KINGMAKER PODCAST: The Making Of A Modern Man

Quintus and I tried to start a ROK podcast this year but the meetup outrage happened, along with aftershocks that kept me occupied (Quintus went on to start his own excellent podcast). Things have stabilized to where I’m now attempting a solo podcast called Kingmaker, where I focus on self-improvement and masculinity issues.

In the first episode,  I discuss the importance of a man’s environment on shaping him because of how it acts as a mirror to his existence. I propose that modern Western civilization, with its ideas of individualism, materialism, and hedonism, have created a toxic environment that is hurting men more severely than had they been raised in a traditional society, using my own life path as a case study. I also discuss what we have gained and lost by moving from a traditional society to a modern one.

Listen on Soundcloud or download the MP3:

Listen on Youtube:

Subscribe on iTunes or add the RSS feed to your favorite podcast app. If you like the podcast, please leave a rating and review on iTunes. The feedback so far has been quite positive so I look forward to continuing.

Don’t Miss: 9 Self-Improvement Tips For American Women

54 thoughts on “KINGMAKER PODCAST: The Making Of A Modern Man”

  1. Ah, I was wondering what had happened to the podcast! Can’t wait to hear this one, the first in a series that will hopefully last for a long time!

  2. I believe the scales tip hard to the side of the environment playing a bigger role in who a man is, in this day and age. When you are constantly bombarded with media-crafted notions about how important it is to be an SJW, or a white knight, you tend to stop thinking for yourself and go with the flow, due to the fear of being ostracized. Which results in a particularly odd state of being; which I like to refer to as, “sheeptardation”…

    1. Every movement has its artists and poets. You’re quickly climbing into the slot of artist. Put Going Sane into the poet seat and I think we have ourselves one hell of a great start.

      1. I don’t know about that. I am okay at drawing stick men, but other than that…uh…I do appreciate the vote of confidence, especially when it comes from someone I respect. Thank you good sir.

        1. The world now is memes and graphics. You seem to be converging on cornering that market for the manosphere Bob.
          Slainte mhor.

        2. A toast with some single malt would seem appropriate here…carpe diem, amigo. (Clink.)

        3. Speaking of “stick men” I’m still waiting for my updated look Femicunt Magazine.
          Press hard on those crayons Bob, I want to see passion!
          Not just cutting and pasting from the interwebs..

  3. To discover Evola seems practically inevitable when one refuses to be cucked in the modern world.
    But what is yet to be determined is whether the New Babylon can actually sustain itself. From my understanding every culture that has gone feminist/Dionysian/liberal/multiracial eventually collapses under its own inefficiency and lack of vision, and was gradually taken over by more patriarchal and determined outsiders.
    But the globalist hive (i.e., major liberal cities) has so much infrastructure and the human capital is maintained by importing more and more people who just want a piece of the pie. I don’t understand economics well enough to estimate how long this can last, but to me this seems like an important question if one wants to decide how to respond to it.

    1. In your calculations, consider the one element here that didn’t exist in the past. A fully armed (U.S.) society of natives. This shit is really chaffing lots of people out here, I don’t think that the “import/replace” model of previous serf societies is going to work the same way here. Not saying we’re going to win, just that it’s a new factor in the math.

      1. What would be the basis of the consolidation of the rebellion. Constitutionalism, or do we go deeper and attempt to revise the constitution with An emphasis on patriarchy?
        Can you see enough men getting behind the principle of not letting their women have any say?
        The aforementioned is inevitable but, what is the unifying principle to consist of?

        1. At this point in time the focus is anger. It’s up to us (or others) to direct it. Talk in gun shops and gun shows these days isn’t even “borderline” treason, there’s real anger out here. Hot anger.
          Folks are itching for “change”.

        2. Aye. We’re this (small space between fingers) close to a perfect storm.

      2. When fellow Canadians rip on Americans owning guns I always give them a piece of my mind.
        If we’re all for “diversity”, then why can’t there be one country in the world where the people can organize independently to fend off a malevolent and oppressive regime?
        That’s usually the moment where people decide I’m difficult to deal with.
        God Bless America GOJ.

        1. Funny. I know more than a handful of Canadians here, and all but one of them own guns. Perhaps all the ones that feel as you do have already fled.

        2. I’ve spent my life mostly in urban Canada where it’s become very taboo. I wouldn’t be surprised if urban Canadians are different regarding guns. It does take some grit to deal with our wilderness.

