Email from January 2015

By far the most touching email from a reader I ever received. And the only one I kept. This was extremely moving. I am sharing it with you all here, I suppose just out of interest. I received this in January 2015 about midway through my time at Return Of Kings. I’ll also post my response. I have decided it would be best to omit his name.

I’m not saying that my reply was good. I’m just posting it out of interest. He didn’t reply, though he messaged me a few times later on if I remember correctly.


I want to thank you for the consistently well thought-out articles you’ve been posting on ROK. I’ve found everyone of them to be very insightful. While I enjoy their more click-baity articles, yours have caused me to reflect on Christianity in a way I haven’t before.

This might get long, but I have the feeling you are not phased by several paragraphs unlike most of my generation.


My parent’s raised me as a Christian and in the church since I was a young boy. I witnessed – unknowingly at the time – the effects of feminism on the church, specifically in the charismatic denomination which my Mom devoted herself to.

My Dad was an Evangelical at the time my mom was devoting an incredible amount of time to going to meetings, services almost 3 days a week, and these prayer gatherings that often lasted late into the night. I could never understand why the people in attendance were 80% women until now.

It’s safe to say that the amount of time my mom spent at her meetings my parents marriage. (They are married.) About 8 years ago, my Dad encountered alot of Reformed doctrine and teaching which I somewhat dismissed originally because of how ingrained my presuppositions were.

At the time one man my dad and his church group were studying was alot of material by Doug Wilson who made the point that there was masculine and feminine worship and that the church has essentially ignored masculine worship. (Not necessarily high liturgy and such.)


I don’t know if I can call myself a Christian right now, even though I still hold a Christian worldview, but one thing that struck me about your recent article was the lack of an environment where this kind of call to avoid fornication and pre-marital sex can exist within the church.

I’m 26 now, but it was in march of 2014 that I simply couldn’t wait any longer. I lost my virginity and up to now have slept with 6 different girls. I stumbled upon the idea of “game” back in July and its one of the reasons I’ve had the amount of sex I’ve had.

I haven’t really been to Church since I lost my virginity. I felt like I was living two different lifestyles and recently I’ve contemplated if I have any faith left at all. I have no interest in replacing Christianity with a worldview with no ethical and moral foundations – Athiesm for instance – but I feel like a hypocrite consistently.

Currently, I attend a private Christian University – where I have free tuition – so I’m around a Christian environment constantly. Even so, I feel like I’ve become an apostate. I honestly have no idea what to do.

I want to be proud of my “notches”, but I’m not so sure I am. It feels hollow. Alot of TRP community doesn’t want anything to do with marriage for many reasons I can understand. However, I still want to get married. I want kids.

The pool of marriageable women in the church seems to be appalling small – I’ve seen some exceptions in the homeschooling community – and it doesn’t help that I don’t make much money. I’m not exactly what every Father dreams of when they think of a man being able to provide their daughter with financial stability. I’ve got some limited trades experience, but as you said, that’s not exactly “a prime attraction”

My father, while a good and able parent who has tried to raise me as a man, never taught me anything about game, how to approach girls, ect. It took me till maybe a few years ago when I realized that I was actually attractive, and that if I groomed myself, I would fare much better.

However, I still find dating in Christian circles to be incredibly hard. I’m constantly under the microscope. I’d love to find a traditional Christian wife at this point, but I don’t know if I’m worthy considering my current lack of faith.


Thank you for your writing and work. It gives me hope that there are people out there who have somewhat experienced and are experiencing what I have – which for some reason gives me comfort.






Thank you for writing. I understand your frustrations. I was labelled
the ever-virgin loser growing up. I had a hard enough time making
friends with other guys. The idea that a girl would be interested in
me was a foreign concept. And of course the only advice I had was the
1950s “Compliment and pay for shit” model. But I didn’t develop
emotionally or socially as a child after my parents’ divorce.

My father was a Baptist pastor who left my mother for another pastor’s
wife. When I was 20, I converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which
tends to have more traditional-minded people. Much more resistant to
modernism, although there are certainly exceptions. But dating as an
Orthodox Christian can be hard, since there aren’t many others and
outsider Christians think you’re too Catholic.

The reformed/ regulative principle Christians are also supposed to be
very traditional.

As for dating being difficult as a Christian, this is very true. Most
Christian girls are so obsessed with being a princess that they are
unable to consider what they themselves may have to offer. Christian
Mingle won’t help much, although there seems to be some quality
catches on there. But online dating is hard since most of seduction is

You wrote, “I’d love to find a traditional Christian wife at this
point, but I don’t know if I’m worthy considering my current lack of

Don’t think that way. Having a small notch count usually won’t hold
you back much with Christian girls as long as you don’t have kids or
diseases, although some girls are very picky. That being said, there
is no such thing as male virginity. For women, a man’s prior sexual
history says more about his ability to commit than about his ability
to bond.

Focus on growing your alpha traits (charisma, physical strength,
mechanical knowledge) and gaining the necessary beta qualities (a
skill that can provide stable finances, maybe a few other
characteristics). Roosh has written that he’s noticed in more
traditional countries, what we consider to be beta characteristics is
what turns on women, not alpha cockiness. With American Christian
girls of wife-quality, I’ve found that you need a good cocktail of
both in a way that neither are negated.

