Neo-masculine movement no antidote to social engineering

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 19, 2016 Anno Domini

The irony of the neo-masculine movement is that while it masquerades as the antidote to socially engineered feminism, it serves as yet another tier of this social engineering.

Why would it have the true antidote when it’s run and dominated by self-proclaimed pickup artists and bad boys suffering from arrested development?

The movement, which offers naïve “beta” males a Hegelian alternative to today’s Judeo-Masonic-engineered feminist domination of society, is exemplified in 36-year-old Middle Eastern blogger Roosh V (real name: Daryush Valizadeh), who correctly points out the negative effects of feminism on the Western world’s patriarchal makeup. However, dominating women, as if that is what patriarchy is about, is the typical line from these self-deluded “Alpha” male pickup artists, who base their life experiences from weekends spent at bars and nightclubs.
This shouldn’t be confused with the Christian concept of a man leading his wife and his household. Leading gives and nurtures while dominating exploits and takes. No matter how much “Alpha males” try to romanticize the domination of women, it’s still domination, and it only perpetuates a socially engineered society.

As opposed to a genuine anti-Feminist critic like Canadian Henry Makow, an anti-Judeo-Masonic writer who underpins his views on feminism with moralistic absolutism, Roosh V and other pickup artists like him justify their opposition to feminism on utility and the animalistic nature of fallen man. What works in the animal kingdom must also work in man’s world, the refrain goes. This view provides a pseudo masculine appeal to men who cannot see beyond it. Ironically for Roosh and others like him, Makow accurately points out the homosexual lifestyle of promiscuous heterosexuals in his article Why all porn is gay. “…Society has become more homosexual because, due to social engineering (i.e. the “sexual revolution,” feminism), many heterosexuals now fail to permanently bond. Normally, happily married heterosexuals can put sex in perspective and move on to more important things,” Makow says.

What they fail to realize is that by offering their audience their tips and tricks to “gaming” women, they are further enslaving these men by encouraging them to be ruled by their passions rather than ruled by the superior sense of reason and will of the spirit in man, which comes from dedication to Christ alone. And with dedication to Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes a new, true, and masculine identity. All too often, men seek to establish identity in the wrong places, be it in sports, occupation, political movements, people, or even in immorality (especially in the case of proud, sexually promiscuous men, like pickup artists). It’s only in Christ and through His Church that we come to fully be ourselves. It is only through Christ and His Church that we can fully love one another, especially a spouse and children. For example, if a man puts his wife above God, he is bound to fail not only God, but eventually his wife too. The same goes for loving our children and our brothers and sisters. Putting Christ first makes men better fathers, better husbands, and better men overall. Only through Christ can we fully establish our identities. After all, did not Christ perfectly create man with all his masculine qualities? Should He not know best how man ought to be?

While the techniques learned from pickup artists might help men attract and have sex with women (any resulting long-term relationships or marriage just being a coincidence), these men will ultimately end up unfulfilled and empty, as they were before they began the sexual conquest of women. Roosh V was recently forced to admit his dissatisfaction with his chosen player lifestyle. What about the rest of his many followers? Pick-up artist Neil Strauss is another to defect from the movement. He goes as far as to call the Alpha-Beta male dichotomy “nonsense”.

The neo-masculine movement’s gross error also sets the movement up as a sitting duck for charges of misogyny, hate, and gender inequality from the Left wingers, only further blurring the line between truth and falsehood. With a bunch of blind men leading it, where else can we expect the movement to go? It’s not the antidote to feminist social engineering and the systematic emasculation of men. Finding one’s inner Alpha male will not truly establish one’s identity. The antidote to feminism, to social engineering, to libido dominandi lies in Christ Jesus and His Holy Church. Only a return to the Church can save the West from the implosion it is currently undergoing.


  1. Just to explain – there seems to be a problem with my Wi-Fi connection at the moment – it keeps cutting out. I tried posting a couple of longish comments – to no avail. I’ll leave it till later.

