Red Pill Awakening to Eternal Day

Roosh, archon and cowbell of the androsphere, seems to have begun the final phase of the shedding of mundane illusions that began when he first took the Red Pill. Like I said.

To see through the glass even darkly, one must first turn, and look. Roosh has turned, and is looking.

Truth is a strange attractor – so strange, indeed, that it is the subvenient attractor of all other attractions, the thing we seek in seeking them. Once get the scent of a hair of it, and you’re after it pell mell forever, willy nilly, obsessed with your quarry. It’s a virtuous addiction, that cannot ever be sated except by the full possession of the whole of its object.

31 thoughts on “Red Pill Awakening to Eternal Day

  1. Pingback: Red Pill Awakening to Eternal Day | Neoreactive

  2. It will be easy to know if Roosh has truly seen the light. Because for him, it would be a public declaration of lifelong celibacy (so as not to burden any prospective marriage candidate with his sexual history) followed by a public withdrawal from the internet into the quiet life. Let’s see.

    • Well couldn’t he find a marriage candidate with a similar sexual history?
      Also, women I think are much less likely to find a man’s sexual past a burden. As far as I can tell, men with an extensive sexual past don’t come across as “used goods” to women.

      • Bruce B:

        Roosh’s past includes not only his sexual past in the narrow sense (the number of women he managed to bed), but also the wider context in which it took place – the fact that he publicized (and *capitalized*) his adventures, that he elevated his depravity to a fully-fledged lifestyle, that he persisted in it over the years well past the age at which *some* indiscretions would be tolerated, and, ultimately, it’s a testimony of an *utter* emotional and spiritual lacking. Personally, I’m ashamed of even knowing about this guy – I shouldn’t, really.

        When individuals, pardon my language, screw up *so* badly, *so* publicly, *so* willingly and persistently, over *so* much time, and on *so* many levels, the *only* dignified way out is a complete retreat. A necessary part of it would be deciding that, *even if* a woman should be willing to take him, *he* won’t be willing to put *her* into a situation where she’s tied to somebody like him or has him as the father of her children. That’s the ultimate moral test for the few individuals who have taken depravity to such levels. We aren’t dealing with “normal” premarital promiscuity here or with some “reasonable” youthful callousness, but with wickedness orders of magnitude worse – of the kind that can’t be rectified the way “normal” imperfect pasts are rectified when two people accept each other.

        Also, make no mistake that women are somehow “fine” with men’s baggage. Few things can make a woman contemn her man the way his abused or perversed sexuality can. Just look at all those marriages falling apart – women may be *initiating* them disproportionately, but it’s the man’s propensity to pornography or deviated sexuality that’s the real root cause in very many of them. Many modern analyses of this phenomenon completely neglect this side of the story; pornography and related phenomena that are ultimately expressions of the male search for “variety” have probably done more to ruin marriage than all other factors combined. Women put up with that when they *have* to, when they have no options – but when they do, they run away (and can you blame them?). They despise men incapable of sexually regulating themselves or who were willing to do to other women things they never want done to their daughters.

      • Yes, passerotto has said all that I thought went without saying. So thanks for that passerotto.

        Also, another tell-tale sign of Roosh’s conversion will be any statements he makes summarizing his own verdict on the influence he’s had on other young men. If he goes all lawyerly and mealy-mouthed, trying to parse the good from the bad, then we’ll know any change was only superficial.

      • St. Augustine comes immediately to mind. But his repentance from, shame about, and repudiation of his former lifestyle and views was absolute and total. A former notorious Internet PUA would have to see himself for what he really is and has been, and his actions would necessarily reflect that apprehension of the truth.

        So Andrew E’s suggestion or something very much like it would necessarily be the proof in the pudding.

      • @passerotto

        Just look at all those marriages falling apart – women may be *initiating* them disproportionately, but it’s the man’s propensity to pornography or deviated sexuality that’s the real root cause in very many of them. Many modern analyses of this phenomenon completely neglect this side of the story…

        Yes, though I don’t have much in the way of first hand evidence of this, I expect you are right that it is the case that pornography on the part of the husband often has something to do with the whole mix, and that silence on this matter in the manosphere has the effect of debilitating blinders. Even so, I wonder for what reason you stop there and call it (unopposed deviant sexual tastes on the part of the husband) the *root*? The wife has her own sexual weaknesses to overcome that, if she does not struggle against them, have just as much likelihood of destroying a marriage as a man’s sexual weaknesses. If a wife refuses to struggle against them, it would be no justification for a man to give in to his own temptations, but it may be a cause of his giving in, such that, were the wife to do her duty in this manner, the man would be better able to struggle against and overcome his own temptations.

        I am suspicious of any analysis of the cause of failure in marriages that pins the blame on one or the other sex. It may be true in particular cases that one or the other is more, or even entirely, to blame, but speaking generally, I’ll bet the man and woman are in collusion in the sin, just as in the Garden at the beginning.

      • Buckyinky:

        We’re not in disagreement; my comment was specifically in the context of the idea that it’s somehow a lesser deal if a man abuses his sexuality than if a woman does so. I see pornography as *a* factor, not *the* factor – but it’s been my impression that it’s a factor of exceptional gravity. It’s also very normalized, we’ve become desensitized to it, few people regard it as morally relevant and most men are quite tellingly silent about it. It’s also fashionable to point out the various ways in which women fail men and marriages, but without providing a balanced account by including the male versions of those failings.

        The major difference is that pornography is morally wrong in a clear-cut way, while what you call “woman’s sexual weaknesses” usually means having less sex with her husband than he considers optimal. That’s a grey area, spouses should be there for each other sexually and emotionally, but you can’t really quantify or pinpoint where exactly one of them has a legitimate claim of being “unhappy” (the same is true about women not feeling emotionally fulfilled). Consuming pornography belongs to the set of behaviors that are very clear-cut, no grey area, like adultery – it’s not a matter of disagreeing upon quantity or having to merge different preferences, it’s that *any* quantity of those experiences is wrong. So, arguably, it’s an objectively greater offence, although I certainly agree that when things go wrong, the most likely explanation is that both have messed it up in an elaborate, entangled way.

        It’s not so much wanting to ascribe blame to a single factor as I just find that it’s a *glaring* omission in male-perspective discussions of why marriages fail. At the end of the day it’s normal, our eyes tend to be drawn to failures in others and to threats to our interests, rather than to our own portion of the blame – I think both men and women are equally guilty of that. It’s just that, while I hear quite a bit of criticizing of women for their version of solipsism, rarely is the same rigor applied to the male equivalent behaviors and concerns.

      • My own impression is that society at large relentlessly excuses the failures of women. The manosphere does focus on the failures of women, but that is a tiny droplet in a cultural bucket radically biased in favor of excusing female fault.

        Calls for “balance” or “fairness” in presentation have the effect of telling people to shut up, since it isn’t possible to talk about everything at once. And the failures of women are so whitewashed by our culture that calling for “balance” has the effect (intended or otherwise) of further whitewashing the failures specific to women.

      • Great comment by Zippy.

        Originally I was referring to one’s past sins. I get the impression that women aren’t turned off by a man having sexual experience and some women seem to like it.

        Of course, it’s best that people are either celibate or only with one other person for life.

      • Also, I suspect a great deal of porn watching by Christian husbands is a result of their wife’s denial of sex. Who would rather look at porn, rather than have sex with his wife? I don’t know that I agree that a wife’s denial of sex is a gray area (other than when she’s physically ill, injured, etc.) It seems like it should always be wrong for a wife to do this.

      • A couple of factors at play here:

        1/ I don’t live in America, I see it with foreigner’s eyes. When it comes to women, I think you tend more to both extremes (idealizing vs overly disparaging).

        2/ I tend to read male-perspective websites rather than female-perspective ones, so naturally I focus on what I see lacking in what I actually read. I’m also not sure that all of this is so counter-cultural as you think. What you perceive as the dominant discourse is probably dying.

        3/ There’s more than likely a generational shift going on here. I’m 25, people of my generation *heard* about the excesses of feminism, and got warned, but it’s precisely for that reason that I’m not sure it’s as relevant for us. I don’t see, for example, a disproportionate whitewashing of bad female behavior going on. Maybe I see lax standards for everyone in some activities, but quite uniformly applied.

        Bruce B – why? Assuming you’re married, do you think that you have to attend to your wife’s emotional needs and “needs” always and every time and without delay, to the exclusion of your own needs and preferences at that moment? If so, then I agree that you have a fair standard. Otherwise, why would it be any different for women to approach sexuality the same way – considering it a normal part of life, but not a duty at all times upon request? I don’t think either party should outright manipulate the other one with weapons peculiar to it (which is largely what TRP is promoting), but there may still be plenty of times when it’s legitimate to say no.

      • I allowed for cases where the wife is physically ill. It takes next to 0 effort and a bit of her daily time for a wife to “give it up.” Men burn with lust in the extreme (maybe some more than others I don’t know).

        Are you a woman or a man?

