female journalist came to Berlin (I thought women were banned?!) and later wrote an article for Vice in German calling Roosh a rapist, while the London event was attended by the Reggie Yates BBC film crew, who later released a hit piece.

All Hell Breaks Loose In Canada

album_picphp

A remake of this would be saner

The Montreal and Toronto chapters, which detail the terror-alert-orange level of backlash against the talks, comprise most of the writing. I was mentally exhausted after reading the Montreal chapter and had to relax outside for a bit before continuing. Through these trials and eventual victory, Roosh developed the plan for a neomasculine movement so men could join together in opposing the harmful changes they see occurring.

Always Be Prepared

be-prepared-13-638

As an Eagle Scout, the motto “Be Prepared” is permanently embedded in my mind. And Roosh was prepared for the tricks the protestors pulled. If an event was cancelled, there was a backup plan to release free video of the talk online, which would only draw more attention to the message they were trying to censor. If a hotel hosting an event cancelled, there were already backup locations under consideration. If groups were infiltrated, a private notification and verification system (which was used in Canada) was ready to activate.

Learning from past experiences, such as the ambushing on the Dr. Oz show, and some earlier problems during the Europe talks, Roosh was determined to be prepared for whatever happened in North America.  But the enormous backlash could not have been predicted.

Conspiracy?

gynmun

At one stop, Roosh has a lengthy talk with a man about a conspiracy to undo Western civilization’s gains. I’m not convinced there is that degree of organization in the world, and the historical theme of QC’s foreword seems at odds with the idea of a planned coordinated worldwide movement to destroy patriarchy. Is there such a coordinated effort? Or do degenerate ideas simply spread like wildfire when a strong masculine culture does not keep them in check?

On Second Thought…

pyramid

But as I read on, evidence for deliberate, planned anti-family and anti-cohesive policies piled up. Policies which affected minuscule subminority groups were enacted, and the entire legal system and government were altered to accommodate them, while real issues affecting mainstream men were ignored. Was this just bad luck? Straight white men getting the short end of the stick because we have a black president? Or was there more to it?

Was there a planned and coordinated worldwide agenda of anti-male, anti-family thoughts and practices? Is multiculturalism merely benevolent inclusiveness? An attempt to combine the best of all ideas from disparate groups? Or is it actually an underhanded method of attacking man, family, and Western values?

200_s

I expected the book to be about the author’s state of the world, and some ideas for fixing it. Of course, that is part of it, but I was pleasantly surprised and impressed to see Roosh deeply in the midst of a quest for knowledge, asking questions of attendees, delving deeply into ideas, and looking for solutions to the problems we face in modern day life. This isn’t the story of a zealous theorist convinced he has the answers to everything, and forcing them to fit his belief system; instead he is questioning, seeking, being curious, and learning.

Unpopular Speech Is Why We Protect Speech

As linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky stated, protections of free speech exist precisely to protect unpopular speech.

If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise you’re not in favor of free speech.

Free Speech Isn’t Free is a narrative, a warning, and a path for our future. It’s troubling that we are living in times where ideas such as health, strength, happiness, family, cohesiveness, and beauty are unpopular, but after reading this book, you will have no doubts that we are. The next step is channeling our forces into something positive.

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: 4 Things You Should Know About Free Speech

96 thoughts on “Roosh’s Search For Truth Has Put Him On The “Wrong” Side Of The Culture War”

  1. Who wants to be on the side of Ignorant People and in regards to the ‘Culture War’ well libs have no real culture beyond what might be found in a peatrie dish

    1. Shitlibs live as a ‘culture’ in a laboratory. The white coats govern them in what can be termed a ‘laboratorocratic’ form of governance. A ‘mommyocracy’ of single mothers under ‘state husbandry’ imposed by the labocrats and psychothought enforcers governs the youth. The mule labor sector of men is governed by the corporate plantation system wage slave human resource megafarm. A resource human/animal farm industrial/agriprison surveillence technocracy.
      All these ‘ocracies’ have the same central players involved. They come up with a new tailored ‘ocracy’ to fit the bill, to control and subjugate another aspect of human life. The controllers change faces and change masks to conceal their operation and their strategic movements.
      WE’RE BEING COLONIZED as a species. The ruse follows the same logistics that covert colonizing subversion tactics would employ. Change your ‘mask’ periodically. Kind of like the famed MICK FOLEY. Same guy, different season, different fight.
      http://www.wwe.com/f/wysiwyg/image/2012/05/20120525_Foley_Alter_Egos.jpg

      1. Frankly they have been screwing up since prohibition and truth be told the liberal social experiment has failed miserably.

