Kicking the goads

For some time now, I’ve been getting the impression that it’s getting harder and harder for Roosh V. to kick against the goads.

Consider this excerpt from one of his recent posts:

Anti-evolutionary behaviors should have been weeded out of the gene pool according to the idea of natural selection, but the more I looked around, the more I saw nothing but my own behavior, of people who were actually frightened to death about being a parent even though they were healthy and could afford to raise children. In fact, the sum of Western ideologies seem aimed to specifically halt human reproduction.

Western people are structuring their lives in deliberate ways to not reproduce at all and where their cherished hedonistic lifestyles would be greatly harmed if children entered the picture, and while it’s easy to use evolutionary theory in describing which man a woman chooses to have sex with, how can that possibly be correct if the man used condoms or the woman used birth control? Darwin’s theory refers to reproduction, not recreational sex and definitely not a prolonged period of sterile sport fucking, which has no benefit to the genes of the “athlete.” Having an explanation for why a girl on birth control went home with the “alpha male” after meeting him in the club has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection, since they both knew that no child would result and used the full force of their consciousness to prevent the creation of life. If reproduction was the purposefully blocked intent, evolution was not present during the sex event.

How could Darwin explain the prevention of reproduction by deliberate and conscious choice from fit humans beings? How could he explain that the richest peoples of the world with no lack in resources, intellect, and functioning reproductive systems were consciously going against what evolution prescribed for them?

The one aspect of evolution, specifically, that does not hold true for modern humans, especially those living in the West, is that fit humans are reproducing up to the limit of the food supply, as stated by Darwin. In fact, the more resources a person has, the less likely they will reproduce at all, which you can witness at any time in a drive through the poor and rich parts of your city. Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain why this occurs, why the “strongest” and most “fit” are having the least amount of offspring or deliberately choosing not to have any offspring at all, even though natural selection specifically states that only the strongest can pass on their genes while the weak and infirm will not.

Most animals, plants, and bacteria do reproduce up to the limit of the food supply, or at least try to maximally have as many offspring as possible, but human beings have developed a consciousness that enables them to purposefully not reproduce even if they are able, and even develop a phobia to reproduction, and this has been in effect for at least 100 years in all major Western nations that currently suffer a death rate greater than the reproductive rate.

We must therefore conclude, with logic and rationale, that evolution is so flawed at explaining modern human reproductive behavior (and not merely casual sex where reproduction was never the intent), that evolution is not an observable or correct principle for human beings living in Westernized nations. We must discard evolutionary theory as applying to all humans through the mechanism of natural selection and begin a search for a new explanation that explains our current biological behavior.

If Roosh is serious about finding the explanation for current human behavior, he will find it when he acknowledges that his giving up of the natural function for the unnatural has the same root as the unnatural activities of homosexuals.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. —Romans 1:22-32 (NASB)

2 thoughts on “Kicking the goads

  1. When it is Bulimia – all the pleasure of food but none of the nutrition, it’s called an eating disorder.
    When it is Contraception – all the pleasure… it’s called a basic human right.
    Not just a (Sandra) Fluke.

    The question (when we still had civilization) used to be “Would she make a good Mother to my Children” (or conversely he / Father). That shatters “Game”. “The Family” is what was displaced by “Game”. Virgin until marriage, no contraception (delay marriage, not babies), welcome all new life. Divorce impossible or only in very extreme circumstances. It was so even in the 1950’s. Then the sexual revolution happened. By 1980, most churches changed.

    Today the typical church accepts both no-fault divorce and contraception. Then tries to work out how family can be important when marriage becomes both temporary and sterile and without any real purpose, just options. It is a “gay marriage” even if between two heterosexuals of the opposite sex.

    Christendom – that version of Western Civilization – always encouraged fecundity. Celebrated life. I think that is why Roosh doesn’t want to look there. Or even to the wider civilizations (Roman Republic, Confucius China, Jews and Islam).

    Atheism has risen, and is committing a self-genocide. But if the universe is without meaning, children can’t be meaningful. Pray that Roosh finds Jesus and vice versa.

  2. @TZ:

    Jesus is calling him.

    I would much rather live in a Christian nation with their code of morality than what we have in the US right now.— Roosh (@rooshv) April 18, 2015

    I met two Christian ministers from Burkina Faso. We had a long talk and it ended when they gave me god's blessing. I was touched.— Roosh (@rooshv) March 21, 2015

Leave a Comment