As for loss of faith, there’s not a whole lot I can say about that.
But there are traditional-minded girls who are non-Christians out in
rural areas. Really, most marriageable girls are in the country. But
it takes a lot of hard work to find the marriageable girl. You have to
approach it like a part-time job. Christian university sounds like
absolutely hell, but if you approach enough, you should be able to
find someone.

The blue collar trades are more attractive to women than people think,
since there’s something very masculine about them. The stigma in them
goes away as you get older (I’m 24 years old) since the economy is so
bad. Also, the stigma is only around in certain circles.

More ROK articles to check out for what you’re looking for:

Thank you for writing,


Return Of Kings’s Comments Today

Third article today. I normally try to stagger them. Sorry to flood you.

Today Return of Kings published an article by a woman. It’s actually not their first. One of their earliest articles was by a woman, but it’s kind of buried. It’s about how women use the word “just” to justify bad behavior. I can’t find it.

I remember when I discovered it asking Roosh if I could link to it, and he said it was best if the readers didn’t know about it. I understand. The men’s only club is unique to ROK. The concept is to be an open forum for men to say what they want and not to be heavily ideological. That’s why they used to block both comments from women and people who validated them by replying.

Today they broke the rule. A woman published an article, saying that she loves being a housewife because she takes care of her husband and has learned to save money and eat healthy.

Maybe Roosh shouldn’t have broken the rule, but it’s his own website to do what he wants, and that is the absolute most patriarchal, red-pill-for-women article possible. She literally says she loves serving her man. And ROK has gotten so redundant, just by publishing something on every topic, it’s at least something different.

And the comments are all like, “Stupid gold digging whore does nothing all day and will divorce rape him and how could ROK publish this?” It’s honestly painful to read. I can’t imagine how difficult it is for the writer to read them. And I’m not saying that out of special pity for women — I was very hurt at the comments on my law school article. You create something and offer up a part of yourself to the world, and the world responds by throwing tomatoes at you.

Cliche to say, but it’s jealousy. These people know they could never get a wife like that. Their alpha posturing is all internet heroics. You know this, because if you actually were an alpha, you wouldn’t bother bragging to the world about it. An actual alpha male does not care about the label “alpha male”. The alpha/beta dichtomy is just a teaching tool, not a fashion statement.

And they are jealous of the writers for the site. They will write a doctoral thesis in the comments section, and you’ll ask them to submit an article on the topic, and then they never do. They don’t have the courage to offer themselves to the world. They don’t have the courage to create something. All they can do is destroy. They are just like the feminists they hate.

Roosh spent a decade-plus breaking new ground in internet social commentary. If there’s no gratitude, how about at least some benefit of the doubt?

It is inevitable that women will take the red pill, because the red pill is internet slang for truth. As Elvis said, “Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin’ away.” Some women absolutely will adopt it for internet attention, but if you dismiss any woman who agrees with you, then you never wanted any of this to have real world effects. It’s just a game to play on the internet.

Fucking hell. I can’t believe the comments are this bad. The glowing jealousy under the article about the Amish a few months ago was cringe-inducing, but this is a whole other level. Pathetic pandering to any woman vaguely agreeing with them, I expect. Vitriol and hatred towards a woman who perfectly models everything the website has taught for six years, just because of the forum she says it in — No, I did expect that. Maybe I should have.

You guys usually leave good comments, and I usually try to respond. If it ever gets as bad as ROK’s comments section, I will shut this website down and call it a failure.

Happiness, Double Standards And Emotivism

They say you should follow your dreams and do what makes you happy. That’s not just my cynical over-simplification. It’s enshrined in our founding documents. The Pursuit of Happiness. Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream’s motto used to be, “If it’s not fun, why do it?” It’s generally accepted in philosophy that humans seek out happiness as the primary drive, and ethics are designed around avoiding suffering.
But what if my dreams is to spend the weekend zoned out on heroin? Society says, “Woah, hey. That’s the wrong kind of dream. Go hug a puppy or become a lawyer or see a movie.”
But why is one kind of happiness more valuable than another? If happiness is an ultimate ideal to be pursued, then shouldn’t we pursue it no matter what?

The terrifying thing about heroin is exactly that it makes you happy. To my understanding, the first time you do it is the greatest feeling in the world, and you will never achieve that again.

People wonder why former addicts relapse. They say, “Well they must have burnt out their dopamine receptors.” That’s probably part of it, but more than that, it’s because they were happy on drugs. That’s why they did it in the first place.

And they can say, Well of course heroin is bad because it’s destructive. Watching a movie and hugging a puppy and going to law school doesn’t ….

CNN is on tv where I’m at right now. A black woman is actually crying about Donald Trump and says she is so frustrated that no one will admit that Trump is racist. I break out laughing for everyone to hear. Funniest thing all week.

Anyway, watching Star Wars and wasting money on iPhones isn’t destructive to society, so it’s okay. Or that Star Wars isn’t destructive to yourself, since a lot of drug addicts just keep to themselves.

But then we encourage every kind of depraved sex possible and as often as possible.

