Rediscovering ancient wisdom


Roosh caused a bit of a stir in the Manosphere recently when he posted a long set of ideas that he calls "neomasculinity". It's a great post, and I highly recommend you read the whole thing. I'll just provide the synopsis:
Neomasculinity combines traditional beliefs, masculinity, and animal biology into one ideological system. It aims to aid men living in Westernized nations that lack qualities such as classical virtue, masculinity in males, femininity in females, and objectivity, especially concerning beauty ideals and human behavior. It also serves as an antidote for males who are being programmed to accept Western degeneracy, mindless consumerism, and immoral state authority.
This set of ideas is far more than just the usual so-called "red pill" advice of "get strong, get rich, get laid". It is a blueprint for recreating a male-driven, masculine society in which traditional gender roles are once again revered and preserved, rather than mocked and destroyed.

Interestingly, his ideas took a while to get off the ground. He published his original article back in mid-April. I didn't even read it until at least a month later. Reception to his advice was mixed, at best, depending on what and whom you read.

The most prominent criticism of "neomasculinity" is that it is essentially about trying to save a degenerate and decaying civilisation that has made it perfectly clear that it does not want to be saved. This is exactly the tack that Blackdragon took when he responded to Roosh's original post. As he pointed out in an earlier post, the drunken, shambolic remnants of what was once a civilisation without equal in human history appears to be perfectly content to let itself slide into oblivion.

And when looked at in that light, critics like Blackdragon- who actually agree with something like 80% of Roosh's ideas about neomasculinity- have a rather good point. After all, why should we men attempt to fight for something that clearly is not worth saving or bothering with?

The reason is simple. As Vox Day has pointed out repeatedly, the future belongs to those who show up for it. And those who argue that we should simply let Western civilisation die a thoroughly deserved and pathetic death, that we should put it out of its (and our) misery, are taking a very short-term view.

The question remains: what will arise after the shattering of the West finally occurs?

If you happen to like freedom, if you happen to believe that men and women should both live and die by their choices, and if you happen to believe in the existence of a merciful and loving Creator who endowed His creation with free will, then you're not going to be too crazy about the alternatives presented if we simply retreat into the night and let the world burn.

The alternatives are to choose between Islam, and all of its barbarism, its backwardness, its illiteracy and unscientific stupidity, and the rising pagan cultures of what would once have been regarded as "the West".

Neither is a particularly palatable option.

That is where Roosh's neomasculinity comes in. As he outlines in the video above, neomasculinity is about far more than just game; it's about much more than picking up women. There is more to it than just the Alpha/Beta/Omega hierarchy of (socio-)sexual relations.

Neomasculinity provides an intellectual framework for those of us who accept and understand the need for masculine strength and leadership, but are repelled by the self-worshipping hedonism of the PUA sect. It provides a real political philosophy for those of us who seek the restoration of ancient liberties and traditions, yet are disgusted by the nature of the current political process and have turned to older ideas like monarchism or timocracy. And it provides a very clear dividing line between "us" and "them"- between those of us who stand for a thriving civilisation built on a true moral foundation of justice and virtue, and those of them who seek to tear down those very same influences.

No, the issue with Roosh's ideas is not the fact that he has opened a schism with the PUA or "red pill" community. The issue is not the fact that he has disavowed those same communities, which he did so much to build and influence.

My issue with Roosh's ideas is that he claims credit where it is not necessarily due.

Now, to be clear, I agree with something like 95% of his neomasculinity platform- right down to his very clear decision to exclude any and all sodomites from the same. However, I remain interested in standing up for the truth above all else, and there are several statements that Roosh has made which are, at best, questionable in their veracity.

The first issue that I have is the fact that he claims that he was the first to introduce the concepts of "Alpha" and "Beta" into the context of human sexual relations. As far as I know, this is simply not true.

As he states, he started the DC Bachelor blog in early 2005- more than 10 years ago- and that is where he introduced these concepts. However, he was not the first to do so. If you read Neil Strauss's The Game, for instance (published in September 2005), you'll see that Neil Strauss, in his persona as "Style", had discovered the same concepts floating around in the PUA community at least a year, probably two, before Roosh did.

Moreover, Roosh himself states in his book, Bang, that he had discovered an online book called Tony's Lay Guide, which he downloaded and printed out, which gave him his start into the game. It provided him with the initial roadmap, which he then used to build out his own style of game.

And if you go back farther through time, you will find that in age after age, the same wisdom about men, women, and their respective roles in building (or destroying) civilisation simply keep coming up, keep repeating.

In other words, what Roosh is marketing as new and innovative is in fact quite ancient.

That is not to say that Roosh's ideas are bad. Quite the contrary. They are excellent. It's just that they aren't new. They are simply restatements or reformulations of ancient wisdom, brought up-to-date for a modern age.

There is nothing in the world wrong with this, and that is what Roosh's critics need to recognise. They need to understand that there are significant shortcomings in the current "red pill" philosophy, because it is simply too limited.

To be a man in this day and age means more than simply banging women left, right, and centre. It means more than simply lifting heavy weights. It means more than simply reading or improving your mind. All of these, taken alone or together, are worthy pursuits and any red-blooded man is strongly advised to take them up. Yet, even then, they are not sufficient to allow a man to live a full and happy life.

At some point, every womaniser hits hedonic overload. Roosh himself appeared to hit this point a little while ago, when he confessed to feeling worn out with his pursuit of worldly pleasures.

Eventually, even the strongest of men will see their strength fade, their muscles slacken. This is inevitable with the passage of time; cruel as it is, there is no escaping it.

And ultimately, all of the book-learning in the world cannot compensate for the need for men with potential and promise to do something good with their lives.

That is why neomasculinity is important. Roosh might incorrectly take credit where it is not due; well, so be it, that doesn't make the message itself wrong. The key question we each have to ask ourselves is whether we are willing to take risks and make sacrifices in order to rebuild civilisation.

I know how I plan to answer that question. Do you?

Comments

Popular Posts