  2. The simple fact is that some cultures are better than others. You can’t be anywhere on the global scene without adopting some of white western culture.
    Kids today can’t handle the fact there are winners and losers.

    1. And understand that losing is temporary. Analyze why you lost and learn from it to be a winner next time. Instead, they’re teaching kids it’s not their fault they lost. It wasn’t fair.

      1. “And understand that losing is temporary. Analyze why you lost and learn from it to be a winner next time.”
        Yes. It’s called becoming “knowledgeable.” Notice how the left rages about “cultural appropriation” — they want you passive and controllable.

    2. East Asian countries have orchestras which play Western classical music. They don’t find our musical tradition triggering at all.

    3. Too bad life isnt fair…i agree completely with you that adopting different points of views and learning to adapt is key and integral to success.People need to learn and understand that life always knocks you down with its various hurdles.It is up to us however to deal with it.Do you want to stand in one corner and whine about it,or are you gonna stand up and keep on going?I believe the majority of readers here will go with the latter,as we never go down without a fight.

  3. I am amazed that this coalition of feminists, proponents of sharia law, atheists, labor, pro-immigration (flooding labor markets) manages to hold.
    It seems to me that the only thing holding it together is the hatred of the white, Christian male.
    Hatred of the builders of Western civ is a powerful glue, and without the left would destroy itself.

    1. You don’t have to believe in a god to see that “social progress” can’t happen because human nature doesn’t change.
      BTW, replace “human nature” for “Hitler” in many sentences, and the sentence will still make sense. As in “Human nature wanted to destroy the Jews.”

      1. At least 6000 years and nothing has changed. People fall for the same things today that they fell for 6000 years ago. It’s dressed a little different but the same conditions persist. No matter how much those of who see try to teach the masses they refuse to accept it.
        Eventually you reach a Carlin like view of the human race. Just try not to let it kill you. Keep some humor about it, try to be above it.

        1. It takes a long time to evolve. Women today are still choosing male sexual partners based on neolithic, hunter gatherer instincts and triggers. It will probably take another couple thousand years for that to change, if ever. No amount of feminism or social progress will change our human nature, only nature can do that.
          We can only hope to temper our basic instincts so that civilization can prosper without chaos, but to do this effectively we have to be humble enough to accept the real truth about who we really are as a species.

        2. A human being should rise above one’s biology unless he wants to just be an animal.
          Then again that’s how the so-called elite think of the masses, as livestock.

        3. Woman is crooked and bent like the rib from whence she came. A rib like a woman is crooked and cannot be bent straight lest ye break it. Woman remains crooked and must be realigned in her course regularly like when you’re rolling a big flat tire with a flat spot. It is out of round and must be periodically smacked in line when it teeters left while rolling. Woman is like a crooked boomerang stick when thrown. She still cannot pursue a straight trajectory. Woman needs the straight edge rule of man THE PATRIARCH to stand straight, to travel straight, to live straight. No three points can a woman plot in a linear fashion. Her third point is skewed without the straight rule of man THE PATRIARCH.

        4. There are 2 things about human societies that do not change through history. (1) We take the path of least resistance and (2) we are habitual.
          As ironic as it sounds by the time you learn from all your mistakes in life, you die. Makes me think God has a sense of humor.

        5. Well not quite. At school we are not thought the important stuff. That’s why it’s called school, to school you, to make you fit in a system, to be controlled. Education is a different thing. So because you are schooled you have to learn them the hard way in life. But there is an easier way, accumulate wisdom. Not only knowledge, accumulate also wisdom. Wisdom is more philosophical, more spiritual or even religious. Wisdom is about how the natural world works, about natural laws. Wisdom is more about virtue and values. But today we are tricked with this stupid paradigm “Knowledge is power”. Well it’s not. Knowledge is useless without wisdom. The best way to understand natural law is this quote “Do no harm, but take no shit”. It’s about differentiation between good and bad.

        6. You obviously have been reading ,,mainstream” literature. I recommend you read more locally like Sfintii Inchisorilor. Find out that Romania was under seige even before the West. All of Romania’s elite people were executed and imprisoned. Pause reading Plato and start reading Nicolae Steinhardt, find about Iustin Parvu, about Priest Fageteanu, about Rady Gyr and all they’ve stood for. Them- the intellectuals – as well as more than 100.000 young men like your self that once the soviet invasion started in 1945 they took up arms and rebelled and ran into the mountains. Read more locally, start identifying with your own folk ( and race ), stop identifying with other people’s ideas of freedom.
          ,, You cannot engage in this war if you don’t know the enemy and if you don’t know yourself.”
          I believe you know so little about your people for the moment. And if you don’t know your kin, how can you judge the elements that soround you ? How can one aspire to virtuous judgement if one does not have catalyst to derive from ? Do you know your history ? No, you do not. Not yet, anyway.
          God Bless !

