Farewell to Kings

A decade of uniquely Masculine viewpoints is now gone.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Consolidating Masculinity
Length: 900 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
Image Credit: Scenes from the TV series, Penny Dreadful.

Roosh took down the Return of Kings (ROK) site on 2022/12/21, corresponding with the winter solstice. He explained the reason for his decision as follows.

“After my repentance, I did not see a problem with leaving old secular content online since it did not explicitly teach men how to sin. What’s so wrong with articles like “30 Signs That A Woman Has Been With Over 100 Men” or “16 Signs That You Are A Weak Beta Male,” for example? They couldn’t possibly hurt men, I thought, but I no longer believe that. Any piece of content that is secular, created from a godless perspective, and allows you to keep loving the things of this world will end up harming your soul by competing with the love you must have for God. It enables you to stay locked into matters and affairs that will keep you off the path of salvation. I can’t have it on my conscious that I left up an archive of thousands of articles that continued to validate for many men a secular outlook that inhibited their worship of Christ. The articles were written as if the spiritual world didn’t exist and painted the material world as the end-all-be-all of our existence, presupposing the false notion that there is no God. Therefore, I took down the entire Return Of Kings archive. It is not coming back.”

In terms of spreading the Red Pill gospel, closing ROK makes little difference now that the RP has gone mainstream. ROK has already served its purpose in that sense.

However, I have mixed feelings about Roosh’s decision to completely shut down ROK. After all, this turn of events is like a Feminist’s wet dream come true.

“No more ROK!”

“He censored HIMSELF!!!”

“The Manosphere is finally DEAD!!!”

It is true that ROK promoted many godless perspectives, as Roosh mentioned. But the thing is, it was a forum that allowed men to come together and communicate all the things they were concerned about — things that they had somehow missed in the haze of a gynocentric church and society. There were grifters and players indeed, but also honest talk about perspectives that were explicitly shunned from conversation everywhere else they turned, amid the constant rumble of lies being thrown at them everyday on MSM.

I see it as a free speech dilemma. If you allow free speech, then of course you’ll have to tolerate all the trash talk — which anymore, most of the younger crowd just can’t tolerate. But if you don’t permit free speech, then you, your children, and everyone around you will be force fed the politically correct and socially acceptable boilerplate mantras day in and day out until you’re regurgitating the same old puke. In this case, free speech forums will still exist, but they’ll go underground and fester into an echo chamber of nightmarish extremism — sorta like what we have today. In the beginning, ROK was just such a place, and it still is (or was) to some extent. But the truth eventually bled out and came to life.

Now that ROK is gone, along with much else of what was once the Manosphere, where will men get a no-holds-barred glimpse of feminine / human nature? What else is out there to help young men (and women) get a handle on that truth? What other gut-level honest assessments of reality are being offered? What other rubber-meets-the-road perspectives are being spelled out as a guide, or as an example of things to avoid? Where are the shared stories and viewpoints of men struggling to attain personal goals and make something of their lives?

The fact of the matter is that any perspective that is authentic, practical, true, and therefore meaningful, will have to touch on these inconvenient truths, the unpleasant issues, the lies, the sin, and so on, and call it out for what it is.

Thorniness is a litmus of the truthfulness that introduces the redeeming aspect of the Black Pill.

A microcosm of masculine men mansplaining “misandry”, an instructive snapshot of godlessness, and a little taste of the horrors surrounding the bitter Black Pill every now and then is a good antidote for the male propensity to coast on autopilot and pedestalize women for their beauty and p_ssy.

How can we find grace without honesty and truth, as ugly as it may be? In spite of all his sordid past, or maybe because of it, Roosh found grace. I doubt that Roosh would have ever found faith if he had always remained in the Orthodox church of his upbringing and played the role of a dutiful altar boy. He was a Prodigal son who had to travail in a world of his own desires before he was truly found.

It all brings up the question, how much knowledge, and what kind of knowledge, do men really need to know in order to know themselves, to know women, to manage their families and their women well, and to do well in life?

Does Roosh’s decision to close ROK truly benefit men? Or is it simply a knee-jerk attempt to distance his conscience from the shame of his sordid shenanigans?

The past might be instructive to younger men, lest those hard-learned lessons be forgotten.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Collective Strength, Communications, Culture Wars, Desire, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Fundamental Frame, Identity, Introspection, Male Power, Manosphere, Masculine Disciplines, Models of Success, Society, Sphere of Influence, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Farewell to Kings

  1. info says:

    If there is an archive of the website it would be good.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Lastmod says:

    So why raise your children in faith, if they can just tell jesus “they were really sorry for doing stuff they knew was wrong. give me the kingdom now….and btw I f*cked the hottest girls, did this and that…I got away with it!”

    At the same time, he NOW talks about being holy and not living like this, and telling men to NOT do this? Ah yes…okay for him, not for you!

    The last straws of a scoundrel are faith, politics, and patroitism.

    If Roosh really has repented (and that is between him and god, I do mean that) then he really wouldnt have to discuss anything else. He probably did the right thing by taking it down. Even in his church, I am sure the priest / father /body-of-believers were putting pressure on him to “remove” ROK (I am sure, Jesus told all of them to tell him to take it down……as if)

    I personally think….and this may be way out there:

    Roosh, hate him as I do; he probably realized all that has to be said about “female nature” has been said and its everywhere now. If you are guy and type in the Google search “how to get a girl to like you”

    a gazillion options, answers, blogs, news, podcasts, videos appear

    I know, I know…….men just have not got the message yet!

    Roosh in his faith I am sure had a TON of pressure from within his community of faith to take ROK down.

    When I saw that video clip of Roosh losing his temper outside some nightclub, in some city and actually getting heckled by “hot, attractive women” I knew his game was up. Videos of his mommy answering the door when the press came to speak to him……a real man like himself having to move back home and having mommy take care of you….

    I knew it was over for him. It was funny at the time. His slavish followers slamming and sh*tting on any man who behaved like that video of him losing his temper, and man living at home was simp. But when he did it….defended to the hilt. I found it ironic

    I was a bit surprised at his conversion, but good for him. In the end he had no choice to take ROK down I guess

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      “So why raise your children in faith, if they can just tell Jesus, “they were really sorry for doing stuff they knew was wrong. give me the kingdom now…. and btw, I f*cked the hottest girls, did this and that… and I got away with it!”

      Because it’s better to have never wallowed in the mud with the pigs in the first place.

      “At the same time, he NOW talks about being holy and not living like this, and telling men to NOT do this? Ah yes… Okay for him, not for you!”

      You’re lying again, Jason. If Roosh thought his sin was “okay for him”, he would see no need for repentance, and you already knew that.

      “Roosh, hate him as I do…”

      The biggest spiritual difference between you and Roosh is that he chose to accept God’s grace and you’re currently actively rejecting God’s grace. You’re no more worthy of God’s grace than Roosh is. Neither am I, and neither is anyone else.

      Like

    • Jack says:

      “At the same time, he NOW talks about being holy and not living like this, and telling men to NOT do this? Ah yes… Okay for him, not for you!”

      If you think sin is “okay”, then you are sizing up the consequences from a worldly point of view. You are failing to recognize that the consequences of sin are spiritual in nature, and when continued on in unrepentance, those consequences spill over into daily life and down through generations.

      Psalm 32
      1 Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
      2 Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

      Click on the link and read the rest. God forgives the sin of those who confess, repent, and seek to be upright, even when LastMod wants to see those sinners rot in hell. Your beef is not with Roosh. Take it up with God. Pray much?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        “…the consequences of sin are spiritual in nature, and when continued on in unrepentance, those consequences spill over into daily life and down through generations.”

        One physically murdering someone is not “spiritual” in nature. It’s murder. A sin.

        “…seek to be upright.”

        Yeah, okay. Those who seek to be upright are reminded by people like you that they can “never be upright” and there are “consequences” for sin.

        Your sins? Roosh’s sins? Oh, people need a second chance, in fact, a gazillion chances.

        You guys twist that Bible for a few and most can never improve.

        “Pray much?”

        Prayed for a decade. The only answer I got was “silence” and daily I heard from Christians in church, “God told me…” / “God is working with me…” / “He is walking with me…” / “He is advising me…” / “He spoke to me…”

        After a decade, I realized God didn’t want to talk to me, or I wasn’t really saved. So, I went over it all again. Still silence. No burning bushes. Nothing……..

        But…

        I did get a daily reminder from most believers that I was a drunk / addict and I had to live with the consequences of sin.

        However…

        Their sins????????????????????????????????????????????????

        Oh no. No! No! No! God forgave them! They are washed by his blood! We need to let go of the past! Forgive!

        Same thing here. Depends on who is getting “second chances” and who has to sit in a corner forever in shame, and never be forgiven.

        God works like that too, or man has made him into that God. And it wasn’t by men like me. It was men like you. You guys who have the intelligence and your above average looks, and who got the lucky breaks, the second chances….

        Like

      • Jack says:

        LastMod,

        “One physically murdering someone is not “spiritual” in nature. It’s murder. A sin.”

