abcdavid01 wrote:If game isn't right, then what is?
A traditional, patriarchal world.
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
If RooshV wanted a traditional life he would have gotten it. Not that hard for an average looking American like him with above average intelligence and way above average ambition and willingness to work hard and move overseas if necessary. He could easily have emulated MarcosZeitola, for example. He could even have gotten a traditional life in the United States, PROVIDED he was content to marry an average looking woman and then fulfill the duties of a traditional husband.
No, what RooshV wanted was access to the beautiful blond-haired, blue-eyed elite American females. And not access in the sense of traditional wife either. He wanted access the way alpha American males have access (true American alphas, not these bullshit RVF wannabe alphas). That is, he wanted to sample them all before seeking down on one to marry and have children with. But the American alpha males and elite females are a tightly knit bunch. Promiscuous with one another, yes, but not with outsiders, especially not grubby ethnics like RooshV.
Everything RooshV writes is ultimately driven by his resentment of the fact that, contrary to the propaganda about equal opportunity, America is actually a class based society just like Britain, and RooshV is not in the upper class and never will be. Most guys who discover this take a sharp turn to the political left. RooshV went right. But that is just superficial, just as Fascists, Nazis and Stalinists and other non-democratic Communists were all quite similar. All his political and sociological writing is a smokescreen to cover up what is really bothering him and his followers.
Actually you are very right, he writes Anything that will bring him hits and views:
Just 4 months ago, Roosh explained in a long post that he thinks "nationalism is much worse than feminism".....
Do not look for any kind of congruence in Roosh, his opinions
and emotions change much faster than those of women
Anyone who looks to a PUA for character and virtue will be sorely disappointed.
Its pretty insulting that they think they are beacons of light in this dark world, when all they are doing is feeding their flesh the lust it craves.
And that's exactly what Roosh advocates for these days. As a younger man he slept around a lot, which is certainly more acceptable for men than it is for women. Men have a higher sex drive and he recognized the reality of our corrupted society. Roosh decided to lean into it and learned a lot about female psychology along the way. Whether his methods were moral or not (and this is besides the point anyway), that doesn't mean his findings aren't true. His writings on female psychology are completely opposite of the feminist mainstream media. That's exactly why it's the truth. Roosh learned all this and came out the other side advocating for traditionalism. If you look at his recent articles for the past year, that's all he writes about. Saying he's just in it for the money is a pretty ridiculous charge. This is a man who's always been right about female psychology, but he grew older and matured in his response to it.
Look at the pious preacher here.
Long time no post, abc.
I think the reason why people are divided about Roosh is because there's truth in everyone's point of view.
Except for Justin Beiber. There is no truth in his POV only pure evil.
abcdavid01, Roosh may accurately diagnose the symptoms of modern culture but is definitely not for traditional solutions in the sense that he'll pick a side. A simple test would be to visit his forum and tell PUA's to keep screwing American sluts but to stop seducing good non-American women. I am guessing you will be instantly banned. Another obvious sign that he's only superficially traditional is he'll ridicule someone for suggesting to use prostitutes instead of ruining marriageable women. That right there just shows how profoundly superficial his historical understanding is. So I'm pretty sure if he has a choice between his book sales and web traffic or being committed to real traditionalism, he will pick the former. His behavior suggests he's an opportunistic parasite who needs new avenues of content. Obviously he can't be a PUA for the rest of his life.
Not pious and not a preacher, but I do know people only say stuff like that when it hits close to home. I guess you went out "hunting" and now got some "experience" of your own.
If we stay on-topic, here is a pretty clear graph that the downfall and collapse of RVF is
harsher than anyone would have predicted before:
Yeah, it's not like money motivates the content he produces. It's all because of his "values" I'm sure. Now, look, he may happen to believe in some of the things he says, but ultimately the stuff he puts out there will be motivated by traffic and suckers.
The older ROK articles like "People on welfare should die"
and "Why you must beat your kids" and so on, written by Roosh but recently deleted,
were his own beliefs or written only to get money?
