The Downfall of Roosh V (Daryush Valizadeh)

[Johnny1975]

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.

[abcdavid01]

Saying he's just in it for the money is a pretty ridiculous charge.

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.

Can you say this about Winston? About your own books?

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.

Look at the pious preacher here.

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.rooshv.com/the-future-mother ... ves-in-god

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:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwyXxxeWWdk[/youtube]

"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.

[drealm]

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.

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.

Confidence isn't a mindset you can manipulate yourself into. Confidence is a positive expectation based on historical success. If you have no historical success then your mindset is misplaced. In a video Roosh just made he was discussing weight lifting. He said based on what he lifted before he knew he could lift more. That is confidence. But if he just went into a gym and had never lifted before this mindset could get him killed. Real confidence is something that applies to all parts of life. The problem is women cannot tell the difference between confidence and acting. So they validate some guy acting and he reiterates to others that it's confidence. I don't care what someone uses in dating, but outside of dating this doesn't work. In business or war it is crystal clear when confidence is bullshit.

I do agree however that a traditionalist cannot depend on traditional values to help him in an open mixed and free for all dating market. Traditionalism as an asset only works when paired with arranged marriages in moral communities and non of us have these so we're on our own. A traditionalist in isolation stuck in the real world will need to fend for himself using whatever he personally has to bring to the table. He will need to bring something to the table that appeals to modern culture. So someone can be 50% traditionalist but not 100%. Money and looks are other tools. Most PUA's also invest in their looks, which I do agree improves your odds. I think looks matter more than PUA, I'm not sure where money falls on the spectrum.

[droid]

Some of the 'game' stuff is just plain common sense for males, but they sell it as revelation.
It's amusing to see how they 'boast' about "gaming" 6 and 7 western(ized) skanks lmao.
They now talk a lot about the bad shape of things and relocation, different women, but still refuse to admit it is not "game".

[abcdavid01]

Confidence isn't a mindset you can manipulate yourself into. Confidence is a positive expectation based on historical success. If you have no historical success then your mindset is misplaced. In a video Roosh just made he was discussing weight lifting. He said based on what he lifted before he knew he could lift more. That is confidence. But if he just went into a gym and had never lifted before this mindset could get him killed. Real confidence is something that applies to all parts of life. The problem is women cannot tell the difference between confidence and acting. So they validate some guy acting and he reiterates to others that it's confidence. I don't care what someone uses in dating, but outside of dating this doesn't work. In business or war it is crystal clear when confidence is bullshit.

This is only true up to a point. Obviously historical success underpins confidence. But everyone has to start somewhere. Five years ago my life was pretty worthless. I had no historical successes to rely on. For a long time this made me suicidal and overwhelmingly depressed. But five years later I've become much more successful and confident and I cured my depression. How did I do it? Well I had confidence in myself. With no historical successes under my belt, I had confidence in my own ability. There was no reason for anyone to believe I would succeed. I had never proven that I could. But I had confidence in my ability and started achieving success. Now I have historical successes to draw upon for confidence. But I didn't start out that way. Sometimes people have to try new things, take gambles in life.

Yes, Roosh can predict he'll lift more the next time based on historical averages. But long ago I'm sure he was a teenager stepping into the gym for the first time and lifting an empty bar. Having never stepped into a gym before, did he have any reason to assume he could lift even that much? Not based on any history at least. It's just a blind self confidence. People have to start from somewhere, so it's not like history is the only thing that determines confidence.

It's called faking it until you make it. Eventually the line blurs between acting and reality. I bullshit on job interviews and won. Made my resume look a lot better that way. It's not an uncommon thing at all. But now I actually have job experience and don't have to bullshit as much.

People need blind confidence when they start trying anything new. It's not like someone can just say, "I have no history of this, so I have no confidence and I'm not going to even try." Eventually that blind confidence leads to results. Probably most of the time it's failure. But sometimes it's success. Blind confidence at the beginning leads to historical successes. You can't even have a history of success if you don't start in the first place. That applies to trying anything new, from dating women to business and war. Did Israel have any reason to be confident when they declared independence? It was a brand new country in 1948 with no history at all. All the neighboring arab countries launched an invasion, but Israel beat them all back. With no history, Israel had no reason to be confident. Yet they won and kept winning wars against the neighboring arab states. This became their historical success, but they had no history when they started out as a nation.