        The sin of murder is an excellent example. The spiritual aspect of the sin of murder is nurturing hatred. The spiritual consequences of hatred are bitterness, malevolence, spiritual pride, and separation from God. And when hatred is continued on in unrepentance, those consequences spill over into daily life, resulting in murder. And this sin affects future generations. The sin begins with hatred (spiritual), and culminates in murder (real life), just as I described.

        “Those who seek to be upright are reminded by people like you that they can “never be upright” and there are “consequences” for sin.”

        In addition to the criticisms of other people, there is also the criticism of Satan the accuser and one’s own conscience too. And yet they seek to be upright anyway, choosing to believe in the grace of God.

        “Prayed for a decade. The only answer I got was “silence”…”

        And yet you should pray anyway. Pray until you understand yourself. Pray to confess your sins and release your angst. Pray until you realize why you’re not getting the answer you expect. Pray until you find what you’re looking for, or else, until you realize why you’re not getting it. Pray Until Something Happens! (PUSH)

        “Oh no. No! No! No! God forgave them! They are washed by his blood! We need to let go of the past! Forgive!

        Same thing here. Depends on who is getting “second chances” and who has to sit in a corner forever in shame, and never be forgiven.”

        Yes. People are not loving and forgiving. People are hypocritical and judgmental. Welcome to planet Earth.

        “God works like that too, or man has made him into that God.”

        Take a good look at that last sentence. It is revealing. You think God is like other people — unloving, unforgiving, hypocritical, and judgmental. Your view of God is a projection of your view of other people, or maybe even yourself.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        David murdering a man (sending him to die on a front line in another of the countless wars in the Bible where murder was somehow justified) was not nurturing hatred. It was to get his wife and look blameless. He was called out. He said he was “sorry”, and well……. he is hailed now as prophet.

        I knew a man (my uncle Danny, who ended up getting married to my dad’s sister). He hit a motorcyclist by accident in 1962. My uncle wasn’t drunk or impaired. It was an accident. It wasn’t out of maliciousness for his “hatred” of people on motorcycles.

        He had to do jail time. Involuntary manslaughter. This was 1962. Today, you can rob people at gun point and murder and be let go on lesser charges, even in red states, even with Trump appointed circuit judges.

        My uncle “murdered” someone. He did his time, got out. Got married. Had a life. Died. The murder wasn’t out of bitterness, or hatred. Until his dying day…. every few years he did contact the family of the person he killed, children, grandchildren. I don’t believe it was out of concern for them. I honestly think it was for himself. The “right thing to do” I guess. He never told me about it. I heard about it from my dad many years ago.

        Jack. God is unloving and is like most people. Speaks to some, ignores most. Rewards a few, forgives a few and d@mns other people for less egregious sins or even the same sin.

        I view the world now as a very cold, and pretty much uncaring place, a reflection of God. The only solace and peace and supposed “oneness with the universe” I have is when I camp, hike, and backpack (unmasculine activities, they don’t build muscle or confidence evidently), and even then… I have to return to the reality of paperwork, Los Angeles traffic, shaving, car insurance payments, and listening to everyone, still at the age of 52, telling me “Here’s what you should have done…” / “You are lazy / bitter…” / “If you just had a better outlook…”

        It doesn’t matter if I live back in New York State, or move to Missouri and make tons more money evidently, or become the most pious of men.

        The Salvation Army used that term all the time, “PUSH” (Pray Until Something Happens), and the thing is, I did pray for over ten years. Asking for guidance. An answer. Something. Anything.

        Silence.

        I realized around that time that God really doesn’t care unless you are someone He finds favor with for very unarbitrary reasons and methods I will never comprehend.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        LastMod,

        “David murdering a man […] was not nurturing hatred. It was to get his wife and look blameless.”

        Right. In this case, the spiritual sin is lust. The lust spilled over into real life. Then he resorted to murder to cover up the consequences.

        “He was called out. He said he was “sorry”, and well……. he is hailed now as prophet.”

        He repented, but he still had to carry the consequences, and those consequences affected his descendants and his kingdom more than himself personally. He is regarded as a prophet largely because of his Psalms which described his relationship with God and how God dealt with him. He is regarded as a hero of faith because he trusted in the mercies of God in spite of his sin, and did not resist being held accountable to Him.

        Sin is an unavoidable part of the human experience. Sometimes I think the whole reason God allows sin is to demonstrate and make us aware of His love, mercy, and grace, and to (hopefully) impart some of those qualities into our selves. However, many people get swamped by the sin, and fail to realize any grace.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “I did get a daily reminder from most believers that I was a drunk / addict and I had to live with the consequences of sin.”

        Everyone has to live with the consequences of their sin. Are you saying you shouldn’t have to? Why not? You obviously don’t like living with the consequences of your sin. Neither does anyone else. I have great news for you. God offered you a way to escape the eternal consequences of your sin. Unfortunately, you’re currently actively rejecting that offer.

        “God is unloving and is like most people. Speaks to some, ignores most. Rewards a few, forgives a few and d@mns other people for less egregious sins or even the same sin.

        I view the world now as a very cold, and pretty much uncaring place, a reflection of God.”

        I have more great news for you. You’ll get to tell Jesus Christ all of that face-to-face when He returns to judge the living and the dead. How’s that sound?

        “I realized around that time that God really doesn’t care unless you are someone He finds favor with for very unarbitrary reasons and methods I will never comprehend.”

        I have even more great news for you. God also offers you His unmerited (i.e., undeserved) favor. It’s called grace. Unfortunately, you’re also currently actively rejecting that offer.

        The biggest spiritual difference between Roosh and King David on the one hand, and you on the other is that they accepted God’s unmerited favor (grace), and you’re currently actively rejecting God’s unmerited favor. No one deserves God’s favor; not you, not King David, not Roosh, not me, no one. Yet God offers His favor to all of us. So far, you’ve chosen to reject His offer.

        Good luck with that.

        Like

  3. thedeti says:

    I kind of figured Roosh would do this eventually. It’s too bad, really, because there was and is a lot of knowledge and information that, despite its worldly provenance, is just required for men today if they are going to have anything to do with women (and most men will, in some form or fashion).

    First, the problem with many men, especially men in the men’s sphere, is that we find some truth, or a truth, or The Truth, and we go way, way, WAY overboard in integrating that truth into our lives to the exclusion of everything else, and there is no balance. Most men seem to do OK with this, but some men do not. Most men seem to learn about girls and women and have a healthy view of them as flawed but fun companions who aren’t to be taken too seriously and who aren’t the be all end all of human existence. Not so for Red Pill men, I suppose.

    Many of us in the Christomanosphere, when we were boys, ruthlessly internalized the you must be nice at all costs message: that sex is bad; that our sexual desires are wanton, evil and fleshly and therefore must be denied; and that we are to be unfailingly nice, deferential, obsequious and pedestalizing with women at all times. We learned to internalize the Covert Contract: “If I am good and Godly and nice and give others what they want, then they will give me what I want and I will live an easy life.

    Our elders imposed all these on us without teaching us anything, or even suggesting we take it on ourselves to learn anything, about women: Their natures; how they approach love, men, sex, and life; or how different they are from us men. No, all we needed to know about women was that we were to fall all over ourselves giving women whatever they want and putting up with their foibles and idiosyncracies regardless of the cost or detriment to us.

    Balance is what’s required. Roosh has done what most of us men do – he has veered wildly from one extreme to the other, with scant little attempt to achieve any balance. Dalrock achieved that balance masterfully, and I am quite glad his rediscovery of timeless truths juxtaposed with Truth continues. Perhaps he achieved that balance because he learned it as a young man. Same with Scott. Same with SAM and Mike (except we know about SAM’s ungodly young life).

    In a Christian man’s life there is a place for unvarnished, unbridled masculine expression. See King David. See Joab (David’s military advisor/commander). See Solomon. See Samson. See Samuel. See Jesus. See King Hezekiah. See Song of Solomon.

    There is a time and a place for everything, and that includes men learning the truth about women. That includes men knowing women are not superhuman, they do not exist on a different moral plane, they are not better than men, they are not more moral or more nurturing or more caring, they are very different from men, relationships with them are a specific skill set that can be learned, and sex is an important part of the human experience that men very much want to experience and if he does not get to experience it then he must find some way to replace it with something else that is fulfilling and life enriching.

    That also includes men learning that their wants, needs, hopes, and desires are important too and deserve to be accounted for in their relationships with others; that they have needs too and can rightly expect the people in their lives to meet those needs; that they are not required to simply tolerate a woman’s BS; that they have every right to expect a woman to either enhance and bring value to his life or be gone; and that they are not required to continue relationships with women who cannot or will not meet his standards. He has every right to have standards for the people in his life; he has every right to seek out relationships with people he wants; and he has every right to end relationships that don’t work without getting falsely accused of wrongdoing or of “unChristian” behavior.

    It is NOT unChristian for a man to want sex. It is NOT unChristian for men to have sexual desires for sex with attractive women. It is NOT unChristian to seek out a healthy sexual relationship with a woman. It is NOT unChristian to want, and seek, a rich, full life that includes material acquisition and a fulfilling sexual relationship. It is NOT unChristian for men have standards for others and to end relationships that don’t serve them.

    It is NOT unChristian to point these things out. It is NOT unChristian to talk about these things. It is NOT unChristian to talk frankly and explicitly about our wants, needs, desires, and failures with each other.