It is time for Roosh to put his money where his mouth is. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, that's a very female way of thinking. You either play your little games, seduce and sleep with sluts and live the vapid and empty life of a Western playboy, or you embrace your traditional beliefs and marry a good woman. Roosh already made a rather excellent article about the type of woman a man ought to marry. He has the funds, he has the know-how, what is keeping him from finding such a woman?
You either live the life of a traditional man, or you live the life of a degenerate. You do not preach the merits of a traditional life, while living the life of a degenerate. The great inconsistencies in what Roosh SAYS a man ought to do, and what he actually DOES, is why it is hard to take him seriously.
Of course RoK caters to the needs of several types of men. Some of them are good, traditional men. Others are simply losers who dream of learning all the right moves and getting sluts by the boatload. Roosh does not want to alienate either demographic, but as a result his beliefs come across rather bipolar.
Very well put. What a shame this his forum is populated by people who would not be able to handle someone saying that, even though it's a perfectly reasonable opinion. You'd be banned in ten seconds.
Can you say this about Winston? About your own books?
No. I've just had enough female friends in my life to know Roosh is correct about female psychology. He's right when the feminist mainstream media is wrong. Half of my female friends were too problematic for dating purposes. Too crazy, lesbian, whatever. We'd just talk about stupid stuff like anime or cool movies. The other half were mostly outsiders. Immigrant girls usually. They met my standards for traditional women, but even then I could see American society corrupting them. Who am I to judge so harshly though? American society corrupts everyone, even guys who are aware of the problems. It's corrupted almost everyone who posts on this forum whether they've admitted it or not.
Looks like Marcos has the right of it. I'm not sure Roosh is actually trying to have his cake and eat it though. The article Marcos is talking about is this one:
I see Roosh as someone who's maturing in his beliefs. Maybe his readers and his forum users aren't maturing. That's a shame, but it doesn't mean Roosh isn't right. His writings on female psychology are spot on. They apply to all women, sluts and saints alike. The core of 'game' is just to be confident and learn conversation skills. It's not enough to have traditional beliefs and be so obstinate that you think you don't require change. If you meet your dream girl, a virgin traditional future mother to your children, it doesn't matter if your values are compatible. If you're an autist who can't speak with women and has no confidence, she'll still never give you the time of day. We don't live in a society of arranged marriages. Too many young men grow up not understanding female psychology. They don't know how to treat women, their fathers don't teach them and the feminist media spreads lies. Even within an arranged marriage, the wife would be much happier if you have confidence and if you're a good conversationalist. Like all women she'll respect you more. That's the core of 'game' that everything else flows from.
When I see people denigrating pua, it just comes across as a bunch of beta males too obstinate to change. They think it's good enough that they have their principles and they don't need to learn female psychology. They're content to be clueless autists who are fine with the way they are. It's like a fat woman saying she doesn't have to lose weight, but just find a man who will accept her the way she is. It's settling and it's quite frankly disgusting. Men should never date women like that. We can't go around encouraging men to support fat acceptance or dating feminists. But men also shouldn't settle in their own lives. They shouldn't settle for having their values, but no understanding of what makes females actually tick. It's good for men to find quality women and its good for women to actually love them. An autist will say that their values are enough and they'll find a compatible woman based on that alone. They'll say their fantasy wife will love them for their moral values and nothing else. It's ridiculous and shows they don't understand how to interact with other humans. Of course moral values are important for men and women alike. But good relationships aren't built solely on moral values. They're built on good social skills, which far too many men in the West lack.
If you want an example, here's a conservative Christian man advocating the same principles of game:
"If a woman knows a man doesn't care if she leaves or stays, she will be there for a lifetime."
That's a core principle of 'game' that's also applicable to any woman. What pua teaches about female psychology is universal. It applies even for the most traditional women. But the guy in this video isn't arguing the principle from a 'game' perspective. He's arguing it from a biblical perspective. It applies regardless because at a base level, female psychology is the same for sluts and saints alike. The principles of 'game' can be used to have better relationships with even the most conservative women. In fact, they're necessary to be used. Feminists will lie and tell you the exact opposite. But if you want to just denigrate it and allow legions of young men to remain autists with no social skills, I honestly think you're contributing to the problem. You're allowing men to remain cucked like the feminists want them to be.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests