All posts by Roosh

The Death Of Western Culture

A healthy culture allows people to create families, pursue prosperity, and experience fulfillment. A culture that is in the process of collapsing promotes sterility, hedonism, materialism, degeneracy, and mental insanity. In this podcast, I trace the seven steps of how a culture can decline, applying each step to what we see in the Western world. Because it’s so difficult to reverse a culture’s descent into sterility, our best option is to identity seeds of resistance and allow them to grow into a new healthy culture that brushes the broken culture aside.

If you’re enjoying my podcasts and getting value from it, consider making a donation. Click here to learn more about donating.

Listen on Soundcloud or download the MP3:

Listen on Youtube:

Subscribe on iTunes or add the RSS feed to your favorite podcast app. If you like the podcast, please leave a rating and review on iTunes.

Previous Podcast: The Girls Of Poland And Ukraine

The Most Important Teachings From Alan Watts’ “The Way Of Zen”

ISBN: 0375705104

Alan Watts (1915-1973) was a British philosopher who helped popularize Eastern philosophy to Western audiences. After gaining value from his Youtube lectures, I picked up The Way Of Zen to further educate myself on his teachings.

For the sake of simplification, there are three main schools of Eastern philosophy: Buddhism, Zen, and Tao. Depending on who you ask, Zen is seen either as its own unique school of thought or a flavor of Buddhism, especially when it’s written as “Zen Buddhism.”

As for the principal difference among the schools, the level of asceticism required decreases as you go from Buddhism to Zen to Tao. A Buddhist religiously meditates away from the masses to receive enlightenment, often in mountainous escapes, while a Taoist can theoretically receive enlightenment in his apartment in the middle of New York City. Buddhism requires more of you from behavior while Taoism requires more of you in understanding the “path.” Since Zen exists in the middle between the two, it takes components from both, but in reality there has been so much mixing between all the schools that having distinctions is not particularly useful.

The great Tao flows everywhere,
to the left and to the right.
All things depend upon it to exist,
and it does not abandon them.
To its accomplishments it lays no claim.
It loves and nourishes all things,
but does not lord it over them.

Compared to his lectures, this book was more dry and academic in tone because he wanted to trace the history and mechanisms of the various philosophies instead of giving you teachings that could be immediately put to use, but there were still many interesting segments.

It is fundamental to both Taoist and Confucian thought that the natural man is to be trusted, and from their standpoint it appears that the Western mistrust of human nature—whether theological or technological—is a kind of schizophrenia.

In the materialist West, you are trained for hating who you are and what you have. You are a car that is eternally in disrepair, and must be always taken to this mechanic or that to be diagnosed and fixed. Forced self-improvement and accomplishment never ends, as well as the pursuit of pleasure to momentarily numb yourself from the lacks and aches that you have been programmed to think you have. The end result is that you come to believe that there is a problem with human existence itself, and that living life as you are, without conscious improvement, is a mistake.

It is fundamental to every school of Buddhism that there is no ego, no enduring entity which is the constant subject of our changing experiences. For the ego exists in an abstract sense alone, being an abstraction from memory, somewhat like the illusory circle of fire made by a whirling torch. We can, for example, imagine the path of a bird through the sky as a distinct line which it has taken. But this line is as abstract as a line of latitude. In concrete reality, the bird left no line, and, similarly, the past from which our ego is abstracted has entirely disappeared. Thus any attempt to cling to the ego or to make it an effective source of action is doomed to frustration.

In all Eastern philosophies, the ego is seen as the bringer of suffering, a parasite that forces behavior upon humans for its own ends instead of benefit to the human. Many men have died in duels or other fights solely because the ego was injured, not the body or soul. Taoists like Osho claim that the ego is an artificial program installed by civilization, and while that can’t quite be verified since most humans of the world have been touched by civilization, it’s clear that human nature is deeply compatible with getting hijacked by the ego.

Man is involved in karma when he interferes with the world in such a way that he is compelled to go on interfering, when the solution of a problem creates still more problems to be solved, when the control of one thing creates the need to control several others. Karma is thus the fate of everyone who “tries to be God.” He lays a trap for the world in which he himself gets caught.


…the human situation is seen for what it is—a quenching of thirst with salt water, a pursuit of goals which simply require the pursuit of other goals, a clutching of objects which the swift course of time renders as insubstantial as mist.


…to seek to become Buddha is to deny that one is already Buddha—and this is the sole basis upon which Buddhahood can be realized! In short, to become a Buddha it is only necessary to have the faith that one is a Buddha already.