        7. I admit I haven’t read those books, but now the political developments are a bit different than before. I will not start to explain here how I think those are different.
          Thank you for pointing me to those books but I have an observation to make.
          From your tone, I think you are trying to get on high ground.
          That is unacceptable, this kind of behavior is exactly the behavior of people who try to put other people in little cages.
          To get on high ground with this idea that someone does not have the same information as you, it’s plain stupid.
          Please do not get too emotional about my comment, I hope you reflect on it as I will reflect on what you said.

        8. The truth ain’t pretty. Get used to it. Being misinformed and manipulated means you are in a cage.
          Please excuse my behavior. I mean to spread knowledge.

    2. society is being engineered.
      Start at the beginning, the late 19th century industrialists desire to manage the lives of their employees. From there it evolves into the scientific management of society. The government run Prussian-model schools spreading across the western world and Japan. 1930s marketing. It keeps growing and getting better at what it does.
      I am just hitting a couple highlights here. It takes books just to explain this stuff. But essentially in the USA the schools cripple people’s ability to think. Instead they react emotionally in very predictable ways. The whole mess holds together because so many people can’t think. They only support what their ‘team’ supports. They’ve been conditioned into teams and coalitions. The fact they support two opposite things doesn’t even register with them.
      Ever confront someone with the internal conflicts of their views? Doesn’t go well does it? They can’t deal with it so they don’t deal with it.

      1. Cognitive dissonance reinforced by pavlovian conditioning.
        I once gave a colleague a ride home after an office party and we spoke the whole way regarding his societal beliefs and assumptions. Next week I ran into him and he said he could not sleep after our discussion and was awake most of the night thinking about what I said. I asked what was the end result of the sleepless night? He said, “I’ve decided I am never going to talk to you gain.” And he didn’t.
        It is what it is.

        1. You are probably better of without him mate..cognitive dissonance can be hard to remove from the train of thought(Propoganda also works on the principle of cognitive dissonance…an eerie coincidence,or is it more than mere coincidence?) and if he took offense to you giving him advice as a good friend,he is probably gone beyond hope.I admire the effort thought and I am glad that people who care about their fellow human beings still exist(Big Kudos to all the readers here btw,you guys rock)

      2. “But essentially in the USA the schools cripple people’s ability to think.”
        It’s called the Prussian system: it’s designed to turn out robots.

    3. I remember a point from a book I read long ago called ‘The True Believers’, it’s about the kind of creepy misfits who join ‘mass movements’. The point went something along the lines of…’you can have a mass movement without a god, but never without a devil.’

  4. I think we have unfortunately passed beyond the days of “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” We’ve entered a new zero sum political age. It is important to remember that the past 100 years have been abnormal in the relative peaceful process of representative government. In the historical timeline its far more common to have legislators trying to kill each other on the floor.
    When the stakes become sufficiently large, and the differences (cultural, racial, ideological, economic, etc) become wide enough violence becomes inevitable. Soon we must all choose a side. On one will the unwashed barbarian hordes, the socialist agitators, and the cuckold collusionists preaching anti-white, cultural marixists, globalist bullshit – on the other will be the nationalists. Choose wisely.

  5. “A female journalist came to Berlin (I thought women were banned?!) and later wrote an article for Vice in German calling Roosh a rapist”
    C’mon does nobody proof-read these articles: that should a female ‘typist’!!!!

  6. “At one stop, Roosh has a lengthy talk with a man about a conspiracy to undo Western civilization’s gains. I’m not convinced there is that degree of organization in the world, ……But as I read on, evidence for deliberate, planned anti-family and anti-cohesive policies piled up.”
    I’m intrigued now. I’d quite like to know who is arguing the depopulation agenda. I don’t think I entirely believe it myself, beyond the stupid UN stuff which could be just green communists

    1. There’s about 30,000 of them. They are almost all white males. They are all very rich. And they want no rivals for control of the planet.
      Their plan is to drive into extinction all breeds of humanity smart enough to organize a successful slave revolt, or to resist when the elite finally develop robots capable of doing any work their human drudges can do, and order the robots to pack what remains of humanity off to extermination chambers, removing their stink from the elite’s nostrils forever. Even the feminist sisterhood and Islamic brotherhood have nothing but a lungful of rat poison to look forward to.
      The class war is real. The bad guys are winning. And winner takes all.