        3. It’s the same kind of urbanism here. US cities are overflowing with leftist thought. We might simply have enough hospitable (climate-wise) rural areas to counter the cities. Those areas being not as rugged, I mean, thus supporting a larger population.

        4. It’s been one year since I resigned from my last job and I never felt so good in my life… I started working from my house, over a website I stumbled upon over internet, several hrs /a day, and my income now is much bigger then it was on my office job… My last month payment was for 9000 dollars… Amazing thing about this is that now i have more time with my kids…

      3. The import/replace model that existed in the ancient times is a very bad example for the modern counterpart. Modern replacement happens with people who are NOT able to do what the host society does and the elite literally believes that they can!
        In ancient times the problem was the advancement of the population of slaves, who were doing cheap manual labor while most of the people used to do either crafts (let’s say industry but on a minuscule scale), agriculture or provide services. Also they did not want to do the most dangerous jobs (mining was done by the cheapest of slaves as they would not live for long working in the mines) and gave them to the most unruly slaves.
        Serfs on the other hand were indebted people, they were considered as lowly humans, but still humans and not tools to be possessed, in case one killed a slave he would pay a fine and get imprisoned for destroying ones property. If one killed a serf he would get tried for murder.
        Serfs were, unlike slaves IMMOVABLE, they could only change a master only if one bought their debt, this meant their lot from a previous master or conquered it. Now serfs had a problem paying their debts because that gave them some benefits: If one wanted their lot, by becoming a serf to powerful lord the one aiming for their belongings had to pass through their master, surprisingly that tendency created even some serfs out of nobility! Also they would never be taken in the militias or the army for a campaign. On the other hand they were landlocked and considered the lowliest humans.
        Anyway I got off-track, the people that are today “replacing” us cannot do that and also they do not believe in liberalism, they are just taking advantage of it, the more of these people that are coming the closer to collapse we are not vice versa. Of course I am referring to the ones that the liberals sponsor to bring.

      4. Give it 20 years and most people will give up their arms too. And I don’t mean forcibly. They will be so brainwashed that they will feel like heroes for ‘letting go’ of their weapons.

    2. I highly recommend that, in addition to dedicating your life to God, that men look into the occult and mysticism. There’s a lot of valuable knowledge there, as well as Philosophy and lessons for men. Evola was heavily into that shit and for good reason.

        1. There is a lot of contradiction in advocating overcoming fear on one hand, on the other hand advocating being afraid of “the devil”.

        2. It’s just duality. Evola liked that about Christianity. Christianity has far deeper meanings.

        3. I’m broadly christian, and I’m profoundly interested in the occult. Of course there’s a deep tension but that’s precisely what makes it interesting

        4. there is an occult side to judaism, christianity and (as far as I understand) islam too. What is interesting is that there is a conversation going on beneath the surface. That conversation is far more interesting than anything that gets said in the public discourse of religion or politics

        5. You’re right. The philosophical questions are far deeper than those asked in the Bible. The Bible at face value is THIS IS HOW IT IS. But then there are the hidden messages using gematria, the hidden meanings of things, various mysteries that seem to imply certain things, and things that can only be understood when one leaves the confines of the Bible and picks up a mythology book.
          And then all the references to magic incantations in the Bible. The most powerful, YHWH, is actually a magical incantation known to the Ancient Greeks as Iao. Then comes the astrology and the alchemy.

        6. the occult is a mixed bag. It doesn’t sit easily next to orthodox religion, either christianity or judaism. Kabbala lays claim to the truth behind the ‘surface meaning’ of the torah / bible and has been influential within occult practice. Each will have to decide for themselves what they think about that. Gematria is pretty much a non-starter for non-kabbalists / Christians but is pretty central to kabbala itself I think. I’m not trying to say one is right or wrong although it’s worth noting that while they have sometimes been considered to be compatible (e.g. Christian Cabbala or latterly the Bible Code etc) they are often seen as bitterly opposed. My interest is in the conversation going on within that rather strained relationship. For instance Christianity has sometimes condemned gnosticism but other times (in places in the bible for instance) it appears to be gnostic.