When you solve one problem, a new problem immediately appears. The second you answer a critical question about life, a new question pops into your mind. Humans believe in the false notion that once a certain situation is attained, happiness or enlightenment will occur, but as Osho has said, “Enlightenment is a realization, not a situation.” We are spending time and resources to put ourselves into a specific situation, and then once we get in that situation, we adapt to it, feel that we are still suffering or that we lack yet one additional critical component, and then go about spending more time and resources into achieving a new situation, but what we’re doing is no different than a child who thinks a new toy will provide him with permanent entertainment and stimulation.

There is nothing that exists in the material world that can provide perpetual fulfillment, because it is simply adapted to, and while something may provide intense meaning for a time, that meaning will inevitably fade, and the truth of this reality can never be escaped no matter how much more achievement is attained.

The way I know I’m pursuing a false goal—a false God—is if it’s something in the material world, whether money, an object, or a woman. Working on its attainment will keep me busy, will make me feel alive or useful for a duration of time, and will satisfy my ego which wants me to have more material or more accomplishments so that it can say it is superior to others, but will not produce anything everlasting compared to an understanding or realization of what life really is.

The illusion of significant improvement arises in moments of contrast, as when one turns from the left to the right on a hard bed. The position is “better” so long as the contrast remains, but before long the second position begins to feel like the first. So one acquires a more comfortable bed and, for a while, sleeps in peace. But the solution of the problem leaves a strange vacuum in one’s consciousness, a vacuum soon filled by the sensation of another intolerable contrast, hitherto unnoticed, and just as urgent, just as frustrating as the problem of the hard bed. The vacuum arises because the sensation of comfort can be maintained only in relation to the sensation of discomfort, just as an image is visible to the eye only by reason of a contrasting background.


For when a human being is so self-conscious, so self-controlled that he cannot let go of himself, he dithers or wobbles between opposites.

To fully know or experience a thing, you must know its opposite. The highest pleasure can only be felt by someone who has experienced the deepest pain. The feeling of being fully awake, or enlightened, can only be experienced by someone who was asleep or ignorant. You will not receive satisfaction from plenty unless you know what it’s like to be lacking. A thing is defined by its opposite, which explains how unconsciously you will go back and force between extremes instead of staying in the middle. When you dive into one intense behavior, what you’re doing is compressing a spring to propel you into its opposite.

Philosophers do not easily recognize that there is a point where thinking—like boiling an egg—must come to a stop.

This applies not just to thinking, but also experience. Right now, I have enough knowledge to understand my place in the world and those around me. I do not need more knowledge or information. I do not need to sleep with more women, travel to more countries, taste more foods, see more movies, read more books, or write more articles. There is nothing more the material world can give me beyond what I already have, know, or understand. While I will of course gain more knowledge and have more experiences in the future, I’m not fooling myself in that it will complete me or finalize my essence. Once you’ve reached a certain level of material comfort and understanding, more is not the answer, only existence is.

Yet it should be obvious that action without wisdom, without clear awareness of the world as it really is, can never improve anything. Furthermore, as muddy water is best cleared by leaving it alone, it could be argued that those who sit quietly and do nothing are making one of the best possible contributions to a world in turmoil.

I will agree that Eastern philosophy is useful for elites who wish to control humans. There is no easier human to control than one who is happy with things as they are, who meditates all day, and who does not seek power. This is why the KGB was interested in Buddhism because of how it spreads ideas of inaction, and allows those with power to keep that power without competition.

Yet we must ask what is best for the individual versus what is best for society, and how sole focus on the latter can be destructive because of how it treats humans as aggregates, cogs, units, and tools of production. You can walk in an American city today, and marvel at its cleanliness, relatively low crime, and “civilization,” but behind that orderly facade is massive illicit drug use, pharmaceutical abuse, sterile relationships, internet addiction, and mental suffering. How much of our efforts should be focused on the individual, and how much on the societal? That is the question of the day.

The perfection of Zen is to be perfectly and simply human. The difference of the adept in Zen from the ordinary run of men is that the latter are, in one way or another, at odds with their own humanity, and are attempting to be angels or demons.

Those who suffer the most in this life are the ones who want to change and control others, because they believe that their own happiness or enlightenment cannot occur until other human beings behave or act in a way they demand, which involves controlling the instincts and drives of potentially millions of living organisms. The same applies to men such as myself who want to constrain female nature with patriarchal rules that would improve society, but which come at the cost of conflict for the man who must now expend energy to enforce those rules and also for the woman who is prevented from acting in full accordance with her destructive animalistic urges.

Zen has no goal; it is a traveling without point, with nowhere to go. To travel is to be alive, but to get somewhere is to be dead, for as our own proverb says, “To travel well is better than to arrive.” A world which increasingly consists of destinations without journeys between them, a world which values only “getting somewhere” as fast as possible, becomes a world without substance. One can get anywhere and everywhere, and yet the more this is possible, the less is anywhere and everywhere worth getting to.