      1. The superelites are real enough. I think one has to be careful about assuming that they want to de-populate the world. Population control has long been part of the UN agenda and this is linked to climate control etc. But things like the Georgia Milestones etc., which seem to support the agenda, could be pure distraction.
        It seems more likely to me that climate control and similar agendas (agenda 21, the new climate agenda etc) which I am aware the elite support (e.g. the naturalist David Rothschild) are supported both because they are believed – i.e. a ‘benevolent’ patrician ideology designed ‘to make the world a better place to live’ and because they will achieve the end of advancing the globalist international order – the whole point of climate change legislation etc is that it has to be internationalist to be effective. Internationalism is the goal. I don’t believe in depopulation in the crude sense; the elites are frequently gnostic in their outlook, and for that reason oppose heterosexuality and people breeding like rabbits. There is a difference between thinking there are too many people on the earth and proposing to mass cull them.

        1. The Elites even though they lack humanity are ( mostly ) still human,( just kidding ) they have their quarrels, rivalries, and competing agendas. none will take the step to end the current system as only an informed and willing populace can deny them access to unlimited capital ( nations should be heald to similar standard ( no fiat currency ).

        2. I don’t think anybody except the rich to give up anything – although, having said that what they have been doing is redirecting their wealth and power from personal bank accounts to foundations, which will do their (evil?) will in a charitable form. Yes fiat money i.e. not backed by anything real, is a problem.

        3. Nope a wealth cap would prevent this you cannot donate the excess to sny foundation you hsve controling interest in.

    2. A global cap on personal wealth say around 100 million per person and adjusted for inflation might be the solution of too much wealth in the hands of too few.

      1. I quite like that idea. They might tinker with inflation / deflation though so it would have to be adjustible. A problem might be that it could also be seen as redistributive socialism, and potentially might still not prevent domination of elites through foundations etc. They are sneaky fuckers, and care more about power than money

        1. It would be adjusted for inflation but needs cultural acceptance to work and would have to be global of courses barring both people and nations from the US economy has a powerful effect so it may be possible to do this on a national level. The Rich can freely allocate an excess In any form: shares of stocks, bonds, charities, Even Give it family, etc…

        2. I’m generally against engineering solutions of that sort – I mean it could be seen as redistributive in a sense, and therefore ‘socialist’. Limiting wealth is typically (and avowedly generally unsuccessfully) done through (democratic) socialists regimes of some sort usually involving heavy taxation or something like that which can potentially create problems for wealth creation / competition etc (at least if you believe the elites). I think something like an upper limit for wealth would be in danger of not achieving what it set out to achieve. The point should be to limit the potential for monopoly control – the kind of collectivism and cartel like structures that seem to have a stranglehold over western economies at both the state and international level. In other words any interventions that might result in the elites having their wings clipped would need to be justified in terms of better – more competitive, fairer – capitalism, rather than some different form of redistributive socialism that might simply allow collectivism and monopoly finance to re-work itself in a system with fewer and less rich, rich men. Billionaires may well run things, but in a sense they also represent the head of the hydra, and the body lies out of sight. The system as it stands is anti-competitive, and there is perhaps a danger that any interventions to address that problem could make it more rather than less so

        3. Agree. The solution isn’t to take money from the elites and redistribute it, it is to stop them having vastly disproportionate control and influence over politics. The game is rigged because of the favour system, that’s what needs to stop.
          No doubt that the elites have gotten richer by withholding wage rises in many industries, but a huge reason for their increasing wealth is that capital gains on investment have been trending upwards for the last 15 years and are now far beyond their historical average of 1-2%. That explains a big part of the wealth gap and only the truly resentful and/or stupid are calling for wealth confiscation in the form of draconian inheritance tax laws.
          The problem isn’t that there are wealth gaps in society because they are inevitable and to a large extent desirable. The problem is that the wealth gaps we have now are making it extraordinarily difficult for the average start up to compete, and unless the political game changes nothing will.

        4. “The solution isn’t to take money from the elites and redistribute it, it is to stop them having vastly disproportionate control and influence over politics.”
          That’s the critical part. While I think your subsequent analysis is fair, there’s a danger of moving too quickly solutions. It isn’t just a battle between the rich and the poor (as you acknowledge that isn’t necessarily a bad thing) but about the fact that money essentially buys entrance to an elite control system that controls democracy, and increasingly subverts national sovereignty with it.
          We need to think hard about the problem posed with respect to that disproportionate control / influence. Money always plays its part, but if you read Burnham what capitalist and revolutionary socialist regimes may share is a commitment to an elite ‘managerial’ bureaucracy. In other words people may have disproportionate control / influence not only because they are super-rich but because they enjoy position in or influence over an elite-dominated bureaucracy. Elites are inevitable, but their lack of democratic accountability isn’t

        5. People in the USA can own guns but not nuclear missles. Up until 100 million in personal wealth adjusted for inflation people this wealthy can give it as they choose: sell stocks in companies they own, give to charities, families, friends.) Just as other forms of self indulgences are looked down on and many are restricted or outright banned, humanity should find this level greed appalling ( 100 million is 2000 times 50 thousand dollars. ) and shame them.
          Every system has faults and if you fail to see this then your as dogmatic as a rabid liberal.
          The potential for unlimited wealth is the Achilles Heel of Capitalism…

        6. Nope The Elites are the brains and play the system the rest of us get played by the system. It’s time masses finally wake up, brake the rules and enforce a global wealth cap. Only socialist if you have more then 100 million and wealthy would choose who gets the excess money. Capitalism and socialism both have their flaws but I agree Capitalism is the better overall system..,

        7. I don’t believe there are ‘quick’ solutions. There will always be favouritism shown towards the wealthy. To some degree it is even justified; after all, big corporations hire most of the workforce in big American/Australian/Canadian cities. It’s understandable that governments will try to appease the rich because it’s politically expedient, but the social costs of catering too much since the 1980’s have been great and now it’s time for change.
          You are correct that the ‘elites’ are not only the super rich, but anyone who manages to get into a position of power. What could be do to increase accountability in a society with vast media concentration? It’s going to take a while before we see a paradigm shift.

        8. we’ve identified there is a problem with the super-rich/elites and their tendency to use it to monopolise political power. Is it perverse than one individual might have the best part of a 100 billion or something? Of course it is but the solution may be even worse, especially if it doesn’t address the capacity of any kind of elite to create monopoly / cartel arrangements with other like minded and self-interested people.

        9. More anti-monopoly / anti-cartel like legislation might be a way to go, but not directed just at business, but at preventing undemocratic forms of power and influence, lobby groups etc. Same thing with the media. There used to be debates about Rupert Murdoch owning too many outlets. You don’t even get that any more. I think there world is undergoing a paradigm shift, but it’s still early days

        10. Maybe, while I think limiting excessive wealth might be the lesser of two evils I don’t think it has been done before in this fashion aside from a bloody revolution this probably the bettet solution.

        11. Cartels of like minded people with 100 million in assets could the result but this wealth would still spilt amongst it’s members. It’s hard to find honest information about this subject.

        12. Don’t know mich about Hollande wealth tax but I read about to get up to speed. As. I mentioned else where the wealthy are free to allocate where any excessive income stocks in a company or companies, charities, family, friends, etc. unless you break the law…

        13. I think this would be the route whereby abuse, domination by family or groups etc., would occur. It would probably produce a lot of corruption, and a culture of power through evasion / avoidance (to use a tax metaphor)

        14. I don’t think bloody revolutions are efficacious. I think the main thing is to think carefully about what might need to be achieved, in the knowledge that sticking to one particular solution may not necessarily achieve that thing (although it might too, depending on how it’s done).

      2. That’s a nice idea, but why would those holding billions and trillions in power and wealth ever agree to it?

        1. This is why the people need to fight for this as too few have far too much power
          Pontential for unlimited resource aquesition is the achilles heal of capitalism. Just like your neighbor can’t own a nuclear missle there should be a cap on excessive personal wealth. A 100 million is still * 2000 times more then what the average person makes ( 50’000 a year ).

  7. I’d like to say it, but maybe it’s a bit too soon…But I’ll say it any way, even though it’s way too early for everyone to realize, and I haven’t read the book yet.
    Have all our conclusions and digging finding out what we already knew have meant only information ?
    People need to know the truth. The uglier, the sooner, the better.
    Because after everyone knows, the elites will tumble like Babylon.
    And without adding anything futher…
    I TOLD YOU SO !
    Virtus veritas !

  8. Free speech paradoxically is becoming more undermined through the old “straight” established forms of media like the much “respected” mainstream newspapers and broadcast channels. Readers and listeners can both see and smell the rat with them so easily, the poof of this point is the way Donald Trump (whom I’m not a fan of) managed to become this year’s Republican nomination despite all the “respectable” liberal papers branding him a Nazi and women hater etc.
    People aren’t duped by this type of elitist sloganeering and undermining anymore. Folks can find out the truth on social media which has become the true sanctuary where people can exercise “freely” their freedom of speech these days….and that’s something worth defending and fighting for.

    1. Nope, Facebook censors posts and also limits exposure to certain kinds of posts. It’s heavily engineered.

  9. Your point about releasing a backup video raises the question, why even bother having meetings in real life? Like you said, a talk to a dozen men could be replaced by a video that can reach potentially millions and have the same effect.
    SJWs and the militant left are making a big mistake by driving this movement underground.