    3. Haven’t actually read Evola, but he’s on my reading list. You’re actually the last person I would’ve expected to be recommending his ideas…but then maybe I need to understand him better

      1. His work stands out to me as the inevitable response to Nietzche’s nihilism, which I would say characterizes our post-modern Western world.
        I like Evola for the same reason I like Kierkegaard, who attempts to create meaning despite the discovery that life seems to be devoid of meaning.
        Evola takes the stance that metaphysics has always been a central component of tradition.
        He proposes that man cannot be entirely Dionysian (as Nietzche would fantasize), or completely Apollonian (as pure rationalists would argue). Man needs reason, but he also needs emotional truth, and the life of tradition offers that.
        He’s definitely a radical thinker… Perhaps that is why you wouldn’t suspect that I’d like him (I’m no Evola scholar)… But I think to move forward from the paralysis of materialism and post-modernity it requires a kind of radical thinking. He does this by presenting metaphysical ideals rather than religious ones.

        1. I’ve actually downloaded his Men amongst the Ruins to my kindle, but it’s just been sitting there for a while. I was tantalised by the article on Evola some time back, so I am definitely going to read him.
          I think the Dionysian / Apollonian distinction is fruitful one – I actually encountered itin Camille Paglia before Nietzsche – and one which I think – after a half century of reality denying progressive thought (which cherry-picked rather than engaged with Nietzsche) we are now well-placed to comment upon. Paglia actually uses those comments to condemn the philisitinism and ugliness of much modern thought, and I think that’s an angle worth taking – the aesthetic one. I’ll be interested to see what Evola’s take on it is.
          Re. my surprise, I was just aware of your background in academic psychology and Evola is kind of obscure to some extent

        2. Got any Paglia book recommendations? I always enjoy her in interviews.
          I think part of it for me is becoming more interested in my roots. Evola is an Italian traditionalist, and perhaps can shed light on the European mentality as it existed before the 20th century.

        3. Sexual Personae is her magnum opus. You’ll probably either love it or hate it. Paglia regards it as feminism. I wouldn’t worry unduly about that though, as she just says what’s on her mind, and despises regular feminism.

  4. Good podcast. I would like to know more about these genetic studies, if in the near future new data is realized, please do inform us.

    1. Once again, the creepy, unnaturally revolting side of the Force manifests itself. This time in Duke.

    2. How do they square that with their attempt to allow the muslim call to prayer to be sounded across the campus?

  5. “I propose that modern Western civilization, with its ideas of individualism”
    Wtf are you talking about, Roosh? Which part of our modern Western civilization is ‘individualistic’? Oh, you might mean the fact that people are encouraged to be alone and not create a family. Other than that, I don’t see anything individualistic about our times. When the canon of social conformity dictates what ‘true self-expression’ means, it no longer is ‘true self-expression’.

    1. “There the program seeks “to shift the culture of masculinity toward more non-violent norms”—the underlying assumption being that violence is currently the norm for men.”
      The underlying assumption that violence is always bad.

      1. violence is ‘always bad’ if it is defined as against the law. You can argue that the law is wrong, or misconceived, but if the law says you can’t hit some-one, man-handle them, spank your child to discipline them, then you’re effectively dealing with a given, rather than a ‘philosophical’ issue up for discussion
        Moreover, as you’re probably very aware, the politics of our day is all about the management of risk, violence being one of the principal concerns.
        In short I am more concerned about society as something that is risk averse and obsessive about risk (not least because of the political benefits of being so) than about the inherent value of violence relative to non-violence.

        1. “but if the law says you can’t hit some-one, man-handle them, spank your child to discipline them, then you’re effectively dealing with a given, rather than a ‘philosophical’ issue up for discussion”
          You mean ‘given’ in the sense that I can’t argue with the police about it or ‘given’ because law is somehow objectively to be respected?

        2. I’m not saying you can’t argue the virtues of any given law, or any subject that the law relates to. I think we have to be reality oriented though, which means acknowledging the constraints in which we function, including the moral constraints. There is always a case for re-negotiating the social contract so to speak, but that negotiation has to occur within the wider public discourse. Arguably, here we are sometimes on the periphery of that.

        3. “but that negotiation has to occur within the wider public discourse”
          Why? Other than: Because if you don’t take that route, you will be shunned, exiled, imprisoned?
          Why do I have to negotiate my own values with ‘the broad public’, other than me not wanting to receive the treatment I outlined? I don’t see any ‘moral’ necessity to have anyone but myself validate my values.