There is no escaping the reality of existence, where suffering must be felt if you want to experience pleasure and where there is no material pot of gold at the end of a rainbow of experience. Merely understanding those facts is helpful to see that there is no problem with you specifically, and getting angry at your perceived lacks in the same as being angry at the world that you’re a part of, at the rules that govern our reality.

The Way Of Zen did provide a helpful background on Buddhism, Zen, and Tao, but beyond the quotes I shared above, it won’t give you more than what you can freely find within his online lectures. Start with those first, and if you need more of an academic understanding of Eastern philosophy, this book will be worth your time.

Read More: “The Way Of Zen” on Amazon

Political Correctness 2.0

The truth cannot be concealed for long, especially in the internet age. A portion of the elite has recognized this and allowed discourse to move from political correctness version 1.0 to an upgraded 2.0 version where more real-talk is allowed. This permits them to build trust with an increasing percentage of the Western population that hates the heavy-handedness of the existing program.

Political correctness 1.0 was so strict and sniffling that it promoted a reaction which is currently threatening the entire globalist establishment. Here are tenets of the 1.0 program:

1. All races are equal
2. All sexes are equal
3. Homosexuals are just like heterosexuals
4. Islam can and should co-exist in democratic societies
5. Western civilization is the main cause of evil to minorities
6. Nation borders sacrifice human rights
7. Critique of Jews is anti-Semitic, and we must encourage Israel’s existence

When I or other commentators refer to “globalism,” we’re generally describing a system of power that has built itself atop the 1.0 program since World War 2. The reaction to this program has gotten so intense that anti-globalism is now a broad-based movement that aims to bring down both the useful idiots and the puppet masters who control it.

I’m not entirely certain if existing globalists are deciding to move to a 2.0 program to retain their control, or if entirely new billionaires, such as Peter Thiel, are attempting a power grab for their own ends. Whatever the reality, and it’s probably a combination of the two, some members of the elite are now using the upgraded political correctness program to appeal to those who reject the 1.0 version. Here is what we have in version 2.0:

1. Not all races are equal, but all races deserve equality
2. The sexes aren’t equal, but both sexes deserve equality
3. Homosexuals are just like heterosexuals
4. Islam cannot co-exist in democratic societies
5. Western civilization should be praised
6. Nation borders are essential
7. Critique of Jews is anti-Semitic, and we must encourage Israel’s existence

First let’s describe what hasn’t changed from 1.0 (points 3 and 7). Gays and Jews are still a protected class because they are the highest members orchestrating 2.0 (Peter Thiel happens to be gay). Egalitarianism in terms of sex and race (1 and 2) haven’t been completely tossed aside, since “equality” is still seen as an ideal, but purple and red pill thoughts in those areas are more accepted. It’s okay for media outlets operating on version 2.0 to state that black people are more prone to criminality followed by articles mocking feminism and other social justice insanities.

Three points have been completely reversed. First is Islam. Attacking the religion, its customs, and the terrorists it breeds is fair game, and perhaps the most consistent element of the 2.0 program that is even exhibited by liberals like Bill Maher. The second reversal is the praise of “Western civilization” with a focus on civic nationalism, which essentially means that people have to follow existing immigration laws. Lacking, however, is addressing how laws can be changed or what the specific racial demographic of a nation like the USA should be. The final reversal is the praise of national borders as a feature that can improve the safety and well-being of existing citizens.

When I refer to political correctness 2.0, I’m not referring to 4chan, the alt right, or other edgelord movements that don’t place limits on their speech, but the rising power structures that include new media, pundit thots like Tomi Lahren, Twitter e-celebrities, and government politicians, especially the ones that exist in Trump’s shadow.

The best examples of political correctness 2.0 right now are represented by Breitbart, Rebel Media, and the alt lite, who produce ideas and content that have wide reach because of the large number of people who reject the 1.0 program but who are not ready to completely throw away egalitarianism, discuss the Jewish Question, or embrace tradition. The low-hanging fruits of the 1.0 program were the KKK, racists who use the n-word, and caveman misogynists. For the 2.0 program, the low-hanging fruits are low IQ Islamists, fat feminists with green hair, and the mainstream media.

The 2.0 version is a step in the right direction, and will make my ideas of patriarchy slightly more accepting, but ultimately will fail just like 1.0 did, because it is counting on deliberate concealment of truths that simply can not be concealed in the internet age. I therefore predict that 2.0 will have a much shorter run than 1.0, and not stop a reactionary push where no lie can be successfully hoisted upon the public, and where no secret stays secret for long.