    It is NOT unChristian to hold up a mirror to the Church, and to women, and to tell them point blank “you’re not getting the job done, what you’re saying is wrong, false, and injurious, and you need to straighten up”. It is NOT unChristian to call other Christians out on the carpet for their false teachings about intersexual relationships.

    Yes, there are some who cannot have sex. Yes, there are some who cannot achieve both. Yes, there are some people who just aren’t suited to relationships. This is part of the insoluble problem. There are solutions for them that don’t involve sex, true. There are exceptions to every rule – that’s what makes them rules. But for most men, solutions can be had. It is NOT unChristian for men to want or seek those things out.

    A man can be a Christian AND ALSO have a rich, fulfilling life down here on planet Earth. It is NOT unChristian to want that or try to achieve it. There is no reason he cannot have both. “I came that they may have life, and that more abundantly”. That includes man in his fullest expression, and that includes union with a woman in all its forms, and that includes sexual union, if he wants that and does what he can to achieve that.

    Liked by 9 people

    • thedeti says:

      It is NOT unChristian for a man to refuse relationships with any woman he does not find attractive for any reason whatsoever, including that woman’s past.

      It is NOT unChristian for a man to refuse continued attendance or membership in a church that shames him for his relationships with or treatment of women.

      Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      And please, haters, do not come at us with “um, you needed to go online to websites to teach you that??” Yes. Yes we did. The lies and the BS are so pervasive, so saturating, and so prevalent, that these lies were jackhammered into our brains literally every minute of every day at school, at home, at church, and in media. There was no escaping it. So, yes, we needed to unlearn the lies and BS you foisted on us.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Dalrock spent years and millions of words documenting how the modern western church has spectacularly failed at guiding women on how to behave and men on what to accept in a woman. So, yes, men comparing notes about female behavioral tendencies and red flags to look out for is absolutely necessary. Since we no longer have an adequate amount of exclusively male spaces, the ole interweb will have to do.

        Liked by 6 people

  4. redpillboomer says:

    I only saw a few of his RoK posts and articles, but they were insightful. His conversion seems genuine. I think in time, he’ll be a good addition to the Christian Red Pill community because he can give insights into the player lifestyle and the dark side of it that can help young men out. I’ve always felt that this is an area we have not delved into very deeply in the Manosphere, the downside of male promiscuity; female promiscuity, yes, man we’ve all practically got Ph’Ds in that subject! Lol

    I’ve always felt in the Manosphere that there is a subtle, and at times not so subtle, glorification of the “player” and the “player lifestyle.” I think this is part of the appeal of guys like Andrew Tate. I listened to a few of his podcasts recently, thought he had some good insights, but also felt something about the whole thing was just off; and off especially for younger men. Then he got arrested in Romania. Not sure how that is going to turn out, but we’ll see.

    Being an older guy, and not all that in touch with the world of Roosh and Tate’s generations (X and Millennial respectively I believe), I appreciated their explaining to men the world of gynocentrism and female nature, and to some degree their battling against the tide of gynocentriscm, but I was always left with a feeling like, “I prefer the Christian Red Pill” views. I figured that was because I was a Believer, and an older guy.

    However, in listening to Roosh post-conversion, I can see why he took down RoK. No matter how solid the information was, it was still the secular view point. I can see why he felt it helped men, but also gave them in some way, another path to develop themselves as men WITHOUT God. It’s better than being a blue pill, Beta, that’s for sure; however it’s still lacking in coming from the power of a converted life and relying on God’s wisdom and ways.

    Liked by 4 people

    • info says:

      All the various girls they have been with has become a blur.

      And even harems featured kings who never knew all their women. Much less fulfilling their marital rights. Not to mention the harem drama that draws him away from properly ruling his kingdom.

      It is evident that the less women in one’s harem. The more easier it is to know them all and to fulfill marital obligations to them. And the most intense romance is only in monogamy.

      God only spared one love poetry by Solomon because I suspect that was God’s intended wife for him. The rest are lost.

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      The irony about Andrew Tate and all the other PUAs is that they claim to be rebelling against the current cultural feminist agenda, when in fact they’re embracing it.

      Feminism’s purpose is to destroy and prevent the formation of nuclear families. Andrew Tate and other PUAs also seek to prevent the formation of nuclear families. They want the same thing feminists want, and their path leads to the same place feminists’ path leads. Andrew Tate styles himself as a threat to the feminist agenda, when in fact he’s part of it, as is every PUA.

      Think about it. Is the cock carousel part of the feminist life plan? Is it? If it is, and you’re volunteering to be one of the cocks on the carousel, then how exactly are you opposing feminism?

      You’re not, genius. You’re an eager participant.

      Liked by 7 people

      • feeriker says:

        PUAs are competing against feminist women for dominance of the sexual hierarchy. You’re correct that both want the same thing. The difference is in which sex comes out on top in the process.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “The difference is in which sex comes out on top in the process.”

        That’s what PUAs tell themselves, but it’s a lie. In reality everyone loses whether they follow feminists or PUAs. They both lead to the same hedonistic hell hole.

        By contrast, when people follow God’s plan, everyone wins.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Feeriker wrote,

        “PUAs are competing against feminist women for dominance of the sexual hierarchy. You’re correct that both want the same thing. The difference is in which sex comes out on top in the process.”

        Oscar wrote,

        “That’s what PUAs tell themselves, but it’s a lie. In reality everyone loses whether they follow feminists or PUAs. They both lead to the same hedonistic hell hole.”

        You’re both right you know. Feeriker is describing the worldly paradigm. Oscar is describing the Spiritual paradigm. All the competition, conflict, and drama within the worldly paradigm is what keeps the lost focused on that paradigm.

        Liked by 3 people

      • locustsplease says:

        Yeah Tate talks big game about how women are supposed to have children and such. Then all he does is chase harlots. He has no understanding that he and her are identical. She’s a wh0re he’s a wh0remongerer.

        Really, I think he’s a RP plant. Now we all get associated with him. Any time I see a guy talk like that I know it’s a game because if you go out to the bars and clubs and mouth off like that you get your ass kicked.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Saw Andrew Tate about two years ago on YouTube, talking about being a fighter. “If you don’t lift weights… you might as well go kill yourself or put on a dress………” The typical “not a real man” speech.

        He’s been with loads of women evidently. He just woke up one morning. Decided he was going to be famous, and voila…… A few months later he was! “He did it!? Why can’t you?! You must like being a simp….”

        Sound familiar?

        It is. It’s repackaged PUA, under new ownership…. No, no, no…. Nothing like that “game” stuff from a few decades ago. Totally different (except it’s not). You see, men “just have not got the message yet” on how to talk to women, get what they want out of life…… and be a winner.

        Part of the reason why you all don’t like him….. call it a hunch…… he became a Muslim, and I did smirk when he said, “To be a Christian means nothing today.” (He is not right, or correct 100%, but he is on to something.)

        If he became born again, like Roosh, all pretense would have been dropped and it would have been hailed immediately that “God is working!” and “God is going to use him to bring men back to the faith, not any man or men…… but men like us!” and “His past? Well, we cannot judge!”

        However, 99% of former carousel riders and the lower 80% have to sit in shame for the rest of the lives for having a high N count, and to the men for being “weak” and ruining Christianity!!!

        [Jack: Edited to remove disparaging remarks against fellow commenters.]

        Like

      • Jack says:

        From what I can gather, Tate made his fortune by pimping out eastern European lower-income-bracket women on the OASIS. There’s a reason why something smells fishy about him. Muslim? Whatever… I don’t think he is serious about any formal religion at all. I saw one picture in which he was making Masonic hand signals.

        LocustsPlease wrote,

        “Really, I think he’s a RP plant.”

        I wouldn’t be surprised if he is part of a media psy-op. For readers who are interested yet unfamiliar with the psychological machinations of how psy-ops work, I recommend going back to read the series about this, beginning with this post.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Sound familiar?”

        No.

        “Part of the reason why you all…”

        Who’s “you all”? Oh, wait, that’s right. You can’t be specific, because that makes it easier to point out when you lie.

        “…don’t like him….. call it a hunch…… he became a Muslim…”

        Try again. You could, for example, try reading what others actually wrote. But, no. You’d rather lie. For example….

        “…and “His past? Well, we cannot judge!”

        Show me one man here who actually wrote “we cannot judge”. You know you can’t, because no one did.

        Like

  5. Red Pill Apostle says:

    Roosh, in taking down his RoK, made the mistake many newer Christians make. He opted to hide the effects of the sin nature for both men and women. It’s still there and there are other sources of information that basically give the same lessons.

    What Roosh missed was an opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes of the past and point to God’s grace and forgiveness in the present. The better option would have been to leave up his old posts and give a commentary on what was sinful about them. When the mistakes of history are removed instead of openly corrected we lose the important lessons learned from making the mistakes in the first place.

    With that said, Roosh removing his old writing will do very little to change the current environment. I know other readers here have commented on how younger men more and more are seeing the women through a RP lens, and the other day at my gym I overheard an example. A man in his mid-20s was openly talking with a younger guy he was teaching exercises to. The conversation was how a man wants to be a woman’s first sex partner because you don’t want to have to deal with all the baggage that comes with a used woman who will compare you to her other lovers. It was a casual conversation that was not being hidden in any way.