        4. “Why do I have to negotiate my own values with ‘the broad public’, other than me not wanting to receive the treatment I outlined? I don’t see any ‘moral’ necessity to have anyone but myself validate my values.”
          Then why do you even bother to debate or comment? Sure, an independent minded individual can be self-legislating so to speak, live by his own code and aim to be accountable only to his own self, but then if we could truly achieve such self-reliance we would even both to speak to others, which when we do so is always a type of accounting to both self and society. In reality we all argue our case, want to be heard, and to paraphrase Leviticus (if I remember correctly) be proven right. When we do that, we do it within the context of a wider history of such negotiations, which we feed into and feed from. I don’t think it’s possible to be as atomistic as you seem to think

        5. Well, I don’t see myself debating with the broad public. Rather, I am debating with you, an individual person.
          And if I did engage the broad public in such a discourse, it would be pragmatical. I would do it to make society more livable for myself by weakening ideas that are opposed to how I want to live my life.
          I think I did say that it’s valid to do so, in the sense that failing to do so will possibly get me into pain through being shunned. But it’s not really a discussion about what ‘is right’ or what ‘is lawful’, as these discussions seem to imply. Sure, foregroundly, that is what the debate is about: ‘What IS good?’ But underneath the truth is that people rather debate ‘what SHOULD be CALLED good/lawful’? In a way, it’s a war over a word definition: good/lawful.
          But that doesn’t mean that making the public conform more to my ideas somehow makes my ideas or myself ‘better’ or anything objectively. If I was more confident a person, I also don’t think it would be much about ‘validating’ myself. I wouldn’t need to. I would merely pragmatically try to make the world a place that I can enjoy living in more. But yeah, I suppose the line between ‘getting validation’ and ‘getting approval’ are a bit blurred, depending on how you interpret the words.
          Let’s take the example of a psychopath serial murderer for an extreme. That person does not feel bad about murdering or anything. That person does not need ‘validation’. But they would want a society that does not imprison them for murdering, for instance. Pragmatical.

        6. “And if I did engage the broad public in such a discourse, it would be pragmatical. I would do it to make society more livable for myself by weakening ideas that are opposed to how I want to live my life.”
          That’s why I used the term negotiation. For better or worse, we live in society. There are other people, and they constrain what we can do, and also impact on what we think and say etc. Even negotiating rules by which to live by with ourselves will involve partaking of wider debates about morality, right conduct etc. That’s true for a serial killer too, even if the latter will have little difficulty in re-writing the rule-book for himself.
          You refer to validation / approval. That may certainly be a part of it, but I was suggesting a slightly different term, namely accounting, as the kind of activity that we engage in to justify ourselves within wider society – validation, approval may be part of that, but I had more in mind the sense of demonstrating to ourselves and others that we are justified in socially recognisable terms. Returning to the issue of violence, I would say that any kind of deviation from the current consensus that violence is simply wrong, bad, to be avoided / punished needs to be negotiated within the wider public space of discourse. In other words it is psychologically / culturally difficult to simply depart from the consensus about violence without somehow accounting for one’s behaviour within the wider group. You could for instance become a football fan and acquire a limited rationale for limited violence (if that’s what does it for you) but even then you’d be departing from the wider culture.
          in terms of toxic masculinity, men are being required to account for their masculinity to wider society. The obvious way to do that is to demonstrate why the association of masculinity with violence is wrong. You though are suggesting that we embrace violence and claim that it is natural or not toxic etc. To make such an argument requires simply disengaging from the cultural conversation on gender since the second world war. You might as well counter the charge of rape culture by saying rape it good. Well that would probably shut the feminists up through sheer shock, but as a tactic it would be wrong both morally (rape is not good), and tactically (the argument would immediately be lost for 99.9% of people).