Read Next: How To Save Western Civilization

The Girls Of Poland And Ukraine

I invite Eastern European travel expert Kyle Trouble for a comprehensive discussion on Polish and Ukrainian girls, in addition to examining each country’s culture and living standard. We focus on sharing the ideal type of game that is necessary to succeed for both casual encounters and long-term relationships that could lead to marriage and family creation. For Western men who are dissatisfied with their women, Poland and Ukraine may offer a viable path to more fulfilling intimate relationships.

If you’re enjoying my podcasts and getting value from it, consider making a donation. Click here to learn more about donating.

Listen on Soundcloud or download the MP3:

Listen on Youtube:

Subscribe on iTunes or add the RSS feed to your favorite podcast app. If you like the podcast, please leave a rating and review on iTunes.

Previous Podcast: The Danger Of Hedonic Adaptation

Billions Of Egos Dance For Your Attention

I wake up every day around noon. Instead of leaving bed, like many normal people have to do, I grab a book and lay under the covers. I read twenty pages of a work that took some man hundreds of hours to complete, and possibly thousands if you account for the expertise he had to develop in order to write it. Why did he write the book? For money? For fame? Just to share knowledge out of good will?

A man writes a book because he thinks he possess something that other people don’t possess. His labor comes from a position of superiority, however righteous, that is verified in physical form once the book is complete and achieves positive reviews and sales. A man’s ego toiled and strained himself to complete a book that brings me entertainment and knowledge, and I thank his ego for that, for wanting to prove that he could provide value to the world.

I make a cup of coffee and then sit at my desk. I check Twitter first, and am greeted by a backlog of tweets from individuals who are desperate for followers and retweets, who are competing with millions of others to be heard in the sea of social media. I appreciate their futile efforts, one that has measly rewards, and quickly update myself on the news, which includes checking Google News to see what will be the lies of the day, written by journalists who hope to transform their liberal degrees into soft power by massaging their egalitarianism into a palliative narrative. Behold how hard they work for your attention! All for my clicks, for the chance to affect my perception of reality.

As the world grows in population, the heights to which people strain themselves to be noticed and to feel special borders on the insane. Women sell their vaginas to perform in porn, men spend over 12 hours a day in front of a computer screen to break a story 30 seconds before someone else, and leftists rush to destroy their own country through displays of virtual signalling in a pathetic attempt to prove to others that they are as moral as Jesus. The persistent need to be superior is played constantly around the world, as egos battle it out for fame, money, recognition, and pats on the back that increasingly aren’t even physical but existing as pixels on little screens.

“Great article!”
“Sharp comment!”
“You predicted this!”
“Good job!”

The ego is stroked, it feels good, and then quickly that sensation fades and you are back into the grind, with a new idea to craft the perfect selfie that hides your flaws or an expertly crafted tweet that is sure to be spread far, all to prove that you’re a somebody, that you’re special, and as I relish how so many egos are fighting for my attention, I realize that I am no different from them. The web sites I’ve constructed, the books I’ve written, the thousands of articles I’ve published to mold the world into my version of “correct” reality points to an ego that must be in the top 1% of all egos, that is so massive in took the outrage of the entire world to finally check it.

Other egos dance for me and I respond by sitting in front of my laptop for several hours a day, writing articles such as this one, to dance right back. Your comments, praise, and shares give me moments of euphoria, no matter how fleeting, and I will do a jig for you to notice me as you do a jig for me to notice you. We all want to feel like we’re special, that we have accomplished something more than billions of other humans who crowd this planet, and yet we never quite make it to being that somebody, or else there would be a point where we get up and yell That’s it, I’m done! Our ego won’t allow that. So we continue to preen for others, produce for others, compete with others, and after years of doing this, of decades to dancing this jig, a question may force itself to the surface, despite your best attempts to bury it, a question that comes from the deepest of your being as you’re hungover from yet another ego high. The question of what exactly are we living for.

Read Next: Ego Sex

“The White European Culture Is Dead”

Every Monday at noon I send an email out to my newsletter subscribers, where I share pictures, updates, and interesting e-mails that I receive from readers. Here is one such e-mail from a white man in England…

I just listened to your video on educating women. Just like some things true for the individual can be extrapolated to make a general truth about the culture/society, I wanted to share a thought with you.

Milo talks about how feminism is cancer. Is he not on to something? You’d know from your education in science how mutations in our genes cause natural processes to become hijacked and eventually go on to kill the host. Our Western culture is infected with bad ideas and the cancer has been spreading uncontrollably. Brexit and Trump are a bout of chemotherapy but I wonder about its chances of success.