    The genie is definitely out of the bottle.

    Liked by 7 people

  6. Lastmod says:

    Jesus said, “store treasures in heaven”. He also said it was impossible for a “rich man” to find the Kingdom of God or achieve it. He told people to give away their riches and give them to the poor. He told men to “take up their cross and follow me”, and if you did not do that, “you could not enter his fathers house”. (What is that cross? It’s different for each man I suppose, but still linked to sin I am sure… all sins, not just the ones you justify.) He also said not to worry about what you will wear, what you will eat and drink. He said man cannot live on bread alone. He said if a man looked upon a woman with lust, it was a sin. He didn’t say, “It’s okay to have sex with lots of women and then get forgiven and lecture others on how holy thou art.”

    Yes, it is un-Christian to play the hand of “being a provider and having good provision”, and yet playing “money doesn’t matter, only God does”, and then telling men who don’t have provison that they “should have / should be”.

    The prophets, and those that indeed “turned the world upside down for God” were not men like Solomon or David. Soloman was wise evidently. David was a womanizer who was rewarded for his bad behavior.

    It was the prophets who said, “It is written!”, and I don’t believe any of the prophets lived in luxury, nor the Apostles. We know Paul didn’t. We know the disciples were pretty much lowly guys who “didn’t have good provision”. (They were fishermen in a small lake, hardly a Union wage job with benefits, nor prestige, nor provision to save money.) I have seen pictures of what is Nazareth. Hardly an upscale, middle class living even in those Biblical times.

    The apostles didn’t go to Rome and “talk to Caesar, have a cup of coffee and talk about the issues their people were facing”, nor did they worry about who was more literate. (Many of them could read Hebrew, the Jews… even back then, were basically literate, even fishermen.) They didn’t worry about “who was greater”. All they were was a bunch of VERY prayed up men who knew the truth and turned the world upside down.

    Jesus came in a lowly manger. Jesus wasn’t a upper class guy. Jesus had nothing really……. and it was probably the ONLY way God could communicate to the world that this was for all. The shepherds were the first to hear about the birth of the savior. Not the lawyers. Not the educated men. Not the rich. Not the supposedly “godly and holy ones”.

    It’s turned into a elite, middle to upper middle class faith, and frankly the man-o-sphere hasn’t done much to further the cause of Christ. It’s still about money, status, PSALMS, LAMPS, class, and how hot you are to women.

    I’m not going to be alone in hell if a place indeed exists.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      “Jesus said, “store treasures in heaven”.”

      The whole Bible is God’s word, not just the parts you like.

      Proverbs 13:22
      A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children,
      But the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.

      “He also said it was impossible for a “rich man” to find the Kingdom of God or achieve it.”

      That’s not what He said.

      Matthew 19:24
      24 “And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
      25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
      26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

      “The prophets, and those that indeed “turned the world upside down for God” were not men like Solomon or David.”

      King David was a prophet. See Psalms 2 and 22 for just two examples. Abraham was a prophet. He was wealthy. So was Jacob. So was Joseph. In the New Testament, Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy. So was Lydia. So was Philemon. In every era there have been poor believers and wealthy ones.

      You’re falsely accusing others of hypocrisy when you’re the hypocrite. You constantly whine about others who are wealthier than you are, while ignoring the fact that you’re filthy rich compared to the vast majority of humanity. You criticize others for caring about money, yet you constantly whine about money. Your whining about money is directly proportional to how much you care about money.

      As for Christianity supposedly becoming an upper-middle-class faith, the vast majority of Christians around the world live in 3rd world poverty.

      Here in the States, plenty of Christians are poor. I grew up dirt poor by American standards. But, guess what happens? As people read the Bible, obey it, leave behind bad habits, and build Biblical habits like self control, diligence, industry, prudence, temperance, etc., their wealth increases.

      And you’re criticizing them for improving their lives. Nice.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        “In the New Testament, Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy. So was Lydia. So was Philemon. In every era there have been poor believers and wealthy ones.”

        Luke was a doctor. He probably had an above average income, too. Yet he wrote the Gospel and the Book of Acts.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Joseph was the Prime Minister of Egypt. Daniel was a high ranking official of both the Babylonian and Persian empires. Nehemiah was the Persian emperor’s cup bearer. The list goes on and on.

        Nowhere does the Bible command all believers to take a vow of poverty.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Oscar

        Historically no revolution or revolt succeeded without the support of a rebel faction of Elites.

        God therefore makes Elites of some of his people to work in tandem with the people to achieve his desired results.

        There is a reason why God promised that Abraham will have Kings coming from some of Abraham’s lineages.

        And of course our backing by the God Emperor himself. Jesus Christ.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Info,

        The Emperor Protects.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Oscar

        Indeed.

        =T=The Emperor Protects =T=

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Rock Kitaro says:

    “The articles were written as if the spiritual world didn’t exist…”

    It’s interesting. He’s like the reverse Kevin Samuels in this sense. Because Kevin Samuels professed that he came from a background of church ministry, but in his last few years of YouTube Videos, really did speak as if the spiritual world didn’t exist or wasn’t important. With the advice that he gave men and women, it was as if being “high value” in the worldly sense was all that matters or what mattered the most.

    I won’t criticize his personal decision, since I didn’t/don’t know Roosh all that well. But from there I remember reading some of the greatest articles I’ve ever read back in 2018 when I discovered the Red Pill. Like… one, I might have even copied the whole thing to a Word Document because it was so great. It was from a writer named Antoine, I think, about how Black Culture in America showed the future for white culture in America.

    I will say, that I think it’s amazing that his faith and compulsion for repentance is so strong that he’s willing to delete and erase a legacy that’s brought him much respect from others here in this world.

    At the same time, I think it’s sad. As Christian as I am, navigating our modern world, there are just some things that reading the Bible alone doesn’t prepare you for. Like hypergamy, the divorce laws, what women “say they want” versus what they actually go for. Some might say, “Experience will teach you all that”, but I’d argue that one of the main points of the Manosphere and Red Pill spaces is to educate men so that they can be spared the pain and destruction that comes from divorce and being taken advantage of.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oscar says:

      I’m with Rock. I don’t know if taking down ROK was the right move or not, but it looks like the clearest evidence of repentance on Roosh’s part so far. I’ve been skeptical since I read about Roosh’s return to faith because I’ve seen so many cases of deceivers professing faith to fleece the flock. Taking down ROK is pretty solid fruit.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. dave sora says:

    Every website goes down eventually. The tech nerd dream of an eternal internet is a farce. Many great old geocities site are gone. Many current sites will go. Of the making of many sites there is no end. I thought a lot about deleting one of my old blogs and kept putting it off until I forgot the wordpress password and the email account its tied to was lost as well. So it’s up until WordPress deletes it for inactivity someday.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Dave Sora,
      Would you care to share your blog(s) with us? Maybe they won’t become inactive.

      Like

      • dave sora says:

        It was not related to the redpill but just anticalvinist. But I think Calvinism has died already. The only people left who could believe in it are bluepillers who believe women are the elect. So I don’t suppose my blog is needed anymore just as ROK isn’t.

        Like

  9. dave sora says:

    But someone needs to mirror Dalrock in case it goes down because unlike ROK’s run of the mill stuff you can find on any MGTOW forum online, Dalrock is diggin deep to the root cause of the problem, not just noticing women are sluts. (I figured that out at 12 in the early 90s.) He covered WHY society is formed in such away to allow them to be sluts, i.e. how the churches have made sluttery the new religion. In fact, Roosh is a fool for not seeing the churches are to blame, even his Eastern church if it is not actively exposing the Pericope Adulterae as a forgery!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      Okay… How did Dalrock “dig down to the root of the problem”, because most of his later posts were about what Warhorn and the other Churchianity people were saying about him.

      His earlier posts were “Feminism bad!” (Yes, even I knew that in 1991.)

      I think Dalrock broke it down in a way where people with average intelligence could read and understand him. That was a big deal.

      Like

  10. RichardP says:

    Return of Kings is not gone completely. Consult the Wayback Machine.

    Roosh + Wayback Machine

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Devon70 says:

    Ten years ago Roosh’s site had some value but today there’s several better manosphere creators so he is just a footnote in history. I have recently seen left mainstream figures like Richard Reeves and Scott Galloway have serious discussions about men’s issues so we are reaching the point where men’s problems can’t be swept under the rug and ignored. Lectures and shaming is popular with the Boomers on Fox News but no guy under 40 pays attention to that so they will have to change their tune if they want to remain relevant. If you don’t like Andrew Tate offer someone better.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Grifter Shifter says:

      ” Lectures and shaming is popular with the Boomers on Fox News but no guy under 40 pays attention to that so they will have to change their tune if they want to remain relevant. If you don’t like Andrew Tate offer someone better.”

      Devon70 for Christian or even just “spiritual” guys monasteries are the answer. They provide communities of men working and living together for a higher cause. A divine brotherhood. I think there’s enough of red pill and over all just fed up or lost boys and incels who would be open to this idea if monks would come forward and offer it. For men who are diehard atheists I think men should form intentional communities in rural and semi-rural areas where they can grow their own food and homestead together. Even in cities men can form brotherhoods, like get a house or large apartment where a bunch of men can live and grow together and take care of each other as they age and need care.