I do agree however that a traditionalist cannot depend on traditional values to help him in an open mixed and free for all dating market. Traditionalism as an asset only works when paired with arranged marriages in moral communities and non of us have these so we're on our own. A traditionalist in isolation stuck in the real world will need to fend for himself using whatever he personally has to bring to the table. He will need to bring something to the table that appeals to modern culture. So someone can be 50% traditionalist but not 100%. Money and looks are other tools. Most PUA's also invest in their looks, which I do agree improves your odds. I think looks matter more than PUA, I'm not sure where money falls on the spectrum.

This has nothing to do with modern culture. It's about female psychology that has existed for as long as women have been around. If you look at any culture on earth and go back 1,000 years ago, I'm sure this still applies. A man could live in the most traditional society around, have an arranged marriage or not. But that only goes so far. If a man and wife are both traditional and have shared moral values, great. But if the man's an ugly slob and anti-social, that's still a bad relationship. What woman would love him? Even if he is traditional and has good morals, no woman wants an anti-social husband. That's true even in arranged marriages. This isn't about fancy 'pua' tricks or anything fake. It's about human psychology that's always existed for as long as humanity's been around. Elliot Rodgers hated on pua and look where it got him.

But no, just act like an anti-social slob and grouch about the lack of moral women. When you finally find one, I'm sure she'll love you anyway.

I love traditional women and I fully intend to find one. I want to marry a virgin. I might even get arranged. But I know that traditions and morals alone don't attract women. This has been true for as long as human history. A man has to take care of himself, work on becoming the best man he can be.

[Shemp]

Women are not the same as men, but they are similar enough that you can often sanity check statements "women like men who X" by swapping genders, at least if X is not something inherent to men, like "have erect penises".

Suppose a woman is fat, ugly but confident (Mama June type): "I am confident that I am the girl of your dreams and that deep down you want me and we will have a wonderful life together". Compare with a girl who is beautiful but low self-esteem: "You probably won't like me, which is why I never answered your emails, blah, blah." Which one do you choose?

Don't give me this BS that confidence is attractive in men but not women. What's attractive in both sexes is physical beauty, nice personality, intelligence, etc. Somebody going through a bad spot in life and throwing a pity party for his or her self loses just a tiny bit of their natural attractiveness. Confidence is a nice addition, but it's not a game changer. Ugly and confident doesn't work. Sorry. (Good news for men is that, contrary to sluthate, face is not that important for a man to be considered attractive. Average male face but lean and muscular beats pretty male face but fat and weak, at least for women over age 19 or so.)

This is why we need downvoting posts, so when someone introduces PUA thinking, like "confidence" BS, we can send that post into oblivion before it sends us all off on a wild goose chase.

[abcdavid01]

Women are not the same as men, but they are similar enough that you can often sanity check statements "women like men who X" by swapping genders, at least if X is not something inherent to men, like "have erect penises".

Suppose a woman is fat, ugly but confident: "I am confident that I am the girl of your dreams and that deep down you want me and we will have a wonderful life together". Compare with a girl who is beautiful but low self-esteem: "You probably won't like me, which is why I never answered your emails, blah, blah." Which one do you choose?

No. What? I'd choose neither. I wouldn't even choose a beautiful woman who's overly confident. That sounds like femdom, a particularly bad fetish. A woman should be confident in her beauty, but willing to submit to men in her life.

I tried to attract a girl some years ago and made an obvious effort of it. She was too shy though and didn't respond. I thought she wasn't interested. A year later this same girl started coming onto me hard. She made it obvious that she wanted me, but I totally lost interest. I don't want a woman coming onto me like that. It's emasculating. So no, that kind of confidence is not attractive. The woman in your description is acting like a man.

[Shemp]

You're avoiding my argument with these rules of yours about what is male and what is female behavior. Like a 13 girl with rules about what's hot and what's not. Or like the RVF circle jerkers with their silly rules.

You're also pretty easy to "emasculate". In non-PUA language, we'd say you're a small-minded man who holds a grudge, and that's why you refused to accept that girl's advances after she first refused yours due to shyness.