Our culture is dead. Our women (cells) are not reproducing. The organism is approaching death. There is widespread dementia, and Alzheimer’s. Few remember things from the past. People are delusional. The organism is approaching insanity. Fake news is seen as the real news. Women are told they can be men.

The green field where our culture developed is now being taken over by younger men. He’s smart and is just waiting for us, the old man, to die. He is reproducing; he understands the wisdom of his old book – barbaric as it may be, it seems to make him understand the destruction of women. Soon he will just need to put a pillow over our face and we will slide away.

You can see what I’m getting at.

I’ve been working recently with two Muslim guys. They are hard working, they are family men. They pray together. Their bonds are so strong. Their tribe is connected; they have a common identity. They have a brotherhood. I can’t hate Muslims. They are just of a different tribe and they are beating us at the fundamentals of life. We are like old married men, separated from our old friends, isolated and growing old, lonely, longing for the days of old when we have a collective memory of how things used to be. We are so weak that we invite the more manly Muslims to come into our field because we kind of know the writing’s on the wall.

Your video message is so true. It all comes back to the basics of existence. You don’t maintain your body, your cells start to die. They stop reproducing. Unless Trump comes out with a make babies message, the white, European culture is dead.

And it is a race thing. Broad generalisations are true when it comes to race. Africans don’t care for liberty. Asians like conformity. Hispanics are not too smart. Whites have a balance that others don’t have. We have that mix of traits that leaves us balanced and adaptable. Africans are impulsive and beastly. Asians are too smart and too small and weak. You get my general point.

None of us are racial supremacists but we must understand the general nature of different races. But who can you convince? Talk about race is social suicide. Talk about women is social suicide. Even talking about it won’t stop the decline though.

The percentage of whites in the US is around 65%. This is declining year on year. I’m in the UK and it’s declining here too. In Europe it’s worse. The Muslims will take over in two generations.

We have crippled ourselves with our feel good platitudes and luxury and comfort. There are not enough like you or I or the guys on the forum to make a change.

Even the recent discourse on immigration is always about how immigration is good. The terrorist country ban is “only temporary”. Our culture is totally fucked up. Women should be having 3-4 children in their 20s. If this doesn’t happen, our people will go the way of the other animals in nature who didn’t reproduce in large enough numbers.

Jack Donovan had a great quote in “The Way of Men”: “Ideology is peaceful; history is violent.”

A war will come when it’s too late. I can’t help but feel that my money is not on European/Western culture to survive. Not when I look at the strength in the Muslim world. They’re not sophisticated like us, but they are doing the basics. Mating, allowing men to lead and rule, praying. We can’t beat that when they start to outnumber us.

This has been something of a rambling screed, I accept. I just wanted to reach out to you. You have made a huge impact on my life. I don’t have many who I can talk to about this kind of thing.

You made a comment on your life, and how you’re just sitting there doing a podcast. I want you to know that you are still helping so many men with this, insignificant as it may seem to you.

I’m inclined to agree that Muslims are the new “barbarians.” They will invade the West, adopt some of our technology and customs, and become the new civilized masses that have a higher birth rate than Westerners. And then the new barbarians, most likely Africans, who are even more fertile than Muslims, will repeat the cycle. Nature only cares about strength and fertility. We, as infertile and sterile beings, are the “error” in its eyes, and unless we wake up soon and re-focus on family and tradition, we will simply be replaced by those who do.

To ensure that you don’t miss insightful e-mails like the one above in the future, get on my newsletter. Upon signing up you’ll receive a free copy of my book The Best Of Roosh: Volume 1 (regular price: $9), which gives advice on relationships, travel, and lifestyle. To receive the free book, submit your first name and email address below…

Don’t Miss: Western Culture Poisons Women

What Is Fascism?

The word “fascism” has come out of nowhere to describe Donald Trump, as shown by search engine frequency that is ten times higher than what it was in 2014. After researching what fascism really means, I’ve concluded that it is being used as a weapon to shut down dissident thought after previous attack labels like “sexist” and “racist” lost their power.

The problem with the word fascism is that it never had a clear definition. Every single resource I found that tried to define fascism has used a different set of standards and rules, meaning that no objective definition exists. It describes nothing and everything at the same time, meaning that it has no function in discourse but that of a rhetorical weapon, simply because of the World War 2 Axis Power connotation that is associated with it.

Let’s start with the simplest definition, offered by historian R.J.B. Bosworth.

…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter? All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined). To be still more succinct, as Mussolini told Franco in October 1936, what the Spaniard should aim at was a regime that was simultaneously ‘authoritarian’, ‘social’, and ‘popular’. That amalgam, the Duce advised, was the basis of universal fascism.”