      Andrew Tate isn’t inviting incels to live in house in Romania or Dubai. He’s not offering them anything but the chance to make him money by signing up for his Hustlers University scam. Men need real life men in front of them, next to them, living with them. I don’t understand why none of these manosphere “influencers” aren’t offering this. There’s no community anywhere.

      Like

  12. Lastmod says:

    “You’re lying again, Jason. If Roosh thought his sin was “okay for him”, he would see no need for repentance, and you already knew that.”

    He has no need for repentance.

    He got cornered, like all scoundrels do in the end. Accepted God, and became holier than thou. He gets his sin forgiven because he is Roosh.

    A gazillion former addicts and no name PUAs like him have to accept “consequences for sin”.

    He doesn’t. He’s already being hailed as some model of Christianity we all should listen to.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      “He has no need for repentance.”

      WTH???

      “A gazillion former addicts and no name PUAs like him have to accept “consequences for sin”.”

      Roosh has already faced the consequences for his sin (player burnout, guilt, shame, regret, lost time, lost opportunities, etc.), and this is largely what led him to repentance. He will continue to carry those consequences until his dying day. It’s now part of his testimony of faith and his story of finding God.

      All the other gazillion former addicts and no name PUAs also carry their own set of consequences, but the question is whether it will lead to their repentance or not.

      Let’s not fall into the trap of rejecting one man’s testimony of repentance simply because his sin is not like our own.

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “All the other gazillion former addicts and no name PUAs also carry their own set of consequences, but the question is whether it will lead to their repentance or not.”

        And this IMO is one of the relatively “unexplored” topics in the Manosphere. We’ve spent some much time documenting what happens to Stacy and Amber downline, aka the Wall, Post-Wall, Wine and Cats, etc. We don’t spend much time looking at Chad and Tyrone. What happens to them when they join Stacy and Amber in their forties, fifties, and beyond?

        I can tell you from doing men’s work during the past five years, it’s not a pretty sight out there either with the aging men, not just Chad and Tyrone, but Joe average, and “Larry loser” as well. Life is a freaking mess down-line for men too as they grow older. Golden years? For a select few maybe, but by and large, for many men, there’s no such thing.

        One thing I’m growing increasingly thankful for as I age is my Spiritual journey that’s gone on for decades now; the growth that is as a Believer and as a man. Back-in-the-day, I thought I was initially in danger of becoming a “Larry Loser,” especially in those first few years after conversion; then God got a hold of me in my mid-twenties and through progressive sanctification work, got me to a level I viewed as being a “Joe average.” That’s the way it seemed to me.

        But now, looking around at the men in our society, I’m like, “God you did ‘Restore the years that the swarming locust stole.’ You did make me the ‘Head and not the tail.'” Didn’t deserve any of it, was all grace and mercy, was all His doing. However, I did cooperate with Him, not perfectly by any stretch of the imagination, but overall pretty decent cooperation, aka obedience to God and His ways.

        The Lord is the game changer for men! Yes, RP knowledge helps, gets men, whether Christian or secular, awakened to the gynocentric world we traffic in and it’s dangers. Without it, men don’t stand much of a chance against the “tsunami” of gynocentrism and blue pill foolishness. That stuff can be lethal, figuratively speaking, and in some cases, literally. Men have literally lost their lives over the demonic garbage out there infesting our society like a cancerous growth. The “self-deletion” rates for men in the last several decades are an incredibly sobering statistic that bears this out. Very sobering.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        RPB,

        “We don’t spend much time looking at Chad and Tyrone. What happens to them when they join Stacy and Amber in their forties, fifties, and beyond?”

        I’ve talked about it, but few listen. I’ll summarize it by paraphrasing a crude saying I heard (in Spanish, of course) from one of my aunts.

        “304s don’t take care of old men.”

        Good luck with that.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      Jack explained it pretty well. So, like I said, you’re lying again, Jason.

      Like

  13. catacombresident says:

    I arrived here on a totally different path. Very early in adulthood, I first rejected Western Civilization on a spiritual, and then academic level, and then more viscerally. I felt led there by God. I ended up rejecting the feminist path before I knew about the manosphere. Thus, I didn’t learn the vast lore from Red Pill authors until very late in my adulthood, but I knew by instinct to stay away from conventional social context for romantic relations.

    On top of this, the Lord in His wisdom chose to bring into my life what everyone here calls a “unicorn”. My wife has made this a joke now, keeping a stuffed unicorn toy next to her recliner. She’s been virtually no trouble for me since marriage. Our issues have been very minor by comparison.

    Like most people, I wanted to believe that my experience could be something others might be able to copy. Perhaps they would have to start as early as I did. Almost nobody here echoes my experience, nor do the readers of my blog, so it confirms that my marriage is a miracle. I didn’t have to recover from bad romance. But despite the near unanimity of testimonies of men here having to walk through the fires of Hell to get here, I’m still not convinced this should be treated as normative. Some of you seem to come close to saying that. Typical maybe, but not at all necessary to get to the point we are now.

    I’m sure it will take a while, after the hand of God was dealt out some wrath, but I believe we can build something better than what has been handed us.

    Liked by 4 people

    • info says:

      Indeed. Please have the West in your Prayers.

      Like

    • locustsplease says:

      How old were you when you got married and how old was your wife?

      Like

      • catacombresident says:

        Perceptive question. I was 21 and she was 18. And I had already rejected Western Civilization — it was a major part of my college degree — though I was not fully conscious of the implications. Yet, I was already outside the social norms, and chose to marry based on a very different outlook. I knew in my heart it was a “now or never” situation, my only chance to get it right. It was all God’s grace that I was even aware of such things at the time.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        This answer explains your life outlook.

        There’s a lot of poor history on my side of the family in this regard.

        Ages at marriage:

        I was 28. My wife was 31 (a man should never marry a woman more than 2 years older than he is. We married in 1996. I have a professional degree; she has a college degree.

        My father was 28. My mother was 23. They married in 1967. Both had college degrees.

        My father’s father was 29. My father’s mother was 28. They married in 1936. Neither had college degrees.

        My mother’s father was 30. My mother’s mother was 27. They married in 1943. My maternal grandmother had a bachelor’s degree in education; my maternal grandfather had a high school diploma.

        My grandmothers were both first wave feminists of the highest order- education, getting jobs, putting off marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        Catacombs. Most of us do not have any options to marry a teen to early 20s girl. Now at this point getting then 23-30 they have more damage than anyone wants to admit. I married the first girl I met who was interested in marriage I was 25 when we met. You got lucky. Luck is not a strategy nor duplicable.

        Unfortunately, when I think I’m closer to meeting any girl at church I’m interested in, I start seeing feminist or career gal garbage. Then I have got around several young single women at church lately and behold I don’t find any of them attractive! I don’t have crazy standards. Out here in the rest of the world 7 8 9 and 10’s are interested in me.

        And I can’t unsee the Red Pill. I can’t settle for a feminist. How many of these guys take the Red Pill then get married? So far, I can count none. I’m basically left with hope of a passing interaction with a post highschool girl who wants marriage but hasn’t cashed in her chips. They get taken immediately. My buddy says at his church there’s highschool girls and married women that’s it. Mine has more, also women I’m not interested in. But I’m in the same boat pre RP. With a lack of marriageable options I’m not choosing or filtering thru anyone just hoping to get lucky. It doesn’t matter what my SMV is, so far there are no options.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “Perhaps they would have to start as early as I did. Almost nobody here echoes my experience, nor do the readers of my blog, so it confirms that my marriage is a miracle. I didn’t have to recover from bad romance. But despite the near unanimity of testimonies of men here having to walk through the fires of Hell to get here, I’m still not convinced this should be treated as normative.”

      You’re not convinced what should be treated as normative? Your miracle marriage; or most men’s bad ones?

      Most men’s bad marriages have been normalized; but I suppose it doesn’t have to be that way. The problem is that most men aren’t sexually attractive enough to keep a woman with them for over 20 years. The problem is that most women aren’t sane and mentally/emotionally grounded enough to accept reality.

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti,

        What the evidence shows, as anecdotal as it may be, is that NO MAN is attractive enough to keep a woman with them for 20 years or more. Like you have made a career of pointing out, it is up to women to fix their mess and the area of working to cultivate her desire for the man she chose is most certainly one of those areas.

        The nature of attraction is relative and, as we well know, changes over time based on the stage of life she is in or how fickle she is. Hence the necessity of the emotional connection between spouses and the importance of virginity. The nature of time as a limited resource means that he’s not going to be able to still look Greek god-like, while striving for career advancement, being Mr. Fix It around the house and spending lots of time with his kids. She’ll always be able to find something that she does not find attractive, hence, she has to be a woman who actively tries to cultivate attraction for her husband by dwelling on those qualities she likes about him.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        “NO MAN is attractive enough to keep a woman with them for 20 years or more.”

        Not entirely true. I’d say that top 5% men are sexually attractive enough. Scott is. SAM is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Not entirely true. I’d say that top 5% men are sexually attractive enough. Scott is. SAM is.”