      • It’s easy to attack pornography, but the extent that it is a problem in a man’s life is dependent on that particular man. There are men who use it once in a blue moon and men who are incapable of functioning they are so addicted, with a whole range in between.
        What I rarely see is any discussion of why married men turn to pornography. It is too easy to just claim addiction when the most likely culprit is a broken sexual relationship with their wife. That can take many forms. It can range from sex being used as a weapon, to a wife starfishing and making it painfully clear she’s “doing him a favor” to other issues. It really doesn’t take much misbehavior from a wife in this area to break her sexual rapport with her husband, and Christians tend to only give a perfunctory tsk tsk to such women before putting the blame back on the husband.

    • I can’t believe the fangirling by otherwise rational men over anything that Roosh says that may be interpreted as conservative (if one views it from the side, squinting). As said, this is a man that has made a “living” off (s)exploitation and driving people to his website, generating pays per click or conversions via e-book sales.

      (As a tangent, I am amazed that Red Pillers think the rationalization hamster is a phenomenon that only applies to women. Unplugged from the Matrix these guys are not).

      As others said, I’ll believe in his repentance once RoK shuts down and Roosh publicly (and not in a manner that can be monetized) repudiates everything he once said. Who knows? maybe his former readership will finally be forced to get lives.

      • Fortunately for all of us, you aren’t the one whose opinion on repentance has any authority on earth or in heaven.

  3. It is amazing how this is playing out. My own early take on the Manosphere hinted at precisely this, that in questioning one strand of Modern orthodoxy, men would inevitably question the rest. If you reject Feminism, how far are you from rejecting the homosexual agenda, the democracy project, atheism, and all other perversions of ideology?

    Today’s pissed off white males are tomorrow’s Reactionary die-hards. Truth is magnetic in spite of the spirit of the age.

    • Modernism is an ill knit, ill fit garment. Snag any thread and keep moving through life, and the whole thing will unravel and come apart eventually. Only as it falls off altogether do we learn how very heavy it was.

      The same goes for all wrong theories. That’s why theism and conservatism are so much more common among the old than among sophomores.

  4. @Kristor – The problem is that even extreme deviation from truth may continue for a very long time indeed, more than a lifetime, before being attracted back. Russia was gripped by psychotic truth denial for seventy plus years, and although the pendulum did being to swing back, it hasn’t gone very far back towards basic common sense in the past generation – that’s a century/ four generations of serious insanity so far…

    • No doubt. Repentance is just the beginning; it can easily take more than one life span of years to recover from and repair a half a lifetime’s worth of addiction to sin. That’s what purgatory’s for, I guess. Hope I get that opportunity.

      As for Russia: again, no doubt. Sin leaves a mark on *all* future generations – after all, we are still working off the legacy of sin bequeathed to us by our first parents, and by all their heirs.

      Nevertheless, the wages of sin is death. Not just death in general, but early death, death that frustrates reproductive success. The structure of the cosmos hates sin, and works to delete it. Sin and error just don’t work very well even in the most practical mundane terms, either for men or their nations. For any sort of human social organism, then, it’s repentance and an earnest attempt at righteousness, or early miserable failure.

      • If the sinner lives long enough after the commission of such sins to suffer the vengeance of the cosmos (sometimes it can take quite a while for the chickens to come home to roost), then yes. Sometimes however such sinners seem to get off scot free from any penalty delivered via mundane agencies – I suppose there are, e.g., lots of employers who have defrauded their employees of their just wages without apparent ill effect on their own fortunes – and the Prophets and Apostles are particularly concerned that we understand that in such cases the sins will be punished directly by Heaven, without the mediation of any worldly agencies.

      • I wonder if there’s, in some way, collective, natural law punishment. Collective within a society and across time. Visiting the iniquities of the father on the children….etc.

      • I have no doubt that it is so. Consider all the TANSTAAFL aphorisms. The very notions of honor and reputation, of shame and guilt, status, nobility and ignobility, authority and justice, of fairness, right practice, fair dealing, on and on – all testify to the reality of this social aspect of the causal integrity of things.

  5. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/06/28) | The Reactivity Place

  6. I wanted to come back to this thread after looking into some more stuff Roosh has put out including his video about a break with the MGTOW community who attacked his new allegiance to patriarchy and tradition, as well as a rather heartfelt article he wrote on Return of Kings where he clearly put a lot of study into the question of how applicable the Theory of Evolution is.

    I like Roosh. I may not agree with some of the things he has said and done in the past, but Paul the Apostle was once in a dark place too, heck I was! I see potential in his scathing attacks on Youtube feminists like the detestable Laci Green. It’s the kind of confrontational style we need more of on the right. Wherever he was before, he is at some point on the spectrum, of the right now. I have no enemies on the right, and I’m going to do what I can to assist them in damaging the real enemy, the Liberals. Right now, the Liberals on the front line are these Social Justice cretins trying to shut down ‘extremist’ rhetoric on the internet and banning people’s free movement between countries.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.