Donald Trump does not advocate for a single party, does not have a social leisure organization, and initially tried to reach across the aisle to include the foe (Democratic party) in advancing his pro-America agenda. From the mouth of Mussolini himself, the progenitor of fascism, we can easily conclude that Trump is not one.

This would seem like an open-and-shut case, but instead of taking Mussolini’s word for it, historians insist on endlessly analyzing the qualities and nature of his regime to produce an expanded definition of fascism. This is where we get into trouble, because their analysis becomes more subjective and mired in problems of definition.

All three authors agree that statism, nationalism, unity, authoritarianism, and vigor are essential elements of fascism.

Immediately you may be struck by how terms like “unity” and “vigor” are vague descriptors, especially the latter, which can be used to merely describe an alpha male. I’ve also seen the word “vitality” being used to describe fascism, as if the opposite is more preferable. These authors will also have different definitions of statism, nationalism, and authoritarianism, and those definitions will shift over time, becoming vague enough that they can be used as a means of attack on nearly anyone. “Fascism” becomes a system that is defined upon other systems, all of which have definitions that can be changed at a moment’s notice by any competent propaganda machine to make fascist what previously was not fascist.

For sake of historical accuracy, it should be noted that Jews were disproportionately represented in Italy’s fascist regime, just like they were in communism and Cultural Marxism.

[The authors] also note that the role of anti-Semitism in the rise of fascist movements was minor. In the Italian case, it played no role at all in the early days. Jews, indeed, were disproportionately likely to be party members: it is estimated that in the early 30’s, 25% of adult Jews were Fascist party members, compared to about 10% for the entire adult population.

George Orwell, author of Animal Farm and 1984, wrote an essay that points out the bendability of fascism.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively.

War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.

Even in 1944, in the fresh aftermath of Mussolini, the term was already being abused.

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

He concludes his piece by stating that “fascist” is merely an insult to mean “bully.”

…even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

Even the word “bully” has had its definition change over the years, and has now come to mean anyone who is strong, capable, and mighty. In other words, an alpha male. In a society that actually believes masculinity is “toxic” and any man who pursues sex with women as a likely “rapist,” we’ve endured a full decade of relentless propaganda attacking anything that is male, meaning even a man of average assertiveness becomes a “bully.” Within ten years, any man who is not a cuckold will also be called a bully. Real bullies who prey on the weak do exist, and that should be discouraged, but the mainstream establishment has used the word bully to define anyone and anything with an essential masculine quality.

From the above analysis, we can now create a definition of fascism for modern usage: anyone to the right of me who possesses strength. If your political views are to the right of someone, and you believe that strength in leadership is necessary, and the year is current, you will be called a fascist. If you are a “conservative” who is fearful of strength because it is literally Hitler, you will not be called a fascist. If you are on the far left but use strength to assert your position, like militant Black Lives Matter groups, you will not be called a fascist. If you are a moderate homosexual Jew like Milo, who has leftist views but is still right of where most leftists reside, you will be called a fascist, and your supporters will be beaten with pipes. The term is therefore relative and emotional—it’s a feeling that someone who is more conservative than you believes in strength to aid in upholding societal stability and cultural values.

Since the nebulous textbook definition of fascism uses various other systems to define it, mostly for the use of labeling by historians to write books that justify their positions and salaries, anyone who genuinely fears fascism should instead levy specific accusations of wrongdoing if they intend to carry on an intellectual debate. For example, what specific feature of Trump’s nationalism is wrong on logical terms? What specific authoritarian act that does not follow due process has he encouraged?

I do not expect the fascist labelers to drill down to such a level of logic, so we must endure their endless use of the term, mostly because their previous labels of sexist, racist, and rapist have lost steam and are no longer effective at shutting down conversations and ideas that they view as dangerous to their globalist platform. Behold the era of the fascist bot, who utters a term merely out of emotion for a need to assert power, and nothing more.

Read Next: What Donald Trump’s Victory Means For Men

Men Who Cold Approach Women Should Be Proud Of Themselves

I made a video explaining why approaching women is a commendable task…

Visit my Youtube channel and hit the Subscribe button to see new clips before I drop them on the blog.

Previous Video: The Sterile Behavior Of Girls Who Party At Night

9 Immutable Laws Of Game

In this podcast, I share nine laws of game that apply to most of your sexual interactions. Understanding these laws is essential to a higher success rate when it comes to getting laid and having intimate relationships. The laws include discussion on screening girls for sex, the phenomenon of flaking, game work ethic, and choosing optimal venues.

If you’re enjoying my podcasts and getting value from it, consider making a donation. Click here to learn more about donating.