        Scott is batting 0.500 when it comes to making it last for 20 years and the swing and a miss had a whole lot to do with ex Mrs. Scott’s thoughts and attitude. Sure he could have acted differently in his first marriage, but perfection and even near perfection are not sustainable over 2 decades. This is why the wife matters.

        After reading Elspeth’s comments for a while now, I’d argue that her attitude towards SAM is such that it becomes a reinforcing loop for her attraction. For example, she’s mentioned that he carries more weight around the mid section now, but that he still has his broad shoulders. She’s actively taking her thoughts captive and focusing on what she likes.

        Because we all have an Achilles heel, or 2 or 3, any woman could nit pick us apart and run us down in her mind. Once this mindset begins all it takes is time with continued mental pressure and eventually she moves on mentally, then physically, from a man many women would love to have. This is the weaker sex.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Additional thought on men maintaining attraction.

        This falls under the category of God knowing what he was doing when he set up marriage.

        With women left to their own devices, any man is going to have trouble keeping them attracted. But this is where Ephesians 5 and washing her in the word comes into play. When a man uses a woman’s attraction for him to be part of her sanctification, and that means 2 Cor 10:5, he’s helping her with an area of potential weakness and upholding the covenant before God.

        That is the best chance of a woman maintaining her attraction for her husband in a biblical way.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “What the evidence shows, as anecdotal as it may be, is that NO MAN is attractive enough to keep a woman with them for 20 years or more.”

        If Tom Brady isn’t attractive enough to keep a woman, then neither is anyone else. Virtue keeps marriages together, not attraction. Obviously attraction helps, but virtue is the indispensable ingredient.

        Liked by 6 people

      • lastholdout says:

        “Because we all have an Achilles heel, or 2 or 3, any woman could nit pick us apart and run us down in her mind. Once this mindset begins all it takes is time with continued mental pressure and eventually she moves on mentally, then physically, from a man many women would love to have. This is the weaker sex.”

        RPA hits on a very important point. A woman has agency in the marriage by taking responsibility for her own thoughts. Elspeth has done it and so have The Forgiven Wife, The Peaceful Wife, The Transformed Wife and many others. It is a matter of self-awareness, maturity in their faith, and avoiding the trap of solipsism. “In her mind” is the key phrase. It is what she allows into her mind from her own imagination, the culture, her friends, or from the great liar himself. It is the woman’s weakness as the weaker vessel. The wife absolutely matters. She can make or break the marriage regardless of the man’s character or physical attractiveness.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “What the evidence shows, as anecdotal as it may be, is that NO MAN is attractive enough to keep a woman with them for 20 years or more. Like you have made a career of pointing out, it is up to women to fix their mess and the area of working to cultivate her desire for the man she chose is most certainly one of those areas.”

        I’ve been married 33 years, so keeping her based on my looks and physique for all these years, no. Fortunately, she still finds me attractive and says so, however she fixed her mess, and I fixed mine; and we grew together, particularly the last 20 years, and especially the last ten.

        So now, it’s about as good as it gets after 30+ years, and it is based on having grown together, not “looks and physique’ for me, or “T&A” for her. Fortunately, we’ve never let it go real bad, a few extra pounds, but nothing I’d consider out of control, so there is still a level of physical attraction involved. I look at her and she still passes the boner test when naked, not like when she was 22; however, for 55, she still looks pretty good overall, in clothing and out of it.

        I see a lot of couples in our age range and two things stand out for me about them: 1) They don’t look all that great for people over 50, and 2) They are not in the greatest shape anymore, i.e. too much weight, lack of vitality and energy about them, don’t look all that great in their clothing (to say nothing about naked), etc. I kind of get why there are “grey divorces” these days. They don’t get along anymore as a couple, aka grown apart from one another; and they don’t turn one another on anymore, even in a middle-aged sense of turning one another on.

        Like

      • locustsplease says:

        Tom Brady and Brad Pitt are not attractive enough to keep wives. Facial symmetry does not make hoes loyal it just attracts them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        “After reading Elspeth’s comments for a while now, I’d argue that her attitude towards SAM is such that it becomes a reinforcing loop for her attraction. For example, she’s mentioned that he carries more weight around the mid section now, but that he still has his broad shoulders. She’s actively taking her thoughts captive and focusing on what she likes.”

        Thanks for the honorable, RPA. I do diligently work at taking thoughts captive. Shoulders, visage, smile, there’s plenty to admire and as yet, there’s plenty that other women still admire. He is a still a very good looking man, even at 49.

        But Oscar nails it every time. Men whose good looks, money, and physiques are renowned can’t even keep a wife. So a handsome, middle class nobody isn’t capable on his own to hold a marriage together.

        This is the grace of God.

        Liked by 3 people

  14. Pingback: Normative Red Pill | Σ Frame

  15. Lastmod says:

    OT / My NA Sponsor in San Francisco, still fighting for one person at a time. Still fighting for his city. He’s a fifth generation San Franciscan.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. feeriker says:

    “Virtue keeps marriages together, not attraction. Obviously attraction helps, but virtue is the indispensable ingredient.”

    Yup. We all know how rare virtue is (constant attempts by fake, self-centered narcissists to signal it notwithstanding), so it stands to reason that most marriages lack the essential glue needed to hold them together.

    Liked by 2 people

    • catacombresident says:

      Agreed. I’m convinced that miracles of grace become our norm if we choose to abide by the Word. My personal miracles are not singular by any means. I’m not that special, but my convictions testify that I am substantially at peace with God. That’s the “norm” I advocate. I’m convinced that God and His promises are reliable, and that includes miracles.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. Oscar says:

    There’s a lot of talk about Andrew Tate for obvious reasons. Tim Poole, for example, said that Tate inspired men to “unplug from the matrix” and embrace masculinity.

    That’s a lie. PUAs and feminists deceive themselves into believing they’re fighting each other, when in fact they need each other. One can’t exist without the other.

    Feminists convince girls and young women to ride the carousel, which makes it easier for PUAs to screw lots of women. After getting pump-and-dumped by a whole bunch of men, those women become angry, bitter, resentful, and hateful towards men, i.e., feminists. Those feminists then convince more girls to be harlots (to “smash the patriarchy”), and the cycle perpetuates itself.

    Both feminists and PUAs think they unplugged from the matrix, but in fact they plugged into a partition within the matrix. They’re on the same team, and they’re too foolish to see it.

    Jesus Christ is the only way to unplug from the matrix. Everything else is self deception.

    Liked by 6 people

    • caterpillar345 says:

      This is a really interesting point that’s not obvious right away. PUAs and feminists fight against each other but they’re fighting for control over the same SMP that both are contributing to enabling.

      Liked by 2 people

    • elspeth says:

      Oscar:

      🔥 🔥 🔥

      Liked by 2 people

    • locustsplease says:

      Feminists would b really lonely career gals with zero sexual options at 25. Marriage and being a house wife will look like a dream. Tate can’t b himself with out feminism. Traditional men wouldn’t give him their daughters.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Tate whining about the lack of traditional women is analogous to a 35-year-old carousel rider whining about “Where did all the good men go?”

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I don’t see why we’re talking here about PUAs being analogous to feminist biotches. As far as I’m concerned, we owe PUAs a bit of a debt here for laying bare feminist hypocrisy and lies; and for codifying how attraction works. Sure, the SAMs of the world figured out how attraction works and used it to maximum advantage; but he didn’t write down what he learned or use it to help others. PUAs did. PUAs went to the field, reverse engineered attraction, cross checked their findings with others, wrote down and catalogued their findings, and presented them to the world. We owe them a debt of gratitude for that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Stop it with PUA was “a bunch of nerdy / average guys who just wanted to get better with women.”

        PUA helped men who were just under that edge. The ones who just needed a tad more funny jokes. A tiny bit more of Ego. It was for men that could talk, date, and already had basic experiences with women.

        For that lower 60% of men (at that time; it’s above 80% now) all it did was make them anfrier, more upset, bitter and lost. Go to an Incel forum. The hate isn’t levied at women like the media tells us it is. “Oh! These men hate women, want to rape, and commit violence against them!!! It’s a dark world of racism and sexism toward women… These men are holding women back, and ruining it for the real, good men out there!”

        It’s leveled at PUAs. Again, these men wasted a LOT of time, effort, money, and even their sanity to get zero results, and then they were insulted, smeared, and again told that they were “losers” by the same men who claimed they were helping them.

        PUAs made it worse for them in the end because Game forced women to push the ante higher (the women worshipers that Game and PUA types are).

        When every guy is “cocky funny” no one really is……..

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I don’t see why we’re talking here about PUAs being analogous to feminist biotches.”

        Because they’re equally deceived and following their advice results in the same hedonistic destruction.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Stop it with PUA was “a bunch of nerdy / average guys who just wanted to get better with women.”

        I didn’t say that. I said PUAs set out to identify what women find attractive and what they respond to. They have been monumentally successful in that endeavor. They’ve exposed women and feminists for their outright lies about this. “We just want nice guys who treat us right” “We just want men to be nice to us” “We love nice guys” “We don’t like muscles” “Women want to get married” “Nice Christian men are sexy” “Alan Alda and Woody Allen and Phil Donahue and John Corbett — all totally sexy.”