So why is meaningless sex okay but alcohol is bad? It seems like a really weird double standard. It’s okay to tear your anal cavity through homosexuality, but purposefully seeking out a heroin addiction should be illegal. But what if being an addict is my identity?
And they say the sodomites can’t help who they are, but it’s only certain people who become addicts. Both addiction and sexual deviancy is a product of childhood neglect or abuse. I don’t really see the difference.
It’s just emotivism. The ethical theory that moral judgments are merely aesthetic judgments. Murder is bad, unless it’s a Nazi or a Klansman or a fetus. Killing animals is okay if it’s a cow but not if it’s a puppy.
Many cities and workplaces celebrate gay pride. It used to be a week but last year someone decided it should be the whole month so now June is pride month. For some reason some Christians support this even though pride is a sin.
Can we have an alcoholic pride month? I’m going to get a parade going. Demand to be visible and have our rights recognized. Get it outlawed to lose our jobs over our orientation.
[I realize the formatting in this is all messed up. I’m going to get it fixed soon.]

Armchair Anthropology: Race Relations And Income Inequality In The American South

Back in the ROK days during March 2015, Donovan Sharpe, a black columnist for the site, asked me a series of questions over email for an article he was writing on race relations. He ended out using almost none of it, but it was a good interview all the same. I saved the correspondence in case I ever started the blog again. It’s been almost a year and for some reason I haven’t published it yet. So here you go. This is it in full, minus some preceding and concluding thoughts that aren’t very relevant. The […] are just to mark the a new email by the same person.


DS: By the way I’ve got an idea for an article I’d like to involve you in. I’d like to write about race relations in America specifically between blacks and whites. I’d like to get your perspective because 1) you’ve lived in the South your entire life and 2) you’re able to articulate your thoughts intelligently.

Your thoughts?
BN: Sure. What do you want to know?
DS: I’ve got 6 or 8 questions I’d like you to answer candidly. Don’t pull any punches. They’re on my laptop so as soon as I get home I’ll send them to you.

This should be a great read, man. Thanks for the participation.
Okay, first question. What are race relations REALLY like down south? Are Southerners really more accepting of persons of color or is it just a front?
BN: Race relations in the South vary where you go, but in general they are
benign. There weren’t many slaves in mountainous areas, so black
people are almost non-existent Appalachia and the surrounding hill
country. I’m told that people in those areas are sometimes so racist
to the point where they want slaves back, but I can’t confirm that.

There’s also been a lot of downward migration in the last few decades.
The South is one of the more economically prosperous areas of the
country. So that’s changed the demographics a lot, especially in the
cities. Charlotte and Atlanta are very different from rural Alabama,
and the peninsula of Florida barely has a Southern culture anymore. I
don’t think many people have a problem with this, including me.

In the North and West, things are pretty segregated. Blacks live on
one side of town, and whites live on another. So without interacting
with each other, it’s easy to assume that there is no value in
stereotypes. But white people still want blacks to keep away. Matt
Forney had a really good article on that:

Down here cities are smaller, and the race of a neighborhood can
change within just a few blocks. Whites and blacks interact with each
other more and often go to the same public schools. So the rest of the
country thinks we’re racist because we’re a little more open to
stereotypes (and because of the moral superiority it gives them), but
they are the ones who completely avoid interacting with blacks. Or if
they do interact with them, it’s their one friend at work whose dad is
a lawyer, and they assume they are colorblind because they have a
certain quantity of friends with dark skin. Randy Newman had a really
good song about this:

Are we more accepting of other races or is it just a front? I’m too
young to speak for the old days, but today the answer is “both,” like
I imagine is the case with the rest of the country. Most people will
deny they are racist at all, even while saying something about race
differences. Or they’ll say “Many black people…” to make sure they
aren’t using a generalization.

Redneck people tend to be more unapologetically prejudiced or at least
frustrated, although again it varies by person. They’re reluctant to
talk about it, but if they sense you are open to hearing about it,
they’ll start ranting. You can usually guess about these people even
before that. There’s no bond like two people who share an opinion that
would make them social outcasts (much like the bonds between red pill
men). I’d say they aren’t so much white supremacists as they are white
separatists. And even if they are white supremacists, they aren’t
malicious about it. They keep to themselves and expect other races to
do the same.

Honestly I’m the same way. Blacks can have their society how they want
it so long as it doesn’t affect me. I wouldn’t deny a black man a job,
but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to live near the ghetto. It’s not
that I’m more racist than the average person; I’m just more honest
with myself.

If white people move away, liberals criticize the “white flight”. If
we move back in, they criticize “gentrification”. I don’t have a moral
problem with either option. You can’t own a neighborhood, so I don’t
understand why gentrification is so wrong. But I’m a white flight
person myself. Right now I live in the ghetto, and I want to get as
far away from these people as possible.

Colorblindness is a white privilege. It’s for people who live in safe
parts of town. If a white person interacts with black people enough,
he will become racist to some degree. You walk down a deserted street
at night and see a black man approaching, so you make a point to look
away or cross the road. Sure it’s discrimination, but it’s better to
be a racist than to get stabbed.

Or you watch the news and see a black unwed mother with five kids
crying about how her children deserves food stamps, and you think “Of
course because she’s black.” Black person cuts you off in traffic or
is just driving too slowly? “Goddamn niggers think they own the
country.” Nevermind that white people are horrible drivers too.

But I don’t think there’s any substantial discrimination. The KKK is
pretty much dead. I’ve never heard of any hate crimes happening
(although I’m sure they do). You could open a store in the whitest
part of town, and if you dressed and talked like a white person, you
could be successful. White people want to believe blacks are the same
as them, so the key to success is to avoid any signs at all you’re
from the ghetto. That sounds like terrible, but that’s the result of
decades of being taught to be colorblind. We’ll never approve of
ghetto culture, so instead we’re taught that blacks at heart are just
like us. One way or another, black people will have to give up some of
their blackness to become successful. Whether that’s fair or just is
another question, but it is reality.

At least that’s the case in the places I have lived in, but I’ve heard
that in the extreme rural areas like northeast Tennessee or north
Florida, things are more dangerous.

White guilt is definitely present here. People don’t trust blacks, but
they won’t admit it to themselves. It’s more of an uneasiness around
them. Even if the black person is successful, white people feel like
they can’t be themselves around black people, because people think
blacks get easily offended and maybe even violent. I find this kind of
ridiculous, because we don’t talk about race in casual conversation
anyway, and also because black people aren’t as easily offended as
people think. And even if they were easily offended, nobody wants to
get arrested for fighting over something small.

I was in a class of about a dozen people, about half white and half
black. I made a joke about how I’m colorblind so I can only tell race
based on hair style. The black people broke into loud laughter, and
the white people just looked really nervous. That’s what race
relations are like down here. The black people want whites to
acknowledge their blackness, and the white people think they aren’t
allowed to. Race is a large part of one’s identity, so why would a
black person want a white person to be colorblind?

I don’t think they ever asked that of us, but we continue to have a
pissing contest to show just how non-racist we are. We can’t put down
the white man’s burden. We’ve always got to be helping the other
races, and we always have to bring them up to our level. This is why
the SJWs always feeling like they have to make a scene every time a
cop guns down a ghetto thug. Supremacism is saturated in the white
man, whether he is an extreme liberal or a Klan member.

Never in history has the white race been able to leave the other races
alone to deal with their own problems. The most progressive fat
feminist blogger in Manhattan screeching about the need for diversity
and intersectionality really just wants to believe that all blacks,
muslims, Mexicans, gays, and whoever are basically the same as her and
would be so if not for some kind of invisible social force.
Ethnocentrism is the hallmark of a liberal. They have no respect for
other cultures.

I don’t want blacks to be the same as me. I want them to have their
own culture they can take pride in. And that doesn’t have to be the
same as the ghetto culture. For example, in the mid 20th century, the
black race absolutely dominated the music industry, and even when the
whites began getting their hold back, the blacks were still strong
competitors. Today all black music is terrible. I’m not sure what
happened, but I’ve never met a young black person that listened to old
black music. They claim we whites stole it (another myth for another
day), but they won’t hold onto what they already have.

One of my biggest issues with black people is that I can’t understand
what they are saying. They mumble their words while talking at a
really loud volume. If I ask them to repeat themselves, they say it in
the same way as before. Also, they always make a “that’s racist” joke,
not realizing that white people are sick of hearing that.

We’d like to put the old racist days behind us, but black people make
it hard. Not just in the jokes and complaints they make, but in the
society they live in. We’ve given blacks equal access to universities
and jobs, but black society has fallen into deeper degradation than
ever. So whites are frustrated with that. We want blacks to be as
successful as us so that we don’t have to feel guilty about black

I haven’t heard back from you. Was that too offensive? You told me not
to pull punches.
DS: Oh no dude, not at all. I had to bang out a reporter article on Tag The Sponsor that ran yesterday so I’ve been caught up in that the last few days.

Your answer was brilliant.  I’ve lived in Charlotte, Atlanta, and Florida and your assessment is spot on.
Next question: One of my best friends in college was from Aiken South Carolina. He had a confederate flag in his room and at the bottom it said “Heritage Not Hate.” That was totally fine with me because I knew who he was as a person. What say you?
BN: Your doing reporter articles now? I thought it was just me. I knew C
Contrary was for a bit, but I’m not sure I’ve seen anything from him
in a while.

I figured you weren’t offended. Just checking in.

Wasn’t Charlotte awful? Sprawling mass of suburbs. Traffic’s terrible.
No middle class. Property is ridiculously expensive.


A good summary of my views is here:

Almost no one today flies the confederate flag out of hatred, nor
would anyone assume it was out of hatred if they saw it even if that
person thinks you shouldn’t fly it. And I think even in the 1920s it
still wasn’t the dominant use of the flag. People say it’s for
heritage. However, it’s really for redneck pride.

That being said, a friend gave me a flag, and I hung it from my
apartment window in downtown Jackson to piss off the blacks and
liberal law students.

At any rate, people often compare confederate flag to the swastika in
that it’s too strongly connotated with an evil ideology (in this case,
the KKK). That’s not true at all. The KKK used the flag, but they
weren’t the only ones. The flag can have many contexts, where as the
swastika was particular to a certain time and ideology.

Furthermore, there are many nationalistic symbols for Germany, but
there is only one symbol for the South.

Finally, people claim that it’s wrong to fly the confederate flag
because it’s offensive to blacks. Well, the blacks will have to get
over it. You can’t go through life expecting to never be offended. Nor
does anyone ever give me a reason why being offensive is necessarily
wrong. Instead of teaching whites to ignore their heritage, they
should teach blacks to be more empathetic.

There’s that Brad Paisley song about the confederate flag that caused
a lot of controversy. I think he should have been more wise in the way
he worded it, but more than that I think the media wanted to find a
reason to crucify him. They took the most semantic meaning of the
words and ignored the greater picture. What they didn’t want to hear
was his clearly intended message, that blacks and whites should try to
understand each other and be tolerant of the differences. Because then
that would be empowering to both races, and liberals are only
interested in making everyone as hateful as they themselves are.
Misery loves company.

DS: Yeah I’m doing reporter articles now. I did 2 this week so along with last weeks post and the one going up tomorrow I’ve churned out 4 articles in the last 10 days so I’m going to give my brain a couple days off before firing up the ol’ muse on Thursday or Friday for next week’s post.

Great answer by the way. I remember the shit storm about the Brad Paisley track. So here’s my next question: Is the alleged “disconnect” between blacks and whites real or is it embellished by the media? If it’s as advertised what do you think can blacks and whites in the South do to try to understand each other better?
BN: Two reporter articles in one week? I get two a month. It’s good they
are spreading it around between authors, but more than that I like the


Is the disconnect between blacks and whites real or embellished by the
media? I think the media is so cut off from reality that it’s
something of a moot question. The media pushes a narrative that boosts

In our enlightened western society, we think that every problem has a
solution. I’m not sure that is logically sound. Some problems cannot
be solved. It’s not good or bad but just is.

The black race has always had a culture of poverty. Therefore black
people will always live in poverty, even if a few escape it. Likewise,
the white race has always had a culture of supremicism (which is not
entirely undeserved; see link below). Therefore white people will
always want to convert blacks to their standard. Roosh was somewhat
wrong when he said that western culture is lost beyond recovery, but
he isn’t entirely a product of western society.

If I had to give a solution to the issue, I would say that both sides
should not assume too much about the other. Whites should neither
assume that blacks want to live the ghetto culture nor that they want
to live an American Dream. Blacks have very open access to education
and employment.

Blacks should also quit assuming that whites are always out to get
them. Sure, there are micro-aggressions, but more than that, whites
want to help black people if for no other reason than to alleviate
their white guilt.

Another issue is these awful black activists. If racial disparity was
solved tomorrow, what would Al Sharpton do for money? He has no
marketable skills beyond public speaking. He has to drum up
controversy in order to keep bread on his table. But what (I imagine)
many blacks who donate to him don’t realize is that he is perpetuating
racism. He makes blacks look like crybabies. Nothing we do will ever
please him, so why should we try? And if he represents all blacks,
then why should we bother trying to appease a people who are only
interested in victimhood? You can’t progress a people who won’t let go
of the past. South Park had a really good episode on this.

Black people need to realize that although very bad things happened to
their ancestors in the past, that generation of whites is mostly dead.
The white people today did not enslave them. We did not enforce Jim
Crow laws. The people who put you in poverty are dead. We the
individuals want you to be happy and successful. So black people need
to cut us a break.

And if the blacks don’t begin to pull themselves up, eventually the
white guilt bank will run dry, and the white people will get fed up.
The blacks are on borrowed time. Eventually we will get tired of
subsidizing their thug culture. A major political mistake most people
make is assuming that the ideological trend of the day will continue
on into the future.

An excellent read on some of this is Toxic Charity by Robert Lupton.
It’s a Christian book, but most of it will apply to non-Christians. He
discusses how American charity is perpetuating poverty instead of
alleviating it, both here and abroad.


As far as poverty in general (taking race out of the equation), both
political parties are wrong. The Republicans say, “We have open
education for everyone. If someone isn’t wealthy, that’s their fault.”
While that is technically true, we see that poverty is a cycle,
perhaps even more today than before. People who grow up in poverty
rarely break out of it. Jamall from the hood will likely not become a
doctor. And should he get accepted to an Ivy League school, he will
likely drop out, because he does not have the proper background to
succeed in that environment. (My ROK article in a few weeks is on the
worthlessness of public education.)

The Democrats say, “We need to give more money to bring the poor up to
the level of the financially secure, and we need more social programs
and equality laws to enforce it.” But we’ve been doing that since the
1960s, and there is a greater gap in poverty than ever. LBJ declared
war on poverty in Eastern Kentucky (one of the most third world places
in the country both then and now). Clearly we lost the war on poverty
as well as the war on drugs. And today’s youth are more financially
stagnant than ever. So the social programs haven’t done anything to
solve it.

And we see that a few black “community organizers” (whatever that term
means) are beginning to denounce the Democrat party. The Democrat
policies have done nothing to bring blacks out of poverty, as seen
through simple empirical analysis. Welfare programs are a short-term
fix on a long-term problem. My rant on this is for a different
question (in part because I’m very not sober right now), but the
Democrats need people to live in poverty and ignorance to secure their

The problem is that both political parties have the same fundamental
beliefs. They are both all about opportunity. That is to say, the
ability to do what I the individual want. We  think that justice must
involve equality. We think that equality means that we have a human
right to live life as we want, even if we aren’t sure what it is we
want. And what we should or need is a secondary issue. The Ben and
Jerry’s slogan sums this up perfectly, “If it’s not fun, why do it?”
We blame the baby boomers for this, but it extends centuries back.
America was founded by hippies who were influenced by hippies
centuries prior to them.

But society isn’t built out of individual volition. Instead of
focusing on the desires of individuals (which are often misguided and
misinformed anyway), the government should focus on cultivating a
civilizaiton. Which is a major reason why I’m neoreactionary (my
Orthodox Christian beliefs playing another major factor).

I’ve actually read very little neoreactionary literature. I very much
came to that conclusion prior to the red pill. I also think freedom of
speech is a stupid idea, although in a democracy, it’s an absolute

Although Orthodox Christianity isn’t quite red pill or neoreactionary,
a core narrative today is that secularism began in the middle ages
when the western part of the Church — what we now know as Roman
Catholicism — began to over-think ideas and become obsessed with
categories and logic. For them, theology was a fashion statement.
Everyone was trying to come up with a new trend. The second half of
the middle ages is considered the height of Catholic thought, yet it
ended in the protestant rebellion. Is this a coincidence? No, the
protestant reformation was the natural outgrowth of the attitudes the
Roman church had had for the last few decades. If doctrine is up for
innovation and doubt, then why bother with a formal church at all?

[Editor’s Note: Probably should read “for the last few centuries.”]

And so we see that the protestants carried that mentality, which in
turn was adopted by secularism. Progressivism and its close cousin
Doubt was begun by medieval Catholicism, and it’s no surprise that the
Catholic church is on the same brink of implosion as the rest of
western civilization. Catholicism and protestantism is and has always
been nothing more than Christian-colored secularism. There has been
the same attitude of doubt for over 1000 years. And not the healthy
kind of doubt that makes you understand what you believe, but the
toxic kind of doubt that makes you search for something new and

DS: Okay next question:  I’ve found that Black people these days are far more racist than White people. Agree or Disagree? Why?
BN: Let me make an addition to the confederate flag question. I have a
cousin’s cousin in Lexington in Eastern Kentucky. She told me that
people often wave the confederate flag, even though they weren’t part
of the confederacy, and that during the Civil War the common people
were sympathetic to the confederacy but that the state government
wanted to remain neutral.

She said it’s dangerous to be black there. I’m somewhat skeptical of
that, but I could see it in the mountain towns. Lexington is in the
foothills of Appalachia. But farther northwest in the state like in
Louisville, it’s more Midwestern than Southern. Kentucky as a whole is
borderline South, much like the Virginias.

Are black people more racist than whites? Of course. Or at least, they
are more vocal and discriminatory. They certainly keep each other’s
backs more. I’m not sure that’s necessarily a bad thing, though. I’d
be more okay with it if we were allowed to do the same.

Which of the two is more racist in actuality? I’m not sure. But most
white racism is benign, whereas black racism often hurts people.
They’ll gun you down for being white and walking on their side of town
and then justify it because of slavery.

I didn’t enslave anyone. I didn’t kill any Indians. And most of the
white people who did kill Indians only did it because the Indians were
trying to kill them first.

Human Rights Is About One Thing: Labor Costs

All human rights hysteria is about cheap labor. Wealthy people, often (((certain kinds of people))), want to get stupid rich but feel like a good person too, so they adopt a liberal agenda to paper over their own broken conscious. And liberalism lets them feel even more superior to everyone, so that’s a bonus too.

The most obvious example is illegal immigration. Flooding the workforce with unskilled workers in the name of compassion to artificially keep wages low. You don’t exactly have to be Scooby Doo to solve that mystery.

And it’s much more than just the jobs you don’t want. It affects the unskilled jobs you do want too. If Fruit Picking Farms can hire a bunch of Aztecs cheaper than they can hire Americans, then Walmart doesn’t have to worry about their workers quitting to go work there. Therefore Walmart doesn’t have to raise wages to keep employees.

But most people have a second grade understanding of economics, so that doesn’t make any sense.

Consider Black Lives Matter. It’s not about police brutality. It’s about ginning up the blacks into feeling disenfranchised. If they feel like they have no hope of advancing in society, they won’t bother with going for educated jobs like doctor or accountant. That would create extra competition for the (((skilled workers))). So their friends in (((the media))) make a point to encourage the blacks to keep themselves down so that they compete with poor whites instead of wealthy whites and Jews.

And even going back to the civil war. Many abolitionists wanted to free slaves just because it wasn’t fair that the south had lower labor costs. And a liberated south would have lowered tarrifs, enabling them to import goods cheaper from Europe than from the north and thus crushing the industrial economy. The north was fighting for their survival almost as much as the south was.

But surprise! Slavery ended and then sharecropping and tenant farming became a much better racket. Had the plantation owners realized there was a way to have slaves and not have to feed them, the war would have never happened.

Feminism. The pay gap and sexual harassment hysteria isn’t about money and sex. I mean, everything ever is about money and sex, but not in that way.

It’s about sending the message that women’s proper place is in the workforce. Women aren’t just not supposed to be chained to the kitchen — they should avoid it like the gulag.

For one thing, this increases the number of women in the workforce, and most women have stupid jobs like secretary or cashier. So it’s not like they’re competing with the people who matter.

But on a more immediate level, the more women delay or denounce family formation, the more money they’ll have to spend on iPhones and yoga pants instead of car seats and YMCA memberships.

As The Last Psychiatrist said,

Hmm, isn’t it weird how just as soon as women entered the workforce it became completely impossible for a family to achieve the American dream without the woman in the workforce?   Turns out that part of the drive to get women into the workforce was driven by… the workforce owners.  Get it?  Whenever you don’t understand geopolitics just ask yourself where the lowest labor costs are, and wait for the headlines to read “human rights issues.”

Of course women should be paid the same and should do whatever they want, but the point here is that that is a coincident benefit, the other purpose of it is to have a larger pool of labor willing to do jobs too good for Mexican illegals and not good enough for American men, i.e work in retail.   Is it really liberating for women to work at Bebe but not be able to afford to shop at Bebe?  Or is it just stupid, except for Bebe, which derives the full value of their employees’ sex for $12/hr?

This is why you rarely hear about South Africa giving the whites the Haiti treatment. Or hurricanes in Mexico. Or child prostitutes in India. Or slavery in Dubai.

It isn’t about anti-white animus, at least not primarily. It’s because those issues can’t yield cheap labor. Canadians accuse Americans of not knowing anything about the world beyond our borders, but that’s Canada’s fault for not being exploitable enough.

Bernie Sanders Would Have Crashed And Burned In The 2016 General Election

One of those articles I have always meant to write and never got around to.

Liberals are convinced that had they been allowed their love story, the country would have chosen nice guy Bernie Sanders over crude and calloused Donald Trump.

Impossible. Bernie would have lost even harder than Hillary.

The most obvious reason is that Bernie is an extremely secular Jew. You have to at least pretend to be a Christian in order to win the presidency. And Middle America wants jobs, not handouts. It’s Manhattanites who want socialism

In the primaries you mostly agree with your opponent. And you have to be careful what you criticize about them, because you might isolate your own base. So we didn’t really see much of the real Bernie during the primaries.

What I heard from a lot of people was that they didn’t really like Bernie’s socialism but he seemed like a genuine guy who really cared. What they didn’t see is just how short of a fuse Bernie has. After the election, Bernie went on a town hall tour where he would yell at small business owners for not being able to afford insurance benefits.

During the primaries Bill O’Reilly predicted that if it became Trump versus Hillary, they would go scorched earth and it would be the nastiest election in decades. And he was exactly right. It went just about as low as possible. Hillary brought that side out of him. I mean, when you pay off women to accuse your opposition of sexual assault, you tend to make them angry. Anything she could accuse him of, he could accuse her or her husband of doing even worse.

Hillary, for all her flaws, is a very measured person. She has self control in the public eye. So Trump had to instigate things with her.

If Bernie had won the primary, Trump would have been calm and collected. He would say something small that would get Bernie into a rage. Then Trump would portray himself as the one with self control compared to the unhinged Bernie Sanders — the inverse of how he was portrayed against Hillary Clinton. Trump would easily prod Bernie into going into an elongated rant about the working proletariat needing to take from the wealthy owners what is rightfully theirs.

Back to what I said above about how in the primaries you mostly agree with your opponent. Trump would have played this old video on prime time and Dukakis’d Bernie into a tailspin:

“It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”

Feel the Bern.

But Hillary couldn’t go with that angle, because so much of the Democrat base is socialist. She couldn’t call him a Marxist thug, because she needed the Marxist thug demographic to win.

Bernie Sanders is the Robert Kennedy of our recent Nixonian triumph. The liberals fawn over him because they don’t live in reality and have the luxury of living in dreams that didn’t happen. If he had gotten the nomination, he would have lost far harder than the actual candidate.

The Horrors Of Game — An Alternative Defense Of The Manosphere

Lately I’ve discovered and obsessed upon the Weezer album Pinkerton. Rivers Cuomo’s 1996 sophmore follow-up to the immortal classic Blue Album, it was initially a commercial and critical failure. Cuomo cut open his chest and bled his feelings to the world, who were expecting something light and fun like the first album. The band broke up for five years, and Cuomo was deeply embarrassed at the album. He described it as getting drunk and thinking you’re the life of the party and then realizing the next morning how annoying you were. Worse, the album slowly gained a cult following, cementing that its legacy would haunt him for years. (In time the band became commercially successful again, and Cuomo grew to appreciate the album.)

Among the various elements in the album is the futility of relationships. You start a new relationship with a girl, you share your histories and open your souls, and then it ends. And what was it all for? Like that, all your emotions are supposed to just evaporate like they never mattered.

Not too long after this in 2004, the Scott Pilgrim graphic novel series debuted, appealing to a similar demographic of Al Yankovic White-And-Nerdy types. The books involved very similar themes about how we get into these mini marriages that we are supposed to treat like ancient history as soon as they are over and just that we generally treat each other like disposable garbage on accident. The movie adaptation took out nearly all of that and changed all the characters’ temperaments, hence why all the fans hated it.


Most of my in-real-life friends have some level of appreciation for my ROK writing, but nearly all of them dislike the website as a whole. Some started out appreciating it but grew sour on it as they read more. I think part of this is inevitable in ROK’s big tent model, in that they try to give anyone right-of-center a voice.

But what I constantly hear is that every game writer must be a bitter virgin who never interacts with the opposite sex. The people who make this claim to me have no trouble getting laid. But I know that these writers, at least some of them, get around with women quite well. And even just reading what they are writing, while you may think their advice is over-exaggerated, you can tell they aren’t lying. It’s not blind speculation. You can hear the life experience in it.

But then they offer up painfully stupid advice like

  • There is never a good reason to apologize to a woman you are dating.
  • Men’s sexual value increases in their 30s.
  • Women do not care how many partners you have had.
  • Every possible metric you could possibly filter a girl into is a disqualifier.