  2. A very good piece. I’ve read some of Roosh’s stuff in recent times, and as you say he makes some good points – especially about the “White Knight” syndrome among men today, which leads them to always see women as in the right, or at the very least as “victims”, no matter how badly they behave. Surely women must take responsibility for their bad behaviour, just as much as men must? An obvious example of White Knight syndrome is the way Christian anti-pornography campaigners assume that women are invariably the victims of the porn industry. Well doubtless many are – especially those who have been trafficked, or who are supporting a drugs habit, but what about all those middle class lap dancers who brag about their masters degrees in astro-physics or whatever? Are they victims of male exploitation, or are they in fact unapologetic exploiters themselves? Then there’s the women who proudly advertise their sluttiness as an explicit anti-Christian political statement – as in the vile “slut-walk” phenomenon.
    Having said that there’s a huge contradiction at the heart of Roosh’s outlook. On the one hand he laments the coarsening and masculinising effect of sexual promiscuity and feminism on women, but on the other he not only partakes in the pick-up culture himself but also promotes it. So he’s actually feeding the very phenomenon he says he deplores. Also the culture of casual pick-ups not only masculinises women, but feminises men as well, so the whole thing is a win win for the movement to destroy the notion of male and female altogether

    1. Spot on, Northsider.
      These pickup artists are like people trying to get a high-profile job without having the necessary skills. “Game” is something that should develop naturally and over time in a man’s mind. Game isn’t something that ought to be boxed up and sold. Any guy who has game without ever having learned it from some pickup artist or peer knows what I am talking about. I think Roosh now realizes this to a certain point, thus his current focus on personal male development on his website and forum. It’s sad that you have all these young men using artificially acquired game without being able to back it up. Women eventually figure out the phoneys. But of course, if the given male is only looking for a one-night stand, what does he care if he is figured out after the fact.

  3. I think you’re making up your own definition of dominating. It is far more akin to leading than it is to exploiting. At least if you go by the actual definition.
    The word of course has often been used to replace words such as abusers, and exploiters. But I think that is done by the abusers themselves. Since they rather view themselves as simply dominant, as opposed to viewing themselves as what they actually are. Abusers, and exploiters.

  4. there has always been people behind the scene for promote these things the jews also promoted taboo sexual art in germany … there is a reason why jews has been kicked out of 109 countries.. Jews and multiculturalism were a big factor also today. Also the Huns, they pushed the Germanic tribes West and South. And the empire itself was ancient… Things rise and fall… That’s just how it is… – karl marx and marxism was also jewish

  5. this whole article is implying that it’s men’s job to fix what they (women) broke in the first place. if you’re giving me a job then pay me or GTFO.
    I never asked for this btw, but stop with your feeling of entitlement that we need to get out of our asses for this shit that we never asked.
    also I don’t like old hags. by old hags I’m talking of when wrinkles start up which is around 16-17. I’d rather die a virgin than to be a betacuck provider to OLD HAGS.

  6. Good article!
    In my opinion, it fails where it wrongly associates universal, atemporal human values and higher ideals with one specific religious culture. It’s not only in Christ or only in the Church (although I’m by no means denying the possibility of growth and decency in that mindset) that men and women can become higher versions of themselves. The potential to live ethically sound lives resides in humans as humans, regardless of what they choose to call themselves.
    It’s the resolutions cultivated in one’s heart and the thoughts entertained in one’s mind that will make one pure or impure. Thoughts condition actions, actions condition character.
    It’s not necessary or enough to be a Christian, one has to make a consistent effort to purify one’s actions, one’s words and one’s mental inclinations. Without the inner work, only appearances remain, and there’s a name for that.
    Any man and any woman can make themselves virtuous and wise, as long as he or she treads the right path, the path of authentic goodness. No system of thought has a monopoly on goodness!
    All the best.

Leave a Reply to CelsoCancel reply