        Lies which women have been spewing for decades, ever since the 70s. We have PUAs to thank for exposing those lies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        PUA types are merely responding to sexual marketplace forces. Their desire for sex is no different than generations of men before them who, if given the opportunity, would have taken the milk for free had women been willing to give it up. They are what used to be known merely as ‘men’ but without the social pressure to “make an honest woman out of her”. Change the incentives 100 years ago and we’d get the same behavior so we should use a little more restraint when demonizing them. I write this confidently because human nature has not changed.

        Thedeti is correct. We owe PUA’s a debt of gratitude for relearning and then widely teaching what female nature is. We lost a generation or two of older men teaching younger men the pitfalls of bad women and their daughters the pitfalls of bad men. PUA’s in less than a generation exposed the pitfalls of both genders, so gratitude it is.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        I think most guys knew that back when I was teenager in the 1980’s.

        “Chicks dig jerks” (and they still do).

        PUAs just made it or deemed it cool to call it out, and PUAs basically told a guy he had to be a “jerk” and “cocky-funny”, talk to women like a “bratty little sister”, and that “Looks don’t matter to them.”

        Then came all the manuals, channels, books, and bootcamps, all teaching a gazillion rules and secrets-on-how-to-decode-their-secret-language. A billion channels, blogs and other items on how to stand, what to wear, how to dress, what to say and when, cold approaches, day game, inner game, night game, regular game…. and sizing people up using a very subjective “number system” based on appearance.

        We were told and sold this for over a decade and a half, “Women cannot help who they fall for”, and “They just want to have a guy who makes them laugh.”

        That bootcamp I went to. DeAngelo was showing us how to talk to “an easy 8”. The whole crew of us agreed she was average. A 5 at best. An average gal. But we were told, “No, no, no… She is an eight. Totally hot!” When I pointed out the obvious, I was told, “You are such a Beta, Jason! This is why you are single and lonely. You can’t even see a gal who is hot right in front of you.”

        (BTW, he still struck out. His own system didn’t work on that one.)

        PUA helped a few men who just needed a little dusting off. It gave others that “fake confidence” which made them into “big talkers” (just like the majority who subscribed to this)… and the rest??????

        They were made to dress foolishly, behave foolishly, and then made an example of how “They just are not getting it.”

        “Jason, you have to do this… only if she is looking this way, and then open a set this way, but not on Tuesdays or if she’s having her period, and, and, and…”

        PUA didn’t expose the lie. Women don’t like being judged, even by average guys. They tell 90% of men, “Someday a great gal is gonna come into your life”, and will say stuff like “reading the bible is sexy”, while doing the opposite, and I even knew that back in 1987.

        Scott summed it up well. Those things only work “if she already thinks you’re hot” to begin with. Yes, reading the Bible is sexy if Scott, or Sam, or the airline pilot is doing this. The rest of us? Nope. It was just cope.

        Anyway….. Most men see it now for the fraud it was. Better late than never. Andrew Tate has “repackaged” it pretty much. The only real difference is that it is louder, and it is fully admitted now:

        Looks matter. A lot. To women.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA and Deti,

        You guys have both read me quote Mao Tse Dong, one of the most evil people in history. It’s possible to both acknowledge that someone is evil and learn from them.

        As for thanking PUAs, go thank Roosh for all his work as a PUA. Let the group know what he says about that.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        A while back, Scott did a video about “trajectories” and no, he didn’t do a dissertation on this, but summed it up by saying (paraphrasing):

        “When you get knocked off a trajectory, you have to adjust / rectify / or correct. By a certain age, if that trajectory isnt correceted…

        No amount of “game” or “going-to-the-gym” is going to fix this.”

        Now, I will concede that some men can indeed turn it around even if they got on board a little later. We live in an atomized society now, and it was bad enough when I was coming up as a teen being; but I cannot imagine the herculean task for some men today.

        You grew up on a computer your whole life. Now at 24, you are going to get social skills concerning women that most learn at 13-16 through experimentation (dates, interactions, clumsy first time fingerings… whatever…) and actually having friends. Many men, too many men today, don’t even have this. They may have a community online but too many don’t have actual interpersonal friendships.

        I know… “Well, it’s always been this way. When I was 18, I didn’t have any friends, but I went up and did this, and this, and this, and I met a perfect gal…”

        Nuclear rejections are very real. Sexual harassment today is very real. One mistake from an average guy off that “trajectory” at age 23 can be devastating in a social setting, or at work, or on the college campus. Social media will never forgive you. Women still get a pass for her mistakes……. Chad always gets forgiven.

        You can say this has always been the case, and I would agree. Today, and for the past ten years or so, the ante has been driven into hyperspace and one mistake can really mess a man up even further than he already is.

        It’s easier to not try than rolling the dice of trying to improve in THIS area, because for many men, its already too late.

        Sure, people can change. That party gal got humbled, found God and ended up marrying an average decent guy. Chad found his unicorn and put the past behind him. Some folks do stumble into a relationship. Many don’t, many can’t, and many need to move on, especially if a guy is over 30 and never has had a date or girlfriend. That man has to let it go.

        Tate has blown this whole thing open again, and yes…. many men do like him. I find him somewhat entertaining. DO you honestly think most men who listen to him are: Bodybuilders? Super rich / accomplished guys? Men who have means?

        No. Ten thousand times NO! Those men don’t need Andrew Tate. The biggest swath of men who like Tate are the same men who followed Game and PUA’s and just “talked” about how awesome they are, or how many got slain, or how he “stood up to a gal”.

        Repackaged PUA.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        That bootcamp I went to. DeAngelo was showing us how to talk to “an easy 8”. The whole crew of us agreed she was average. A 5 at best. An average gal. But we were told, “No, no, no… She is an eight. Totally hot!” When I pointed out the obvious, I was told, “You are such a Beta, Jason! This is why you are single and lonely. You can’t even see a gal who is hot right in front of you.”

        Says the guy who also says Lyv Tyler is “very average”.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        She was. I didnt recognize her. I had seen “That Thing You Do” movie. I read Details Magazine when she was splashed on the cover a few times in 1997 / 1998.

        Nobody knew her or said, “That’s Liv Tyler!”, until we chatted for a minute. Then, yes, it was her.

        Like most Hollywood folks, in-real-life without a wind machine to make it look like a a fashion shoot. Without professional make-up. Lighting and even back then the early forms of CGI…….

        Many in Hollywood look average. How on earth did she get famous? Well, your dad is Steven Tyler froma a rock legend band that has spanned decades in popularity. You were raised by step-daddy Todd Rundgren…. You have means, money, free time……. You can take the acting classes. You have the time to go to the gym and have professional trainers, dieticians, and image consultants. Me saying she is average is far from an insult, or knocking her.

        I didn’t see anything striking about her. Sure, she was pretty. But heads were not turning nor hearts racing, nor was everyone gawking, “Who is she????!!”

        If you are woman who is indeed an 8, 9, or 10……. as Kevin Samuels would say to women who called his show and claimed they were that level… Kevin would say, “Oh, so where are the modeling contracts, and I am an image consultant. Met plenty of famous people, and know them by name and have spoken to more than a few on the phone and on Zoom.”

        Most people, including women. are average.

        In the PUA Game world, 8s, 9s, and 10s are always talked about. Using “math” (which you are a master in), you yourself would know, there are not that many women at that level. Including Liv Tyler.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        LastMod,

        Just wondering…

        What kind of woman would you consider a 10?

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I have to agree with Lastmod on Lyv Tyler. Better than average lateral facial symmetry and decent proportion when it comes to the spacing of here facial features are there. These attributes make a great base for a studio makeup artist to work on. She is certainly above average simply because of the symmetry and proportion along with remaining fit, but naturally stunning she is not.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        The average American woman is 5’4″ and 171 lb. Liv Tyler is a lot taller and a whole lot more slender, especially back when Jason claims to have met her. By definition of the word “average” she ain’t average.

        Add to that what Cameron said…

        “Better than average lateral facial symmetry and decent proportion when it comes to the spacing of here facial features are there…”

        …. and by definition of the word — objectively speaking — she’s not even close to average.

        Subjectively speaking, when a man says a woman is “average”, what he means is that she’s the very bottom of what he considers attractive.

        That means that the absolute bottom of what Jason — a man who claims to have never even been on a date with a woman — is a woman who objectively is much taller than average, much more slender than average, and has a prettier face than average.

        Do you think that might explain something? Because that sounds a lot like women who think 80% of men are below average.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Well Jack, I don’t know.

        I have never met one in real life or out in the street. I do know a “10” is very rare. PUA and Game back in the day made it out like “tens were walking around all over the place, and they were dateless because men are too blue-pilled and not confident to talk to them or approach them” (What a crock!)

        Look, I have seen men and women who photograph very well. You could see a picture of them and say, “Who is THAT?!? Wow! Striking / very pretty / just wow!”, and then see them in-real-life and think “Well, sure… attractive, above average…, but a ten?????”