[abcdavid01]

You're avoiding my argument with these rules of yours about what is male and what is female behavior. Like a 13 girl with rules about what's hot and what's not. Or like the RVF circle jerkers with their silly rules.

You're also pretty easy to "emasculate". In non-PUA language, we'd say you're a small-minded man who holds a grudge, and that's why you refused to accept that girl's advances after she first refused yours due to shyness.

I'm not avoiding your argument. Honestly, I think what you wrote is too muddled to respond to. I have no idea what you're trying to say besides being insulting. Do you even have an argument? It's really unclear.

What are you talking about small mindedness? Attraction has nothing to do with the mind and everything to do with the heart. Logically she was just as pretty as ever. But feelings have nothing to do with logic. She became unattractive because she took the man's role and became aggressive in her pursuit. But you're acting like there's no difference. It's not far off from feminists claiming men and women are the same and gender means nothing.

[droid]

It's called faking it until you make it.

Then it's not real confidence, you're just faking, how long can you act is another matter.

Eventually the line blurs between acting and reality. I bullshit on job interviews and won. Made my resume look a lot better that way. It's not an uncommon thing at all. But now I actually have job experience and don't have to bullshit as much.

If you have the confidence you'll perform well is because of real past experience that is at least semi-related. But you can't 'confidence' yourself into a PGA title without having played, people will find out your bullshit. I'm not saying one shouldn't try something hard, but call things by their proper name.

[Shemp]

call things by their proper name.

Exactly. If lying on his resume works for him, or lying to women works for him, go for it. My objection relates to this forum. He twists the meanings of words in his forum posts and tries to infect the rest of us with his inability to think clearly. I have to defend my mind against such stupidity, hence the harshness of my replies to him earlier.

[abcdavid01]

It's called faking it until you make it.

Then it's not real confidence, you're just faking, how long can you act is another matter.

Of course it's just faking, but eventually it becomes real.

If you have the confidence you'll perform well is because of real past experience. But you can't 'confidence' yourself into a PGA title without having played, people will find out your bullshit. I'm not saying one shouldn't try something hard, but call things by their proper name.

Yes you can. It takes confidence to take up a sport for the first time without having ever played. And if the person has the talent, they keep winning and growing in confidence. They might not get a PGA title right away. Obviously it takes time and effort. But the point is that confidence isn't based solely on past history. It takes confidence to do things for the first time with no prior history. It's not like every professional golfer was born with a club in their hand.

But this argument is getting stupid.

call things by their proper name.

Exactly. If lying on his resume works for him, or lying to women works for him, go for it. My objection relates to this forum. He twists the meanings of words in his forum posts and tries to infect the rest of us with his inability to think clearly. I have to defend my mind against such stupidity, hence the harshness of my replies to him earlier.

Are you being harsh? I get that feeling, but I don't understand the words. There's no eloquence in my writing. It's very direct. You on the other hand, I literally have a hard time understanding what you're getting at. You're writing in vague insinuations. It's a little bizarre. Like a conspiracy theorist who expects everyone to know what he's talking about in his own mind.

And there's no lying here. Lying is a terrible way to get with women. It always backfires.

[droid]

If it's faking it then don't call it confidence, call it bullshitting your way into something. But don't pretend the results are guaranteed by it.
Well obviously if they keep winning they will keep growing in confidence. What if they find out they're really not as good as the others? you're assuming the results will be there by just trying. My point is you try hard and find out. "try hard" instead of just "have confidence". It's just semantics but it's important to be clear, lest slippery slopes follow.

[Shemp]

It doesn't take confidence, it takes will and/or desire to take a sport for the first time. Indeed using words wrong is a problem for you and things are getting stupid here. I'm not surprised you were attracted to PUA. I'm calling it quits on this discussion. Go ahead and have the last say if you want.

[abcdavid01]

If it's faking it then don't call it confidence, call it bullshitting your way into something. But don't pretend the results are guaranteed by it.
Well obviously if they keep winning they will keep growing in confidence. What if they find out they're really not as good as the others? you're assuming the results will be there by just trying. My point is you try hard and find out. "try hard" instead of just "have confidence". It's just semantics but it's important to be clear, lest slippery slopes follow.

Well we're talking about the same thing and it is just semantics. But I don't think that's a slippery slope. It's just nitpicking.