    1. Networking. Meet like minded men and built tribes in areas of the talk. Tribes become communities, and communities become a nation. The seed of destruction for the globalist world view. All the hell you bring upon a single man is lessen when he has tribe to help lessen the burden of attacks.

  10. You have to research Nietzsche, Plato and Machiavelli (The Prince). The moral of the story is that the USA and EU people are in for a big surprise. What you see it’s on the surface. But the problem is more philosophical. These people who do this shit are basically psychopaths. They want control and they want it now with any price. So, let’s make a little summary. Mr. Nietzsche said that if humanity forgets how to wage wars, you cannot expect anything from it. So, we have to be slaves and they have to be masters. From time to time you have to wage wars to milk technology from them, you have to milk action, because they get comfortable and the world stagnates. From Mr. Machiavelli we learn that in order to keep the population in check, you have to invent fearful events to keep them inline (thus false flags). A prince must be feared, not loved (because he might get sabotaged) and not hated because that is disgusting. So fear works the best. From Mr. Plato we learn that the state must be powerful, not the individuals, we learn that children must raised by the state and the man and the woman must be separated after their fertile years, maybe 10 years (sounds familiar? Divorce anyone?). Also we have the cave allegory, where the people that are captured have to look at shadows on the wall, never seeing the people who actually make the shadow or the fire, or the way out of the cave (this is what’s media is all about). Here we go, this is what we learn about from these great Philosophers and there is more to it. You cannot engage in this war if you don’t know the enemy and if you don’t know yourself. Like Sun Tzu said, you may win a battle or two, but not the war, if you don’t know yourself and the enemy. I can talk hours and hours about the spell of those illusions that our civilization is under… But it’s pointless. I think we are the hero generation, the millennials and we are in for big sacrifices.

    1. Re: War, if there is any societal benefit to waging war, won’t that all but disappear over the next 100 years? The last true hardcore fighting was in WW2. Just look at the Mideast today. The US is fighting primitive enemies that it has a ~50 year advantage on technologically, and it could go in and wage traditional war with guns and tanks and battles and still likely be victorious (setting aside the fact that it is rather easy to win battles but extremely difficult if not impossible to actually win the war when you are fomenting foreign occupation on another continent).
      But instead the typical fighting is sending in a remote control plane that drops a bomb (drone) or if guys get into an actual fight, they retreat behind cover and shoot their guns near the enemy until a plane comes by and air strikes them… basically this is creating none of the supposed benefits to the society that wages the war (giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are any to begin with).
      Fast forward 50-100 years and drones and robots will be capable of doing all the fighting. A man of any race or nation will stand no chance against a piece of metal that is impervious to bullets. So human armies will be a mere relic of the past. Will this lead to more or less conflict? Battles will no longer be resolved based on dedication, passion, heart, bravery, and mental strength, but instead just on whoever paid for the most robots in that battle. (And I don’t need to point out that nations like China with rapidly growing wealth will be able to afford more robots than nations with declining net wealth like the west).

      1. I was talking about those philosophies. This is what actually those philosophers wrote. And it seems to be the same kind of philosophy that those people use. They are hypocrites and they sell their made-up shit to other people and people buy it so they can rule. I don’t think it matters the methods of war or the target. Those plans were written in books a long time ago and during history they were borrowed and regurgitated and enhanced until lately in marxism, communism, social justice, feminism you name it, the same basic concepts. Now we just see them into play. What amazes me are the feminists who don’t even know what gender they are. But I guess the plan is working partially.

      2. Read Revelation and John’s attempt to describe the terrorizing flying machines that wreak havoc. Very interesting in re drone tech…

  11. And if you want to know who the enemy is, watch We Are Change channel on youtube, Alex Jones, The Dollar Vigilante, and many more. Look up the Bilderberg Meeting (which is happening now), the Bohemian Grove meeting. You can also research the cases of pedophilia into politics of UK politics and Hollywood. Oh and also, I heard that in Canada oral sex with animals is legal. So there you go, degeneracy on the massive scale. The last stage of an empire is degeneracy. And people were sleeping until now.

    1. The world has always been degenerate in part. I don’t think any age can lay claim to being more degenerate than any other. In fact, in western countries we’re probably less violent and destructive than any other time and we’ve a better understanding of things like the environment and our health than ever before.
      The real point is to improve one’s character despite society and that’s what distinguishes us from people like SJWs who are deluded by their own need to force their bullshit on everyone in the world.

      1. I don’t think so. There were times that things were actually good. I don’t want to mention them, but well.

        1. Evil was always present regardless of human desire. Organized crime exists till this day in every community.
          The difference now is that people are finding out the truth.
          But that doesn’t mean they’ve woken up.

        2. But, good for who and in what sense? Yes, I’m sure aristocrats lived well in 18th century England, but, even they suffered from a plethora of diseases that resulted in premature deaths. Other people say that 1950s America was a golden age, but, there was all types of shit going on too, people locked up in mental institutions for no good reason, kids abused in orphanages etc. Evil, badness and wickedness will always be with us, but, if you know how to do the right thing, if you’ve principles and character you can “let the Devil have the world”.

        3. Well, the mental illness that is called psychopathy or sociopathy is left loose and is not considered a problem. So we get the world that we deserve. We are all hypocrites and we prefer injustice over justice. And of course we want all peace. Guess what, peace without justice is not possible. Read the other comment of mine and think about it. You may find new things. All things in the world have a reason and a very good explanation. You know, karma is a bitch if you ask me, while USA and all the bullshit NATO governments were waging wars over Iraqis, Syrians, Somalis, letting the Jews slaughter Palestinians, people on the west were loosing their families, their children, their homes, their jobs.

        4. ” We are all hypocrites and we prefer injustice over justice” This is what all the SJWs use as their credo. Guess what, the world would be better off if most of us stopped running around the place thinking our form of justice is better than yours- this is why the US always gets sucked into conflicts in parts of the world it has no business in.

        5. You are not insane. Those people are insane, they are infected with cultural-marxism. The justice problem is much deeper than what they mention. They only say justice is about the material dimension of the human existence. Well in reality there are two dimensions, the spiritual and the materialistic. True justice is spiritual. The spiritual dimension deals with our birth rights, every person on this planet has them, no matter in what system they are. When you engage yourself into violence physically or mentally, you are doing a crime on the spiritual dimension. We are not equal materialistically, but we are equal in the spiritual realm. So when I say karma, it’s breaking the universal law. “Do no harm, but take no shit”. The westerners maybe did no harm back home, but they took the shit the government was throwing at them, the lies and the deception to finance the bullshit wars and all of this came back to them.

        6. ” When you engage yourself into violence physically or mentally, you are doing a crime on the spiritual dimension” Our whole material existence is based upon some form of violence- against nature- against the ancient Gods- against the hand of fate…we cannot escape these facts, so, I don’t always believe that violence is always a spiritual crime. In fact, progress and enlightenment are built in part upon the principle of mastering nature which implies subjugation often by force as a rule.
          However, violence done for low self serving motives, like greed or the blind will to power by either individuals or nations seems to have the uncanny habit of causing turmoil and suffering to the perpetrators in ways they never intended. This type of compensatory law which says you can “never be that lucky” or “have everything your own way” especially if you violate others, seems to be some type of cosmic principle. Some call it Karma, others call it fate, but, what ever word you use, those whom ignore it, do so at their peril.

        7. You do not believe. Well, it’s a belief, not a fact. All types of violence against other human beings are done in the spiritual realm. There is a difference, people that cooperate or compete peacefully and do not put the boot on the humanity’s face is not a crime. In order to survive we must master nature, just like the mighty lion, he masters his environment, he is king of the jungle, metaphorically. So while the lion is the king of the jungle we are the masters of nature. Actually we are not only masters we are custodians of it. So we have a responsibility towards it. So everyone is a custodian… But here’s what we actually do, we kill each other trough war or injustice and we defecate on nature with our pollution or worse with war and we never clean up (well there are people who do clean up, kudos to them). We do not seem to learn this important spiritual lesson. And this cosmic law is coming to punish us again because we do not take true action to punish the irresponsible ones, who have the audacity to call themselves custodians over all nature including humans.

        8. Yes, but no one knows why we’re here? So you cannot blame people for damaging the planet, it’s a part of what we’ve always done to survive . Besides, the planet will go on producing yet more life after we’ve gone, that’s what nature does, so why worry about these things? If we’re spiritual beings who are “just passing through” then there’s even less incentive to care about the planet as it’s just a temporary matrix set up for our purposes?
          Why would cosmic law punish us? I’d imagine all extraterrestrial life had to make the same choices as us . It would seem bizarre that some cosmic agency would punish us for simply trying to survive.

        9. We are spiritual beings. If we are just passing through and we don’t exercise our birth right over those people who have the audacity to call themselves supreme masters then we are committing a crime of self hate. This is what those insane people want us, to self hate (white privilege, or whatever phobia). It is nihilistic to say no one knows why we are here. Well we know from our inner self, for start. For example I know that I am here to study and share with people the knowledge that I have. Then we know that we were given by the universe or god, or whatever cosmic law a beautiful planet and a bunch of rights so we can protect each other and our beautiful planet. We were given conciseness to make the best of it. (And this consciousness is passed, through language, text, books etc.) So I think those are wonderful gifts and we cannot ask for more. And honestly it’s great to be alive and to accept that we when we die we did our part to preserve what was given to us, those amazing gifts.

        10. And this cosmic law is going to punish us through the people that we fail to punish (punishment means stopping them from their insane plan, not killing them, they will kill us for sure if we do not do it).

        11. How do you know Cosmic law is going to do this? And how are we meant to punish those people who are transgressors? Surely, we’re all culpable, but, it’s hard to know of what exactly, isn’t it.

        12. Not really, not all are guilty. Some people on this earth do not have this wisdom that I talk about. That we are custodians of this earth, that there is a cosmic law, that says “Do no harm, but take no shit”. And this cosmic law is going to punish us, because we don’t exercise our sense of justice (divine justice). Read my other comment here about the three philosophers Plato Machiavelli and Nietzsche. I kid you not, this is what those people believe in. They want to build a nice prison for all. Like in old Soviet Russia.

        13. Take this example, what happens when a person hates himself? Well, he falls into depression and maybe he ends up committing suicide (this is this cosmic law in action). On a larger scale, we hate our self when we support such people and this could mean the end of all of us, or misery in the best case scenario.

  12. I feel that we need to start a breakaway civilization of our own to leave earth and let these cocksuckers have each other.
    If that takes blood sweat and tears so be it. Also I want these protesters shot up with pepper spray paint balls so they have a real reason to cry.
    Bring stun guns so that when they assault you you can fuck them up. They want to be bitches show them the big dogs teeth and brains then watch those sad sacks of misery vanish into the darkness from whence they came.
    Not advocating “violence” here just appropriate levels of force for personal protection as we have all seen that these folks harassing us will not hesitate to use violence and threats that we have every right to plan for and avoid with or without force.

    1. That is a very poor way of doing things. Really, those people are the first to die. They are naive, roaches… They don’t have a way to defend themselfs, they do not have the mental skills to cope. Forget about them. Really, read my comments below.

    2. Agree on that point which is probably why I enjoy reading books such as Gerard K. O’Neill’s The High Frontier and T.A. Heppenheimer’s book Space Colonization since they have a viable means to that end with the L5 Movement.

  13. “If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in
    favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise.
    Otherwise you’re not in favor of free speech.”
    Chomsky actually said that…srsly??????
    Well, I’ll be dipped in shit!!

  14. Taboo is a Polynesian word for something terrible and numinous that cannot even be mentioned, like the (((usual suspects))).

  15. White male this white male that, if they’re so great how come they’re the lead in beta male enabling? It’s white males that allow feminism to happen and supported through government, law etc.
    From what I see even in the left the white male is revered for things they didn’t even accomplished. Throughout history white males accomplished many things but they aren’t you you are a white male but not one of the history’s great. I say the same tging about how white males today aren’t responsible for black slavery that was white males of the past and white males today do not owe blacks anything unless they’re several hundreds year old and lived from black slavery and no blacks today deserve any special treatment today unless they were a slave during the black slavery days and that also requires then to be several hundreds years old
    There’s a higher black gay percentage than white gay males yet white gay males are far more represented. There is not even a latent hidden hate to white males. I agree with many things said on this blog but the hate on white males is a conspiracy that makes no sense. There hasn’t been an article that specifically points out where white male hate is coming at.
    Makes no sense really because the left is mostly populated white males and knowing how the left operates agendas based on their own selves

    1. Scapegoating is motivated for a political purpose– blaming a group of people instead of facing up to the failure of the ideology. In fact the dogma doubles down and the more it fails, the more hate involved.
      I wait for the day the US federal and state governments and universities ends affirmative action and preferential hiring and recruiting practices, but the targeted discrimination is policy and it’s been the rule of law for over 40 years.

    2. You see it a lot in university’s and television.
      White dudes are simultaneously presented as the most evil paychopathic oppressive patriarchs of history in liberal arts courses, and also as the most clueless enfeebled beta males in television.
      White guys have been stripped of their sense of group identity and are given no positive archetypes to live up to. Just pay taxes.
      Whether this is a “war”, coincidence, or emergent phenomenon is irrelevant.
      Every other race and social group is given group identity and an institutional voice in politics, while white men are expected to just pay taxes.

    3. The anti-white male sentiment comes straight from feminism. The white males that allow it to exist, chances are they were raised with feminist influence, want to be “one of the good ones.”

  16. Roosh V the pickup artist’s Shoko Asahara. Risking his life for us. Assuring us from the evils of reactionary fallout. (pua< criticism) Roosh is right “Freedom of speech isn’t free” It’s $7.00. ASIN:B01GMQZ5ZA. When you willing fully attach your thoughts and ideas and turn them into an ISBN #, funny things happen.

Leave a Reply

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