        7. “In other words it is psychologically / culturally difficult to simply depart from the consensus about violence without somehow accounting for one’s behaviour within the wider group.”
          Well, what do you mean by accounting? It’s a bottomless pit. Think about it. How do you “justify” something you did? You fucking can’t. You did it. End of story. There is no epic moral story in all you do or want to do. That’s a human invention and so we start dividing like little sheep, into “good” and “bad”.
          How do we “justify”? Practically, how do we do it? We do it through simple wordplay. We act like little node-databases. Basically, there is the node “good” and then there is the node, say “violence”. And then we make up some weird awesome-sounding rhetorics which basically consist of nothing more than trying to establish a neural association between “violence” and “good”, by using bridge-nodes like “football”. It’s ridiculous and laughable. Violence is violence. But suddenly, because you like football, and because you hear that football players like violence, you suddenly establish a neural connection between “good” and “violence”. Gah! How bothersome! How pointless!
          And it’s the same with everything. It’s all wordplay. “Discrimination is bad!” (Link between the nodes “discrimination” and “bad”). Why is discrimination bad? And then you basically get a list of all the bridge-nodes: Because racism. Because bigotism. Because … (insert meaningful sounding word here). As you can clearly see, we have not actually gained any additional information (other than additional words that are associated with feelings of shame/guilt/whatever), but suddenly we “change our opinion”. Wtf? What IS an opinion in this case? “I changed my opinion about discrimination” = “I was emotionally compelled to create a direct link in my neural database between ‘bad’ and ‘discrimination’”
          It’s such a silly and boring game. It means nothing. “Bad” means nothing. “Good” means nothing. It’s all just emotional crap. Of course, that doesn’t make it bad. (Pun intended) It just is.
          But I have a choice whether to engage in such games. And usually, I don’t fucking have to.
          To give an example, I regularly ignore red lights when on foot or bicycle. I don’t need to convince anyone, because usually, no one cares outside of maybe looking at me weirdly. I get “caught” very rarely. Or, today, I went between the aisles of our supermarket. An old woman crossed my way. She expected me to go out of her way. I mirrored her behavior and expected her to move out of MY way. She called me impolite. I spelled it out for her in a nice meaty gritty and very slow way: “Go. Fuck. Yourself.”
          That’s freedom. But how am I gonna “justify” that? You see, I hardly can. I will be trying to find some bridges between “good” and “impolite”. So, I’ll maybe say: “I wasn’t impolite. I was authentic / honest / free expression blah blah”. You see what I’m doing there? I’m just playing with words. None of that chit-chat actually changes anything about the situation that happened. It’s all just a verbal tug war between “positive” and “negative” words. Totally meaningless. Does that mean that it was “okay” that I did it? No, it means that “okay” does not mean anything. It means that the situation simply happened.

        8. “That’s freedom. But how am I gonna “justify” that? You see, I hardly can.”
          But as you’re afterthought “You see, I hardly, can” reveals, you yourself are aware that you just did “justify” yourself / account for your actions. I think you’re dwelling on the inherent worth (or lack thereof) of the values in question (non-violence in particular in this instance). Personally I’m generally comfortable with non-violence as a principle, but I’m not arguing for that principle here, but simply saying that we can’t ignore the history of the debate in which consensus values are formed. Your making a claim that we are hypocrites or that violence (in whatever form, to whatever degree) could have value (and most people would probably agree to some extent with respect to extreme situations) is pretty much to ignore how we got to where we are. In the context of toxic masculinity, you can’t argue that masculinity is wrongly equated with violence while at the same arguing that violence is good (to the extent if at all that’s being argued); or at least if you did you’d have to do so in a way that clearly set out the difference, so that masculinity was not simply reduced to violence (which is what feminisms tends to do at least in its historical analysis)
          But rhetorical tactics aren’t really the issue here, I think. The issue for me is the need for any response to such an accusation of toxic masculinity (or whatever) in terms of the wider discourse. I don’t think one can just do ones own thing in the way you seem to think. Ultimately regardless of whether it is right or not we always have to account for our actions, position etc to wider society. Individualists, self-legislating men, and even serial killers ultimately do the same, even if they’re less beholden to the way the wind is blowing

  6. Thanks Roosh, great to have your podcast back. I enjoyed the first episode but have this to add…indeed, men do better under a traditional paradigm (as well as women and society at large), however, its not necessarily the fault of technology/industrialization that we’re in this current mess. This is a cultural problem, period. The left took over the culture and now we have outrageous shit like debating where men and women can shit and piss. Our solution to not only bring us back to a traditional society, but also a rational one, is to re-take the culture or culturally seceded. This war will be an art war. It will be fought with TV (internet) shows, movies, books, cartoons, music and news. The good news is that truth is on our side. The more the established media turns left the more it kills itself and gives our side an open invitation to take ground. Consider this – ratings for the NFL is fucking dropping – THE FUCKING NFL!!! The very center of bread and circus! Why? Because of kneeling players, pink uniforms, politicized commentators, female refs and commentators…goddell is shitting in the face of his core consumers and they are reacting! Ditto for the rest of the media. All we have to do is change the culture. Yes, it sounds difficult, but, given today’s technology its never been easier and there is a HUGE under-served market of regular old guys…shit, its not under-served its neglected and insulted. Want to make a billion dollars? Produce a movie with traditional masculine archetypes – its that simple.

  7. podcast 1 was good–until the end. White knightism…. The second was a little flat and off topic.

Comments are closed.