What’s with the incongruence? There is both real life experience and real impracticality. Roosh made the observation that it’s probably more of a big city thing and that his form of game would not fit into Trump Country. I think there’s a lot of truth to that. I think another aspect is that if you’re only looking for a cheap hookup, then you’re going to only meet the worst kind of women.

More than all that, though, I don’t believe anyone — men or women — are designed for the player lifestyle. We aren’t designed for this fake dance of passionate romance that quickly ends. It’s all a charade.

Most hookups are two people who are disgusted with each other but pretend to like each other anyway. The phrase “make love” has left our lexicon — instead we just “hate fuck.” We see this in our popular music. Long gone are the innocent songs about first love.

And I would make the argument that no one decides to begin their dating life as a player. I think every 12 year old starts out with grand notions of true love. These eventually falter for obvious reasons. Others are not merely not perfect — they are surprisingly selfish and utilitarian. And we find that we ourselves are not so different. We only want someone to love because of how good it feels to love. I am more and more coming to accept that it is impossible to not be self-interested in anything we do.

And after enough unrequited crushes and sudden break-ups and failed potential, small pieces of our hearts have been ripped out so many times that there’s nothing left. And so we all become a bit of a psychopath.

What I found in my time writing for ROK — and I did almost no game writing — was that I began to view women as robots without free will or individuality that had to be programmed through certain actions to view me a certain way that would enable me to get everything I wanted. This, of course, was never explicitly taught by ROK, but it’s a subtext that everyone notices. And if you dehumanize someone, then you cannot love them. And I never wanted a hook-up — I wanted love.

I think what happens with a lot of people who write game advice — and most of them probably before they began writing — is that they have taken this dating culture to its logical extension. Their hearts have been ripped out so many times that they are both totally psychopathic towards women and only date women who themselves are totally psychopathic towards men. And the less they can bond with the opposite sex (or anyone), the more they pursue meaningless sex for the sake of meaningless sex. And so they offer up their experience to the world, who is naturally horrified.

It’s the flipside of feminism. Feminism is women being calculating and psychopathic because they were deeply hurt over and over when they were younger. As much as people like Roosh and many wonderful writers on ROK have tried to make the movement about self-improvement and creating a society we would be proud of, the men’s interest sphere of websites will always be dogged by the Men’s Rights Activsts and the MGTOWs and the comments section of ROK and whatever is the next anti-feminist fringe movement. It will always have a bitter element of men who have been so hurt that they are calloused to not just women but all of society.


There was a movie that came out in 2011 called Crazy, Stupid, Love. Steve Carell’s wife has left him for another man. She was the only woman he had ever slept with, and suddenly finding himself without any direction for what to do in life, he spends two days drinking himself stupid in a bar and telling everyone he meets about how his wife slept with someone named David Lindhagen. Finally a somewhat younger Ryan Gosling comes over to offer him a kind of bootcamp on how to get laid. A few scenes later, Carell repeats Gosling’s advice back to him as they are preparing in the bar.

You see this lady over here at 9 o’clock?
You want me to hit on her?
No, I wanna hit on her.
The one behind her.
– She’s a fox, right?
– Mm-hm.
You think she came to a crowded bar
to have a quiet drink alone? She’s hunting.
She’s just looking for an opportunity to
settle for a responsible and stable adult.
And I’d like her to settle for you.
Oh. Well, thank you for the ego boost,
but you know what?
Just because I’ve watched you
pick up women…
…doesn’t mean I know how
to pick up women.
– Ever see Karate Kid?
– What does that have to do with anything?
When he’s teaching him to wax on and off
but really to fight?
You want me to fight someone?
What’s the first thing I do
when I go up to a girl? I buy her a drink.
Yes, always. Without fail.
You buy her a drink.
Even if she doesn’t want one,
you insist.
– And do I talk about myself?
– Never.
Never about yourself, always her.
– Because bar banter?
– Is boring.
So you put the impetus on her.
She has to be the interesting one.
“Impress me.
Impress me with how interesting you are.”
It’s a big game. Game.
Creepy, creepy little game you play.
– That’s judgmental, isn’t it?
– Mm-hm.
At the end of the night
do I ask them to come home?
No, you tell them to come home.
They have no choice in the matter.
It is your choice and they are so overjoyed
to have had the opportunity…
…to make sweet, sweet love to you.

I loved that movie when it came out. Shortly after my time at ROK, I watched it again after several years, and this scene floored me. It was almost identical to Manosphere game. They even use the word “game”! And Carell constantly uses the word “cuckold”, claiming that it’s a great word no one uses anymore. Nor is it criticizing game — Gosling’s advice totally works for Carell’s character.

All these liberal Hollywood writers who would hate ROK, they wrote the exact same thing into one of their movies. Just like they did with Sex and the City.

People don’t hate game because it doesn’t work. I’m not saying it does or does not work. I’m extremely ambivalent about game theory myself, and I try to view it as general principles and not absolutes. I’m just saying that the practical merits of game are not actually why anyone hates it. People hate game theory because it reveals an uncomfortable reality about how much relations between men and women have devolved. It has gone beyond red pill straight into black pill.

Somewhat off topic, Steven Crowder just released a video with the term “red pill” towards the end. I couldn’t believe it. These stupid internet terms are becoming mainstream.