Listen on Soundcloud or download the MP3:

Listen on Youtube:

Subscribe on iTunes or add the RSS feed to your favorite podcast app. If you like the podcast, please leave a rating and review on iTunes.

Previous Podcast: The Danger Of Hedonic Adaptation

How To Save Western Civilization

I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.

The origin of our problems

Today’s problems are all branches of a radical leftist root that has been normalized through feminism, social justice, and socialism. Allowing women to vote has made it effortless to elect leftist politicians who hate the family unit, men, and healthy market competition, while simultaneously weakening society by pushing women into work and giving them generous welfare in the form of handouts to single moms and the able-bodied along with make-work jobs for females in bloated government bureaucracies.

Thanks to leftism, we have seen the rise of a techno-matriarchy with an agenda of male disempowerment and persecution that transfers resources and soft power from men to women while solidifying hard power among elite globalists who control it all to uphold their own high-level aims. Individual globalists work together as an oligarchy to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy among races and sexes to fund leftist causes, politicians, and NGOs. The group with the most money to influence “democratic” politics and public opinion implants their useful idiots and political puppets to maintain control.

These puppets, whether on the “right” or “left,” have a true center on the left end of the spectrum for the sheer reason that votes from women must be gained. The manosphere cannon has shown that women have special mental faculties that operate almost exclusively on emotion, submission, and social conflict more than logic, dominance, and merit. Western countries have transformed into a national representation of the female psyche.

Appeasing women leads to civilizational destruction

To appease female voters and their destructive nature of promiscuity and drama, a symptom of which is collectively propelling a book about a woman being brutally dominated by a man (50 Shades Of Grey) to one of the best selling books of all time, society has veered so far to the left that it is crumbling at its base through declining birth rates and collapse of the family unit. Because we have given women suffrage, it has become necessary to gain their votes by promising whatever they want in the moment, including the removal of all gates to the sexual market so they can engage in the great game of “alpha male hunting,” which has led to such unbridled chaos and sterility that we have to import third-world people as these empowered female voters abort nearly 60 million American babies. The demographic crisis the West faces today is primarily due to allowing women to do as they please instead of imposing healthy standards on their behavior and choices. The direct cause of this horror movie is giving women the vote.

I haven’t even touched the surface of the problems we have today that stem from having to appeal to the female vote: lowering of academic standards in universities to allow them to “excel,” promotion of degeneracy in media, invention of apps and technology to allow frictionless casual sex with bad boys, promotion of sex change operations among children, re-defining fat women as “beautiful at any size,” legalization of gay marriage, use of murder (abortion) as birth control, maligning normal masculinity as “toxic masculinity,” and elevation of damaging myths such as “rape culture” and the “wage gap” to foment gender fear and confusion. The culture has degraded because women have been at the forefront of degrading it. Their true nature, once unimpaired by societal limits, embarks on an tragic mission of destruction to recreate reality in a way to make them appear more attractive to high status men, no matter the consequence.

The problems I mentioned above would take thousands of local and Federal laws to address individually, and it would meet intense opposition from globalists who would fund the sort of antifascist protests and Deep State interference that we have seen thwarting Donald Trump. And even if those thousands of laws are passed, there is no guarantee that a renewed leftward push, thanks to ongoing demographic changes, wouldn’t roll them back. Is there a way to solve the problems while being assured that they couldn’t be repealed over the course of several generations? I’ve thought about this dilemma for years, after scratching the surface with previous thought experiments, and can only come to one conclusion: the problems in society can only be solved, and remain solved beyond one generation, by repealing women’s suffrage.

The ultimate solution

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirely of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.


It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary reality. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

Read Next: Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men

The Sterile Behavior Of Girls Who Party At Night

I did a video pointing out the “anti-evolutionary” behavior or girls who display their infertility at bars and clubs.

Visit my Youtube channel and hit the Subscribe button to see new clips before I drop them on the blog.

Previous Video: The Psychology Of Beta Male Sexual Frustration

6 Favorite Quotes From The Novel “Siddhartha” By Hermann Hesse

Siddhartha is one of the first novels that introduced Buddhism to Western audiences. Written in 1922 by Hermann Hesse, it is a fast read about a man who seeks enlightenment through alternating paths of asceticism and hedonism.

Man imitates, but does not understand

A thousand disciples hear his teachings every day, and follow his regulations every hour, but they are all falling leaves; they do not possess the doctrine and the law within themselves.

Your current situation is transitory

Where is Siddhartha the Brahman? Where is Siddhartha the samana [ascetic]? Where is Siddhartha the rich man? Transitory things change swiftly, Govinda, as you know.

Wisdom cannot be learned, only experienced

Wisdom cannot be imparted. Wisdom that a wise man attempts to impart always sounds like foolishness.