        Beauty or being handsome is “subjective” according to the person. No man here thinks their wife is “way below average” or they ever dated a woman who was “average”. (“Heaven forbid! A Red Pill guy dated an average looking gal! He needs to get out of simpdom and start dating nines and tens only, because that is what he deserves! They are everywhere!” Any woman below an 8 to the Red Pill World is butt ugly! “That is only the kind of woman he has to date, otherwise he is settling and we all know average women are not good housewife material.” …again, assuming attractive or good looking people, above average must mean they are good, intelligent and of course dateworthy / marriage ready.)

        Myself? I though Tyra Banks back in the late 1990’s was about as close as one could get to a ten. Other men here might think she is average. I can tell you right now. People would have recognized Tyra Banks at that party I was at if she was there.

        I like “Twiggy” (Lesley Dowd) from back in the 1960’s. A ten? No. But very attractive.

        Sharon Stone back in the early 1990’s was well into that 8/9 range, I am sure, according to most men.

        I was always into a woman’s hair and eyes more than her boob size. I thought Denise Richards was attractive back in the late 1990’s. She’s in that 8/9 range.

        In high school, I loved Lisa Bonet from “A Different World”. Not the prettiest gal, but that cool-sublime edge that made her something special to me. I had a picture of her in my locker.

        Wynona Ryder, to me, was pretty in a 1920’s sort of way. That gal could rock jeans, Doc Martens, and a plain black or white tee better than any gal could back then.

        Flame away! 🙂

        [Jack: Images and videos added for ease of reference.]

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        LastMod,

        “Flame away!”

        You like the slick, proud, cosmopolitan, independent type of woman — the same kind of women that 3rd Wave Feminism extolled as the ideal.

        To be fair, it is not out of the ordinary because most Xers were brought up with this image of femininity being glorified. When I was younger, I also had the idea that these sorts of women were hot, although my favorites were different. (I don’t even remember who they were now.) But since then, I’ve come to see that the things that were presented to us as ideal had little to do with real virtue or value.

        “Beauty or being handsome is “subjective” according to the person.”

        Yes. As I’ve grown older, my impression of beauty is that the woman who feels sad if a day goes by when she can’t ride me is a 10 in my book.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        “Subjectively speaking, when a man says a woman is “average”, what he means is that she’s the very bottom of what he considers attractive.”

        Oscar speaks for all men. I didn’t see anything “above average” about her. Or exceptional. She was pleasant. I didnt ask for an autograph. We spoke briefly about the weather (it was in San Francisco… cold and damp), and I mentioned something about the wait time for watered down cheap vodka at this party. She rolled her eyes and mentioned something in agreement. We got our drinks, did a “cheers” type of thing and that was it.

        I am a tall guy, so I didnt notice her being taller than average, and unlike most men back in their twenties, I didnt know womens average BMI, stats, weight and “averages” for women year by year.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        “You like the slick, proud, cosmopolitan, independent type of woman — the same kind of women that 3rd Wave Feminism extolled as the ideal.”

        Third Wave Feminism wasn’t around in 1997, or 1989 for that matter or in 1966 per Twiggy.

        So who was I supposed to find attractive say when I was 25 (in 1995) or in 1989 (when I was 19)? As if I had a chance with any woman who looked like Tyra Banks, Winona Ryder, Twiggy, or Lisa Bonet.

        Your above reply could be made about most women who are so called famous in the West.

        You asked me what I considered attractive. Now my replies mean I like Third Wave Feminists?

        Come on Jack.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        LastMod,

        “Third Wave Feminism wasn’t around in 1997…”

        Feminism of the 90s and early naughts is Third Wave Feminism, which is Xer Feminism.

        “So who was I supposed to find attractive say when I was 25 (in 1995)…”

        That’s what I was alluding to. The culture was saturated with this image and its influence was overwhelming. The only real alternative role model for beauty was Laura Ingalls on Little House on the Prarie.

        “Your above reply could be made about most women who are so called famous in the West.”

        Yes, and I’m sure it’s not by chance nor coincidence. These women were chosen by the media to promulgate the Feminist ideal for women, and they were further shaped to fit that image.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        And speaking of Twiggy. Her impact was worldwide. Even in Japan. Bacharach fans extrodinaire….The Pizzicato 5 perform “Twiggy Twiggy” from 1995. I saw them perform in San Francisco in 1996. It was awesome.

        But I prefer Twiggy dancing to Motown (1965)

        Lol!

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “To be fair, it is not out of the ordinary because most Xers were brought up with this image of femininity being glorified.”

        Meh. I’ve always been partial to the sweet country girl in a sundress.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Oscar speaks for all men.”

        Nope. Oscar has eyes.

        “I didn’t see anything “above average” about her.”

        So, you’re blind?

        “I am a tall guy, so I didnt notice her being taller than average…”

        So, you’re blind?

        “…and unlike most men back in their twenties, I didn’t know women’s average BMI, stats, weight and “averages” for women year by year.”

        So, you’re blind?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I didn’t see anything “above average” about her.
        …..
        I am a tall guy, so I didnt notice her being taller than average, and unlike most men back in their twenties, I didnt know womens average BMI, stats, weight and “averages” for women year by year.”

        Anyway, Jason, thanks for admitting that you have no clue what is average for a woman. I mean, it was obvious, but it’s always good to get a direct admission.

        Like I said, you’re very similar to women who think 80% of men are “below average”.

        You don’t think that may have caused you some problems?

        Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Both feminists and PUAs think they unplugged from the matrix, but in fact they plugged into a partition within the matrix. They’re on the same team, and they’re too foolish to see it… Jesus Christ is the only way to unplug from the matrix. Everything else is self-deception.”

      Amen! PUA’s seem to do a better job at “analyzing” women’s fallen nature and then taking advantage of it for their own personal gain, aka poon. I think that’s why Tate and other PUA’s reasoning sounds good to us at first; they do have insight into what it takes to get the V, and why women act the way they do. However, the problem is that it is “short term” gain and has no long-term benefits.

      In fact, I’d reason that it not only affects the women downline, but the men as well; although this is obscured IMO in the ‘Sphere because we subtly admire men like Tate because of the quantity of poon they get (or appear to get). I think in our fleshly nature’s we’d all like to be like him or other “successful” PUA’s.

      Women, especially younger, hotter women, are better at manipulating OLDER men to get what they want; however, they don’t seem to be as good at manipulating Chad & Tyrone because of C&T’s options, aka “all the rides on the carousel” available to them. Also, C&T’s unwillingness to commit to Stacy, just have their fun with her and then move on, leaves Stacy chasing the next possibility trying to find a Chad willing to commit to her, especially as she gets into her late twenties and for sure in her thirties.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “However, the problem is that it is “short term” gain and has no long-term benefits.”

        I’d say it’s worse than that. The apparent short term gains are really spiritual destruction, as all hedonism is, and its rotten fruit only surfaces later.

        Proverbs 14:12
        There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

        “In fact, I’d reason that it not only effects the women downline, but the men as well.”

        Absolutely. The end thereof is the way of death. That’s the spiritual side. On the practical side, the destruction of the family affects everyone negatively. You can’t participate in burning everything down and expect to not get burned yourself. More importantly, a lot of innocent people get burned, especially children.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. jvangeld says:

    Didn’t Blair Naso contribute to Return of Kings? He converted to Orthodoxy before Roosh did, and I don’t think he was ever a PUA. I think Roosh could have deleted his own articles while allowing the other contributors to follow their own consciences. This move just looks like a rage quit.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      JvanGeld,

      “Didn’t Blair Naso contribute to Return of Kings?”

      Yes, and he’s contributed one essay here too. He is definitely NOT a PUA.

      BTW, I had one article at ROK: What To Do When A Girl Tries To Make You Jealous (2019/4/15), which was an abridged version of my post under the same name on Σ Frame. Roosh contributed some input to this essay, which might explain why it is my most popular post of all time on Σ Frame, or maybe it’s because of the publicity it received on ROK.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. thedeti says:

    Women who are natural 10s (considering face only, proportion and symmetry):

    Halle Berry
    Kelly Rowland
    Kim Novak
    Grace Kelly
    Elizabeth Hurley
    Emily Ratajkowski

    Women who are 10s/were 10s in their heydays (body and face)

    Bo Derek
    Elizabeth Hurley
    Halle Berry
    Sophia Loren
    Marilyn Monroe
    Sofia Vergara
    Kate Beckinsale
    Victoria Paris (yeah a pr0n star, sue me)
    Abigail Ratchford
    Cindy Crawford
    Paulina Porizkova
    Christie Brinkley
    Tyra Banks

    Yes, lots of models on here. Most women who are 10s (face, body or both) work as models, because the natural perfection of their facial and bodily proportions are excellent base materials for cosmetic artists, hair professionals, and fashion designers to work with.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Grifter Shifter says:

    Red Pill and Christianity are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Being Orthodox, Roosh would do well to enter monastery. The OC is lucky because it held onto that tradition, though it almost seems to be dying out. There are several Orthodox monasteries still existing in the USA and they need monks. I don’t think marriage is in the cards for Roosh and he obviously cannot afford to live on his own.

    By the way, Roosh did not invent the acronym THOT. That’s an old one from the ‘hood (urban black culture), as is most lingo used today such as “based”.

    Like

  21. Pingback: How the Rise of the Manosphere Ruined Dating for Millennials | Stage In The Sky

Leave a comment