You are but a small part of the whole

I learned from my body and my soul that I was in great need of sin; I needed sensual pleasures, the ambition for possessions, vanity, and I needed the most humiliating despair in order to learn how to give up my resistance, in order to learn how to love the world, in order to cease comparing it with some world of my wishes or my imagination, with some type of perfection that I had concocted, but to leave it the way it is, to love it, and to be a part of it gladly.

Life is meant to be lived

Words do no good to the secret meaning; everything always immediately becomes a little different when you express it, a little falsified, a little foolish.

A man must enjoy his own treasure

I am also perfectly contented that one person’s treasure of wisdom always sounds like foolishness to someone else.

Siddhartha was a pleasant book that put many Buddhist practices into story form. I recommend it if you’re interested in Eastern philosophy.

Read More: “Siddhartha” on Amazon

Your Internet Friends Can’t Duplicate Real-Life Human Connection

Most of the knowledge you have is due to the internet. Public education in the West has failed to give you a proper understanding of the world or skills that would be useful for navigating through life, forcing you to educate yourself at your own pace and on your own terms. Through that, you have created bonds with other men in ad-hoc communities online. While the knowledge you have will be forever useful to you, the communities that sprout from these knowledge centers pale in comparison to real communities of the past. We can instantly access the minds of men through the internet, but we’re losing the ability to connect with them in person.

I came to understand how pervasive the internet is in my life when I imagined it going offline. What would happen if there were no more web pages, social networking, connected smartphones, or video-on-demand? Back to the “stone age” of programmed television and paper books. Perhaps more severe is that I’d lose touch with nearly every man I know. Outside of a couple dozen men whose phone numbers I have, my social world would collapse, and it would only be replaced by men who live in my city. No more trading advice, knowledge, and tips with men halfway around the world on a daily basis.

If the internet went offline, which thought leader would I follow to make me feel like I’m gaining critical value? How would I participate in online activism and meme wars with fellow e-warriors? How would I bathe in the glory of liberal tears with my online friends after angering feminists with a viral article? Where would I share a crazy piece of news with hundreds of men who share a similar belief system as I do? An audience of potentially tens of thousands would be reduced to three or four in my town, and it’s this realization that tells me it’s not friendships I’m developing online as much as the gratification that I’m a somebody who is making a difference, when really I’m just a communications node, a replaceable unit in a messenger chain.

I have used an app called Periscope, which allows me to broadcast live video from my smartphone. The biggest broadcast I’ve done had over 1,000 simultaneous viewers. Here’s what a room of 1,000 people look like.

During that broadcast, I was in my room, alone, talking at an screen to a faceless mass of people who I couldn’t see or touch. There was no genuine human connection, and if I wanted it at that moment, I would have found it easier to knock on my neighbor’s door, a man who I’ve seen but never properly met. If there was an external camera in the room filming me without sound, it would reveal a strange man talking to himself in front of a rectangle of plastic and glass.

Return Of Kings regularly gets 1 million unique visitors a month, a number that is greater than than the population of several dozen countries, but I don’t know exactly who those people are, and if you told me there was a mistake in the statistics, and that the site actually receives 1 billion unique visitors a month, I can’t fathom what difference that would make besides more advertising revenue.

No matter how many followers you have, how far your meme spreads, how many upvotes your comment gets, or how many pats on the back you get from the internet mob, you will remain deeply unsatisfied that these huge numbers—this powerful influence—is not human connection but merely a simulation of connection. Ultimately, you’re interacting with pixels and avatars, mere representations of real community, but never real itself. I’ll give you a million followers tomorrow, and within one month you will feel as disconnected as ever, because your true need is not a simulation of community but real community. A group of real friends in your town, who care about your safety and interests as deeply as you care about theirs, is worth more than millions of simulated friends, fans, or admirers on the internet.

Maintaining real communities and friends in person is hard. You can’t just “log off” when you want. You can’t shitpost or troll without repercussions. You have to sacrifice and accommodate to their needs. You have to be respectful to their feelings and particular insecurities, because you’d expect the same from them. One genuine friendship is harder to maintain than satisfying one thousand followers online where expectations and standards are lower, and where little is asked of you but to provide entertainment and sporadic insight.

The internet has given us much, but also made us reluctant to put in the work for real-life connections and to adapt to another person’s flaws and weaknesses, but we must try. As a man who has amassed thousands of internet followers, it’s the face-to-face interactions with those followers I love the most, because it transcends from the simulated to the real. Without them, I’m afraid I’d slowly lose my humanity in an online sea of a billions avatars that are human-like, but still far from it.

Read Next: City Life Is A Simulation